Reaction: Good People

Ethics is always a hard topic to discuss. There is so much 'gray area' involved with ethics, that pinning down right and wrong can be very difficult. Also, ethics can have conflicting interpretations of a single act. In looking at people, if we see a person perform a good act, or an ethical act, we can say that they are behaving ethically or in the good. Similar, in this same act, we can say that this person is acting good because it is in the eyes of the public, and is motivated to be seen in this positive way.
This was the point made by Peter at On Philosophy in his post, Good People. I agree with Peter in his views regarding people and what motivates them to act. We recognize that there are people who act in good ways and to not get recognized for it. They would be acting in an inherently good way and not motivated by the public recognition and public opinion.
At the end of the post, Peter provides a comically yet insightful example about people acting in a positive way and simultaneously wanting to be perceived in the positive way, not doing it inherently. His example is a demonstration on how to identify a person who feels the need to not be outdone, and so after they pay the bill, you leave a generous tip and watch as that person tries to show you how he is not outdone in this situation or did something even more generous at a different time.I really liked Peter's post and thought he hit the nail on the head. People are not always acting good just to act good, but rather are looking for a return on their actions, which is usually to be seen in 'good light' by others around them. Our society is based on the same set of ethics and acting in a ethically good manner is reward while acting in a ethically bad manner is punished. The type of a system allows for problems in that it is difficult to identify if a person is acting inherently good or is seeking a reward.



~A subject for a great poet would be God's boredom after the seventh day of creation. . . Friedrich Nietzsche

Reaction: “Identifying your God”

“Identifying your God” is an interesting topic of discussion that was mentioned over at Philosophy et cetera. This post sparked my interest immediately, I wrote my senior thesis on “Would society be better off if god was dead?” The post talked about the similarities between the Christian idea of God and the Muslim Idea of God. In the post, the main argument is “whether one's concept of 'God' is compatible with the state of affairs hypothesized by another.”
I disagree and feel that the real issue is that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all stem from the same place. All there are categorized and Abrahamic religions, as is stemming from the traditions of Abraham around 2000BC. There is no need to determine if one side is compatible with the state of affairs hypothesized by another. There is no need because they are all so similar. All sides need to realize the history they share.
My problem and the direction I would like to now lead this argument is on religion and its problems. These three religions share many similarities that it is a shame how much controversy there has been throughout history. It seems that each religion preaches peace, yet is willing to go to war and kill in the name of their religion. I am not just talking about Islamic terrorist or American KKK members; rather I am talking throughout history in the crusades and the Christian-Muslim conflicts in Spain. There are many examples of religion causing violence. When Cortez went into Mexico and slain the Mayans and the Aztec, claiming that it was what was supposed to be done.To sum up my main argument, I feel that the Abrahamic religions are very similar and are closer than most realize. In addition, these religions should not be the cause of the conflict since they are so closely linked, but the religions seem to hold on to their differences, which in turn just leads to more conflict.

Reaction: Psychic Sadist

Peter, over at On Philosophy had a post that caught my attention: The Psychic Sadist. His post was about utilitarianism and his concerns with it. In his argument, he uses an example of a “psychic sadist who lives in a cave and never come in direct contact with the rest of the world.” Peter questions utilitarianism and disagrees with “Now in such a world utilitarianism tells us that we should attempt to minimize the happiness of the total world minus the sadist in order to increase the happiness of world including the sadist.”

My question or argument is that I do not think that one person would pull the ‘weight’ that the psychic sadist did in Peter’s example. I feel that he is giving to much ‘weight’ to the person in the cave. All people have the same right to happiness and pleasure and if we are to follow the utilitarian model, we need to seek the most pleasures/happinesses and avoid pain/unhappiness. I do not think that the effects of one person is enough to throw off the balance in a utilitarian model.

I do not necessarily agree with the utilitarian model, but for arguing purposes, in the utilitarian model, one person would not offset any type of balance and would only have minimal affects.

Peter also talks about how, “There are cases in which maximizing happiness may be detrimental to society, such as when we take away the happiness of many people in order to make one person happier.” I feel that this is missing the point to utilitarianism. I do not think that it would be considered utilitarianism if one person is valued over many. I think that it is the goal that many people are a little happier rather than one person very happy and others unhappy. I may be wrong in my statement, but I feel that utilitarianism is more focused on a general happiness for society, so focusing on one person’s happiness in the argument just does not make sense.



Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend. ~ Albert Camus

Reaction: Wealth and Liberty

I was over at Philosophy et cetera and found an interesting post on Wealth and Liberty, which was a response post to a Richard A. Epstein post at Cato Unbound. They were discussing viewpoints on whether a person becomes more free because he has more wealth. Before I dive into this more deeply, I want to say that this immediately reminded me of something I learned about Aristotle. Aristotle says that although just because one is wealthy does not mean he is happy, but it is easier for on to be happy if he is wealthy. I realize that this has little or nothing to do with wealth and freedom, but I just thought of it when I was reading this post. Anyways, on to the topic at hand, if a person is wealthy, is he more free? Richard Epstein’s argument is that, “A person does not become more free because he has more wealth; he becomes wealthier, which confers on him more opportunities to use the liberty that he has.” Richard at Philosophy et Cetera is taking the viewpoint that, “no individual lacks the physical or material capacity to meet their needs.” Richards point is that all people are always free do to what they want, but money or wealth will change how their actions are dealt with in society. As an example of this he uses resources, if something is in a store window, everyone has the same freedom to take it, but a security guard is paid to stop him, and money is then restricting that resource. If you don’t have money than you may not be able to stop your liberties from being taken away, whereas if you just bought the thing, you would be fine. These are interesting points and I agree that if a person has more wealth, that does not make him more free, just more wealthy. I think people who are wealthier have more opportunities, but are not necessarily more free. Stemming from the Aristotle point that wealth does not equal happiness, but it is easier to become happy if one is wealthy; I think that a person is not more free if he is wealthier, but it is easier for a wealthier person to live freely.


If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself ~ Martin Heidegger

Reaction: What’s so Unobservable about Causation?

Richard Brown over at Philosophy Sucks! recently posted about Causation. His argument is against Hume, in that he feels he can see the relation in A cause B. He gives examples of billiard balls, gravity, pain and many more. He alsogoes on to say how he feels he can see the relation between two events.

I found this post very interesting, and enjoyed how it challenged my beliefs, but I do disagree. I feel that Brown is missing Hume's point. Hume's view as I understand it is that we cannot see causation like I see a bird flying in the air. We can not point to something and say "look, there it is, you are looking at causation." Take Hume's example of the sun rising. The sun has rose everyday since I can remember. Not one day in my life did the sun not rise. Does this mean it is going to rise tomorrow? No, it doesn't. It is very likely and very probable that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I can not point to something and say, "There it is, there is the cause for the sun rising." Similarly, if every time I throw a basketball at the ground, it bounces back up, is it necessarily so that the next time I throw it at the ground it will bounce up? No, it is not necessary, it is only likely.

I feel that brown needs to observe Hume's thoughts on probability and his views on causation and he will have a better understanding on what is so unobservable in causation.



The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Blogging

All set up now, about to enter into the world of blogging. Be sure to keep checking back for new posts.



He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.
~Friedrich Nietzsche

Hello

Just learning how to use this blog thing, hopefully lots more of these to come.

~Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. ..Ernest Hemingway