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: 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