most appealing ethicist

December 12, 2008

Throughout this semester we have dicussed several philosphers who all have great opinions regarding philosphy.  All of their views are all extremely influencial.  Kants perspective was the most appealing to me because he used the categorical imperative to define morality.  The point that made me choose Kant as the most appealing ethicist was because he beleived in, “do unto others as you would want done unto yourself”.  I believe that this is a good way to live morally.  If you dont think something is moral, you most likely wouldnt do it, hence you wouldnt have to worry about that immoral act coming back to haunt you in the future.


Aristotle perspective on murder

December 7, 2008

Aristotle doesnt necessarily focus on the value of an idividuals actions, he concentrates on the individual themselves. If somebody murders another person, they will automatically be judged by their actions.  This judgement will show the moral worth of the person.  If people dont get judged they will never know what type of person they really are.  Murderers have motives for committing their crimes, which means that if you judge them on a moral scale.  When Aristotle analyzes a person, he looks at them as a package, but someone that commits a murder cannoot be considered a moral person.

A defense of Abortion

December 2, 2008

      I read the essay, A Defense of Abortion, by Judith Jarvis Thomson.   Thomson is a Philosophy professor at the Massachusetts Insitute of Technology.  The moral problem that the author is trying to adress is that Abortion is an act that should not be performed under no circumstances.  Thomson says it best with four examples of why abortion should not be performed.  “(1) But as directly killing an innocent person is always and absolutley impermissible, ad abortion may not be performed.  Or, (2) as directly killing an innocent person is murder, and murder is always and absolutly impermissible, an abortion may not be performed.  Or (3) as one’s duty to refrain from directly killing an innocent person is more sringent than one’s duty to keep a person from dying, an abortion may not be performed.  Or (4) if one’s only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer letting the person die, and thus an abortion may not be performed (Thomson 735).  Thompsons main thesis is that even if the human fetus is a person, abortion remains morally permissible in a variety of cases in which the mother’s life is not threatened.  Any woman should have the right to do what ever to their body.  That is why a mother should most definitely be able to have the right to kill the unborn child inside of her.  The unborn child is still a part of her which means that the woman can do anything that she wants to “her” body.  I mean, at one point the woman make the desicion to have this baby, if she wants to change her mind, shes allowed to.  The woman has every right to decide waht happens in and to her body.  Some of Thompsons arguements are very persuasive and others are not that persuasive at all.  “One argument that Thompson displays is only having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body- even if one needs it for life itself.  So the right to life will not serve the opponents of abortion in the very simple  and clear way in which they seem to have thought it would” (Thomson 738).  This is a good example of a persuasive argument because people should have the right to decide what they want to happen in or to thier own body.  “It seems to me that the argument we are looking at can establish at most that there are some cases in which the unborn person has a right to the use of its mother’s body, and therefore some cases in which abortion is unjust killing” (Thomson 739).  This is an example of an argument that is not persuasive.  This is not persuasive becuase it if a woman does not want to have a child any more she should have the right no matter what to have an abortion.  In my opinion, it would not be unjust killing.  Bottom line is that the child needs the mother in order to survive.  The mother does not need the child to survive which means that if she decides to not have the baby anymore she should have the right to change her plans in having a baby.  The idea of abortion is touchy subject to some people and there will always be disagreements becuase a lot of people think that it is murder, maybe it is, maybe its not.  All that i am saying is that a woman should be mature enough in order to make the responsible decision to benefit herself.  If the woman wasnt mature enough to handle a baby, she should have thought about that before she made the committment to have a baby.

Social Contract

November 24, 2008

I believe that everyone who agrees to stay and does not opt out of the contract by moving away, agrees to abid by the contract.  I also beleive that if someone attempts to move away to remove themselves from a situation isnt a good and truthful person.  By abiding a contract you must listing and resepect all the aspects of the contract and learn to copensate everything that the contract has to say.  Children should also abid to the contract.  By signing your name on a contract that says that your responsible with everything that takes place while your under contract.  If a child is mature enough to sign a contract then he/she should also be mature enought to live by that contract. 

Morality and Government

November 19, 2008

I believe that there is a true connection between morality and government.  In order for our society to function well, rides on the shoulders of the government.  Now that Obama was just elected president, we know that he had good moral ideas, which is the main reason why he is in office now.  The leaders of a country (government) are the role models for the rest of the citizens.  That being said, I also believe that, leader or non- leader, should not be held to any standard just becuase of their position in society.  Leaders had to start from the bottom and work their way to the top, they were held at a normal standard their entire life.  What makes them being a “leader” have anything to do with them being treated differently??


November 17, 2008

I think it is true that people are capable of acting in a state of war against one another when there is not a surplus of resources to efficiently supply everyone.  Society would be terribly chaotic.  There would be riots, protests, and perhaps murders.  People would put themselves before others and the end result would be survival of the fittest.  Through historical accounts, we observed similiar events during the Great Depression, which we know was one of the worst moments in American history.  I do not think that any of these would result in the better of our society and correlate to a devistating global situation.

Kant Vs. Mill

November 12, 2008

In class we discussed the difference between Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill by mainly both having different problems in their theories.  I believe that both of them can be wrong in certain situations but i personally feel that Kant excells when being compared to Mill.  I feel that Kant is better for the soul purpose of discussing rationality.  I beleive that being rational is a great quality to have which most likely is the cause for a beneficial decision.  Mill makes his judgements regarding an individuals actions and how they effect other people.  Kant makes his judgements by seeing if a certain action is moral and to see the universality of it.  If it is widely accepted it is considered moral.


November 9, 2008

I believe that the categorical imperative goes hand in hand with rationality.  Before an individual determines if something is widely accepted ( categorical imperative) there is most likely reasoning behind why they think it is morally correct.  For example, cheating is a prime example to prove the categorical imperative.  Before something is considered accepted there must be some kind of reasoning to determine if something is moral or immoral.

The Categorical Imperative

November 3, 2008

The Categorical Imperative is Kant’s judgement if something is moral or immoral.  I believe that cheating on a test is the best example to prove Kant’s theory.  Cheating on an exam to me is extremely immoral because it flat out defies the point of a “test”.  A test is supposed to test an individuals knowledge of a particular subject.  If everyone in a class decided to cheat, would that make it moral?  According to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, it would prove that exact point.

happiness being intrinsic??

October 29, 2008

Hapiness is a value that is not dependent on any other external entities.  This would imply that happiness is infact an intrinsic value, because the feeling of happiness that everyone feels throughout there lifetime is valued because it makes an individual feel good.  Person X would not have the same pleasures as person Y, but everyone feels good when experiencing happiness.  However, no individuals would feel good for the same reasons.