Utilitarianism

If some aliens came to earth and ask me what the best theory of ethics is. I would tell them Utilitarianism. The theory is a simple concept and an easy one to follow. An action is good if it promotes overall happiness. This theory only looks at the consequences of an action and if it makes everybody happy or brings the absence of pain then its good. I like this theory because I feel it follows a close to the belief of the Christianity of treat others as you would want to be treated. So, we as humans shouldn’t cause pain on any other people and do whatever we need to do no matter what that be, even lie or other things that might seem wrong, to promote happiness for all. I honestly believe if everybody followed this theory the world would be a better place.

Brave or Stupid

When somebody does something that is really risky. Sometimes we call them brave and other times we call them stupid. Like if you think you can try and I fight a shark in the ocean. I don’t know why anybody would do this but anyways. That person is not being brave but irrational. We as human should act as rational beings. So, Aristotle is saying that its ok to have fear and its also ok to be brave but do be extreme on either one. Its normal for us to have some if not somewhat large amount of fear if we are swimming amongst sharks.

Aristole

I think that Politics is the Ultimate end to things. If we have problems go the law which is the government, this is a way of life. So, all things must some how or another be connected to it. This keeps order in the world, if you look where government is not present there is chaos, murdering, people going hungry and among other things. The absence of all this horrible things is happiness. So I believe that the governments goal is to keep the people happy and productive in their jobs. Also, to keep people law abiding by establishing laws to follow. All these things help keep the whole as happy as possible.

Government

Hobbes’ social contract theory is saying that a morality doesn’t exist in nature unless a government is established. He says that if we didn’t have this government involved then people would be at a constant war of trying to obtain their needs and wants with no limitations on what they can or can not do. The government will tell them what will be allowed and what is unacceptable. Of course this only works for the people that choose to follow the governmental system. But, anyways I agree with Hobbes’ theory because if you look at countries that don’t have government control because of anarchy you will see a lot of killings and stealing going on.

Hobbes

Hobbes makes the argument that all humans have equal power of intellectual power to a certain extent. I mean yes I have a bicep just like a body builder but my is not nearly as developed as his. And yes I have a brain just like a rocket scientist  but I’m not as intelligent as him. Also, I have a lot of friends that would help me in a fight but if I were to get in a fight with the president, I’m sure he would have a lot more people backing him up if he has a confrontation. So, yes I think in someway we are all equal but to some extent. The other question is that men act in self interest like animals. Well I think the answer is we all have to in some way but again to some extent. I mean when your hungry you eat, when your tired you sleep this is just what we have to do to exist. But what Hobbes is really talking about is that the resources are obviously not unlimited so what do we do when there isn’t enough food for everybody at the time. So we split it up, or we have food saved up from when times were good. Humans can be rational and stock up on food knowing that there will be hard times when food or resources will not be available. So Hobbes is saying we are all in a war (state of nature) because ever man wants what he wants and there isn’t enough to go around so everyman is for himself. I think that people can realize that everybody needs food and water and we will sacrifice some of our hunger and thirst to help people because we as humans don’t like to see other humans in pain.

Duty of self love

Act only in such a way that you could will your maxim into universal law. The definition of categorical imperative. Now that was easy the harder one to define is Self love. Now if self love is to preserve life then i don’t think suicide is the answer. It contradicts its self. Because in order to achieve self love, kill yourself. Obviously that doesn’t make sense. Now if self love is defined as something else like happiness for one self then the maxim would hold strong. If you are burning alive with no chance of survival and there is a gun next to you then it would be right for you to pick up that gun and kill yourself to stop the pain. Yet achieving more happiness then you were feeling before when you were on fire because you don’t feel pain when you are dead. But if self love is preserve of life like I said before then it would be wrong because the maxim would break.

Categorical Imperative

Kant’s Categorical Imperative is to preform our duty. Categorical Imperative means absolute command. So, in others words we should preform our duty. Then, what is duty? Well Kant says that duty is something that can be used as universal law. So, a question to this theory is, cheating to get a good grade wrong or right? Well if everybody cheats to get a good grade, will cheating then help you achieve your goal. The answer is no because if the teacher would then make the tests cheat proof or just stop giving tests. I think it is a convincing yet it has flaws just like every other theory. I mean what if two duties conflict then which one is to be preformed?

Kant vs Mill

Mill’s theory only takes in account consequences and Kant only takes in account if you had the will to do to good then it was a good act. So in a way they are  both the same as there good acts would probably cause overall happiness to go up but that they are taking into account totally different reasons why an act is good or not. But, for the most part they are very different because neither of them even consider to look at the other theory’s reasoning. For example, Mill doesn’t even care one bit that a persons intentions where good if the consequences come out to produce pain.

Not enough time

This objection says that you don’t have enough time to weigh out all the happiness or pain that will come from your action. Mill’s response is that before a Christian makes a decision does he read though the bible before he does it? No way. Also, Mills then goes on to explain that through experience we know what causes happiness or pain. When, we do an action chances are that we know what is going to come from this action because we as humans learn from what we did and then change our actions accordally to what we feel is right and wrong. Which in this case would be what causes happiness or pain.

Too many exceptions

The argument that we discussed is that utilitarianism allows us to lie and it be moral. Of course, when you first hear this objection your gut feeling is that lying is morally wrong and utilitarianism is wrong, but most of us lie everyday. A great example we used in class when lying would be fine is if a murder comes to your house and asked if your grandma is there. I doubt that anyone would invite the murder in and show him exactally where your grandma is. So, to lie for the sake of saving somebody’s life to me is morally correct.