Egr123's Weblog

Aristotle

egr123 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:48:17 +0000

Aristotle would say that murder in most forms are not virtuous. I would say that his theory has to do this positive things things rather than negative. Therefore, since murder is definitely not a positive thing Aristotle would disagree with it. On the other hand, there are some cases that killing may be accepted. I feel that murdering someone and killing someone are two different things. Murder has intent. If someone came into your house trying to rob and possibly kill you that would be murder. If you caught the person in your house and in self defense happened to kill them. I do not consider that as murder and I do not think Aristotle would judge it that was either.

Social Contracts

egr123 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:55:05 +0000

Children cannot be subject to social contracts. Anyone under the age of 18 is legally bounded by their parents therefore, they are unable to sign any contract or be under a contract without the consent of their parents or guardian. This does not mean that they are not subject to moral judgment. There have been some cases where a child has murdered someone and has been tried as an adult. Age cannot be discriminated in regards to moral judgement whereas age is relative when it comes to contracts.

Social Contracts

egr123 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:51:12 +0000

Morality and Government

egr123 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:42:35 +0000

Yes, I think there is a connection between morality and government. We elect government officials to control and regulate the aspects in which we live and expect them to hold their positions with integrity and morality. Although there have been numerous times in history that such people have failed to to do so. For example, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, and Elliot Spitzer.

State of War

egr123 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:17:21 +0000

I feel that Hobbes makes a good point. Some natural resources are very scarce in the world and what are people supposed to do when those resources run out. The answer seems to point to a war. For example, in between India and China there is a body of water that as of now is providing both countries sufficiently. But what is going to happen when that body of water starts to dry up? What are the people of the two countries going to do when water a major resource is scarce? The only thing is to compromise or fight.

Shortcomings of Mill

egr123 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:22:31 +0000

I would have to say that Mill’s theory bothers me more than Kant’s. I still do not fully understand how Mill could explain committing an act that is lawfully wrong although it may increase overall happiness. Although Mill explains the holes in his theory very well and rebuttles any objection I still feel that there are flaws in his theory.

egr123 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:19:01 +0000

Kant reiterates that every person that is rational has self-love and will do anything and everything it takes to better themselves. Something is categorically imperative if it is widely accepted throughout the world. This has to do with rationality because before most people commit an act they think about their moral values. These values determine whether a person will commit that act or not. The relationship between rationality and categorical imperative that Kant speaks about is the idea of a universal law.

Question to Mills

egr123 — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:55:04 +0000

According to mills, an action is morally good if it increases overall happiness. The one question I would ask Mill is if he would condone murder if that act would increase overall happiness. For instance, say there was a bum on the streets that had no family and no one in the world that would be affected if he had died. For weeks that bum was robbing houses and committing acts that decreased overall happiness. If I were to murder that bum would Mill consider my act morally good because it increased overall happiness.

Does happiness have intrinsic value?

egr123 — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:30:55 +0000

I don’t believe that happiness has any intrinsic value. I feel that for an individual to be happy there has to be an outside source that creates that happiness. An individual cannot just wake up one morning and be happy for no apparent reason. Whether the reason is that their alive, that they got a job, that they passed a test. In any case happiness is spurred from external sources.

Utilitarianism too demanding?

egr123 — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:32:58 +0000

I feel that utilitarianism can be too demanding. All humans are different and their mindset on life and happiness differs as well. Therefore, Mills cannot demand individuals to try and always help for the greater good and make overall happiness better. Sometimes people are selfish and do acts singularly for themselves. Does this make them immoral?