Margarete Perriseau Introduction to Philosophy (HU) PHIL 1000-019 Spring 2015 Salt Lake Community College Critical Thinking-Class Group Assignment Paper Group B: Natalie Charles, Margarete Perriseau, Katalina Suliafu, Angelique Poul, Kiekicoma Tupou Question 1: Do we have any ethical duties regarding what we do with our money? For instance, Peter Singer says that we have an ethical duty to give away any money that we eam that is not spent on meeting our basic needs of food and shelter to those who cannot afford to pay for their basic needs. Do you agree? Why or why not? Answer: | agree that | have an ethical duty regarding what I do with my money. For instance, | should not use my money for what I think are bad or evil purposes. | should use my money to support what | consider good actions or things. | don't agree that | should give all money beyond what I need now for food and shelter to the poor. | feel a responsibility to prepare for my future so that | don’t become a burden on society. | also feel a responsibility to my daughter to help her establish herseff in life, and become independent. These needs are also real, although not basic, and are things | consider good and ethical. In my classmates’ responses and our discussions, | think we all had similar thoughts. All stressed their personal commitment to help others, especially with time and kindness, but did not want to be forced by government laws or programs. One expressed a belief in Karma, and felt a requirement to give now in order to be able to receive later. Interesting, but does not persuade me to do the same. | was impressed that everyone was aware of others, and felt a responsibility to help, that strengthened my own desire to do the same. Even in my financial difficulties, | donate a certain percentage of my resources to charity. Peter singer's challenge to give all money over $30,000 seems very aggressive, and of course would differ by family and location. But even then he seems irresponsible toward the future. We could end up with even more people unable to care for themselves in old age or hard times. Question 2: Is it unethical to eat meat? Do we have an ethical duty to be a vegetarian? Why or why not? Is it unethical to eat any type of food? Why or why not?‘Answer: My position is that it is not unethical to eat meat, nor do we have an ethical duty to be a vegetarian. If we look at nature and observe almost every living organism sustaining its life through consuming some other organism — plant or animal — it seems that nature itself has built its system of life on predators and prey, be they animals or plants. Thus, the examples from nature do not dictate vegetarianism or not eating any type of food. However, humans do appear to do a lot of damage to the system through their excesses. | think there is something unethical in our exploitation of resources, rather than managing them wisely. My classmates also agree that it is not unethical to eat meat, but most of them consider it a matter of personal freedom. We should be free to make our own choices. ‘Almost all of them point out what they consider mistakes or abuses by humans of nature's resources. In order to bring some of the philosophers into the argument, | would like to use the Golden Mean from the ancient Greeks, Kant's Categorical Imperative, and Utilitarianism mentioned by Hume and developed by Mill The Golden Mean advocated moderation in all things and avoiding extremes. (Monson, pp. 76-78) So total abstinence on the one hand and reckless overeating on the other are to be avoided. If society followed this, many of the abuses would end. Kant proposed we should make choices such that each choice could become a model law to live by.(Monson, p. 89) Utilitarianism had the goal "the greatest happiness for the greatest number.’ (Soukhanoy, p. 1957) If we consider the inefficiency of getting our energy from meat verses plants, and the stress on food resources as our 7 billion world population moves to 20, some ethical changes will be necessary. Unless we change our eating habits, both personal diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, as well as extinction of species will continue to increase. The greatest number may suffer from lack of food because of unavailability or price Question 3: What is truth? How do we know if we have arrived at truth? Are the skeptics correct that we cannot ever have knowledge of the truth? Is truth relative? Why or why not? Answer: Truth is defined as: the true or actual state of a matter, conformity with fact or reality, a verified or indisputable fact, actuality or actual existence. (Soukhanov, p. 1912) The problem is that we have limitations as humans. We perceive the actuality or reality around us with our senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell. Furthermore, these senses all have their limited ranges, so we only perceive a small part of the total. ‘Then our ming has to interpret the data and it attempts to understand or explain what it has perceived. Sometimes explanations last hundreds or even thousands of years before someone realizes the explanations were not true.Newton developed his laws of motion which were considered a true model of how things behave. “From the point of view of Einstein's theory, Newton's theory was an excellent approximation, though false (just as from the point of view of Newton's theory, Kepler's and Galileo's theories were excellent approximations, though false). Einstein derived from his theory three important predictions. . . . But even if they were observed as predicted, Einstein declared that his theory was false: he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would Not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory. He. . . declared that his theory was at best an approximation to [a] so far unattained unified field theory."(Popper, p. 45) We're still waiting, Initially | said truth could be relative for each person, and there could be absolute truth. But my study of Hume and Mill and further discussions now make me unsure. What were relative truths now seem to me to be perhaps just strongly held Opinions coming from personal backgrounds and social cultures. It probably is the case that nothing is “true” in the sense of conforming to the external reality. Our best approximations help us live our lives, but we may never arrive at the “truth.” Question 4. How is good behavior vs. bad behavior determined? Do the consequences of one’s actions define whether an action is good or bad, or is it the motivations or intentions of the actor that matters? What matters most — the action, the intentions behind our actions, or both? Answer: | and my classmates agree that the society/family culture and background determine good vs. bad behavior. Society punishes bad actions and only seems to explore intentions/motivations to consider various levels of punishment, or how to rehabilitate the person who did wrong Utilitarianism addresses the issue somewhat by having the goal: “the greatest happiness for the greatest number."(Soukhanoy, p. 1957) But this again seems to focus more on actions than intentions. Question 5. If we do the right action for the wrong reason, is it less moral? (i.e. giving money to charity in order to cut my tax bill) Answer: My first position was, Yes. If you consider that being ethical is important, and ot only doing the right thing, but doing it for the right reason, then yes — it is less moral if you do the right thing for the wrong reason. My classmates were divided on this issue. One agreed with me, that it was less moral. Three said no, but for different reasons. One said intentions are inner desires and not for society to judge, so the external action is the only thing for society to say is good or bad. The other two complained about their tax money being wasted anyway, so the intention didn't matter. One, however, was concerned that we were taking money away from the government. The other tried to rate the seriousness of thematter — tax deductions weren't really that important, but if it involved killing or stealing, then the intentions would be an important factor in deciding the morality of the action. Upon further reflection and additional discussion of this issue, | have refined my initial position. | think it is important to view morality both externally and internally. Society judges actions as good or bad. Society has decided it is good to have people donate to charity and has put tax laws in effect to stimulate them to do so, regardless of the intentions. Our society is willing to reward the donor with a reduced tax bill in order to stimulate giving — so from the external perspective, this would be judged as ethically good. From the intemal perspective, some religions believe that the internal intentions are what really matter — that even if the actions motivated by good intentions cause bad results, the good intentions lead to the judgment that the person has acted in an ethically moral way. On the contrary, if the person acts externally as a moral member of the religion, but innerly is doing so only to be seen as moral, and doesn't really believe in the correctness of that way of life, he or she could be considered a hypocrite and condemned by deity. In our readings, we have Kant's position that good actions that lack good will are NOT moral.(Monson, pp. 85-86) Whereas Hume almost side-steps the entire issue by considering “moral judgments’ like judgments about art or food — matters of moral taste or sentiment (Fieser, p. 16) Reason may play a role in the decision, but is secondary. For me, | still consider it important to do the right thing for the right reason, but | recognize that society will try to influence me to do what it considers right, regardless of my inner sense of right or wrong, Question 6. Are bad actions that are completed with good intent less moral? (ie. stealing food to help the poor) ‘Answer: My initial opinion was, if you see things as Machiavelli does, that “the end... “excuses” any means. In judging means, look only to the end,”(Machievelli, p. 221) then you probably could excuse yourself. But if you think that a bad thing is always a bad thing, then even if itis for a “good cause” it would be less moral My classmates were split two and two, although their examples and arguments were very different. The two who said it was not less moral justified the stealing because of the overall corruption of the system. So either a Robin Hood attitude or a feeling of desperate necessity would lessen the immorality of the action. The other two felt "bad is bad — no excuses.” After further discussion, | realize this is a very complex issue. The ‘commandment “Thou shalt not kill” has not been an absolute for almost any society. If the ends of freedom and liberty are to be achieved and maintained, societies go to war, even if it means “breaking” or ignoring the commandment. Furthermore, even in the Bible, it appears that from time to time, God himself overrode this commandment in order to achieve important goals for his covenant people. 4guess, | stil think that | should not do bad things, even with good intentions, but | realize that many decisions may force me to reconsider this position. The dilemma may be a matter of choosing a “better good” over a ‘lesser good.” Question 7. What does living the good life consist of? Answer. My first draft was: It consists in living in the best way you can live, by not treating people badly, living your life with honesty, kindness, forgiveness, and moving forward from bad events. It consists of looking for a better opportunity without being dishonest or pulling the rug out from under someone. It seems my classmates have all had serious struggles and hardships in their lives. On the one hand, they think people would like to be free of these, yet in each of their responses, they recognize that these difficulties have helped make them the people they are. Most of them also feel the importance of going beyond themselves and helping others. The additional perspective | have gained from our readings, especially from the stoics, is that “things happen.” We are humans subject to events imposed on us by ature or other humans (who are also part of nature). Nature ‘sees’ these events as. Neutral — not good or bad. Whether they are good or bad to me, depends on my attitude and state of mind. So | can develop myself to work on controlling the things | can control, and just accepting the things I cannot control, and get on with my life. This adds a certain “peace of mind” to the things | included above. Question 8. What are the qualities of the superior individual? Answer: The suf kind. ior individual is: honest, polite, open-minded, intelligent, wise, and My classmates generally resisted the idea that there is such a thing as a superior individual. | think they were led by the concept that we are all equal. They recognized that society attaches money or power to superiority, but they all rejected that. One focussed on selflessness, another on clarity — a quality of seeing everything clearly — but then dismissed those who had it, but didn't want to use it. Another assembled a list of impressive qualities, which | liked and would add to mine: compassion and empathy for other people, being a positive person, being willing to leam and try new things, having passion for what you believe in, and having the strength to do what will make you happy. From our readings and videos, especially the one on Socrates, | would include “living the examined life’(Monson, p. 4) and thinking through the questions: Who am I? ‘What do | want to become? How do | achieve that? Question 9. To what extent, if any, does happiness relate to living the good/moral life? What is happiness?Answer: My first statement was: Happiness is having your conscience clean and being able to deal with your own choices. It includes having friends and family around To my classmates, generally happiness is living the good life. But good takes on many different nuances — included were financial stability, health, family and friends. There seemed to be an element of destiny for some — living the life you were meant to live. Mill and the utilitarians tied happiness to a principle that provides us with a criterion for distinguishing right and wrong — the principle of utility. “Actions are right in Proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure."(Mill, CW, X.210 from Heydt, p. 17) Therefore, happiness was inextricably linked with the good/moral life. 1am happy to add this to my own statement. Question 10. To what extent, if any, does one’s duties to society/other people relate to living the morally good life? Answer: My first response: Helping others in society is part of a morally good life. Service is important to happiness because as we serve others we are able to forget our own problems and can have our feelings of gratitude grow. By serving others, we become less selfish. Being less selfish allows us to be more enabled to serve society and give more than we take. Three of my classmates rejected the idea of duty, although they reacted positively to the idea of helping others. They believe it just comes naturally or as a result of the way they were raised. The fourth believes living the good life and duties to society are intertwined. One of them included a quote: “As a rule, ancient philosophers did not, distinguish between “being good" and “being happy” the way many of us do today. Rather, they thought of living the good life as living well, in the sense of thriving, of being healthy or “fully human."(No reference—discussion notes) As | have read Hume and Mill (who are the two philosophers | will compare and contrast in my second paper), their development of Utilitarianism led to the maxim: “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”(Soukhanoy, p. 1957) Connected again with Kant’s Categorical Imperative, philosophy has taken the Biblical concept of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" into their ethical systems and developed “duty to society" as a rational commandment independent of any religious system lam excited to see this identity in point of view toward our duty to others/ society coming from two realms of human thinking, philosophy and religion, which are so often perceived as being in conflict with each other.Bibliography Fieser, James, “David Hume,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http:// www. jepwutr ‘hume/) Machiavelli, Niccolo, The Prince, translated and edited by Robert M. Adams, W. W. Norton and Company (2nd 1992) Mill, John Stuart, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, gen. ed. John M. Robson, 33 vols., University of Toronto Press (1963-91) from Colin Heydt, “John Stuart Mill,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www. iep.utm.edu/millis/) Monson, Charles H. Jr., ed., Philosophy, Religion, and Science: An Introduction to Philosophy, Charles Scribner's Sons (1963) Popper, Karl, "Heroic Science,” Replies to My Critics from The Philosophy of Karl Popper, The Library of Living Philosophers (1974) from Galileo's Commandment: An Anthology of Great Science Writing, edited by Edmund Blair Bolles, W. H. Freeman (1997) Socio, Douglas J., Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy, Wadsworth (8th ed. 2013) Soukhanoy, Anne H., gen. ed., Encarta World English Dictionary, St. Martin's Press (1999)