a. Name.
Kevin Liu
b. Username.
kevinliu19
c. How many posts did you complete in total for the whole semester?
I completed 10 posts for the whole semester
Post 1 07/03
Post 2 07/03
Post 3 07/09
Post 4 07/09
Post 5 Did not do
Post 6 07/13
Post 7 07/14
Post 8 07/22
Post 9 Did not do
Post 10 07/29
Post 11 07/30
Post 12 08/03
d. List the two research projects you completed for the term (Museum
of Tolerance? The topics you researched and if applicable the
location you visited?). Make sure you have a section on your website
for your research where you "detail with thick description" these
field trips/projects.
I did Museum of Tolerance for my first project, and I did research on abortion for my second research. I did not post them on the Yahoo group because I do not know if that is required, I didn't post the Museum of Tolerance piece and you didn't ask me to do so last time.
e. Please list what "grade" you received on at the midterm time.
Were you asked to makeup any work on the midterm and
did you? If you received a "pass" this translates as a C.
You said I have a strong passing grade of C+/B-
f. What reading did you complete in this course?
All the readings that's relevant to the posts, I skipped some that post didn't ask for
Did you read all of the ten theorists assigned in week 1-3?
Yes
Did you read the material by
Nietzsche (Nietzsche's websites)?
Yes
Did you read ALL of Singer's articles?
Yes, they were quite interesting
Did you read the Gandhi material?
Yes, but way too long
Did you read the articles on Cloning and Stem Cells?
Yes, even though it mostly contain information I already known
Evolutionary Psychology article?
Yes
g. Out of all the reading that you were assigned what reading would
you recommend for future ethics classes? be specific.
which articles? is there reading that you would
absolutely not recommend? why? Really I want to find out how the
class worked without an actual book....but all online reading?
I like Singer's articles, and Einstein's article was interesting (I have studied theory of relativity in a modern physics class, so this is the side of Einstein I didn't know). I love the idea of not having to purchase a text book, I really hate when GE classes require text book.
Specifically, should I go back to using books or did you enjoy a
totally ONLINE course?
Totally online course is cool, and convenient. If anyone's complaining, perhaps one 90 minute lecture per week to brief go over all the readings make sure we're on the right track. (some article for the first few weeks were confusing)
h. Did you complete any extra credit this term? explain.
I did not complete any extra credit this term
Week 6 - Final
1. Give a very specific outline of the ETHICS of Gandhi as presented in his "autobiography" chapters 1-50 and the final last pages. Unlike a biography that only outlines his life, the "autobiography" allows you to go into his head and experience his world view. Focus on his world view. Articulate his ethics as "he sees them." Answer what does he mean by "experiments with Truth?" What are
his "specific" personal ethical struggles and life challenges? What personal problems does he face and how does he solve them? Give examples. Detail his ethical position. And, finally, why do you think Gandhi is considered by many to be a moral hero? Do you think that Gandhi's life can serve as an inspiration for us today? Apply Gandhi's ethics to your individual life AND to the world at large.
(Hint: I need to see in this essay that you completed the assigned reading; this most likely will be a longer essay and so worth a bit more). If you did not read the AUTOBIOGRAPHY then skip this question and write I DO NOT KNOW. Do NOT use an outside source on the life of Gandhi to answer this question (no credit)....I am trying to decipher if you read the assigned book and understood his ethical struggles from his own perspective.
In Gandhi’s autobiography, he speaks about his principle, ethics, and his codes of conduct. Gandhi’s philosophy is mostly based on truth, non-violence, simplicity, faith, and education. He has a Buddhism view on most things (Buddhism originated in
Even though Gandhi was presented as a holy figure, he had couple regrets regarding his past. For example, he regretted participating in the arranged marriage that his parents arranged for him when he was at the age of 13. He strongly believed that arranged marriage for children is wrong. In addition, he also regret about incident with wife. Gandhi’s friend convinced him of his wife’s infidelity, which lead him to act against his wife. He later realized that he had a bad friend, and he had wrongfully treated his wife. Furthermore, his friend told him that eating meat can gain strength, and then can lead to hope of overcome the English. Convinced by his friend, Gandhi betrayed his religion and began eating meat. He lied to his parents about eating meat, and that strongly bothered his conscious. He later realized that it is not worth lying to his parents in order to eating meat and gaining strength, so he quit being a meat eater. In addition, Gandhi also regretted the time he took up smoking. Smoking left Gandhi in financial need, so he stole from his brother, which he was ashamed of later in his life. Gandhi drastically changed his life style, he quite smoking and moved to a smaller house so he’d have excess money, and he also walked to school, which build up his strength and made him healthier.
Through the mistakes Gandhi made in his life, he learned many valuable lessons. He learned to love others, the values in life, and searching for truth. The mistakes he made helped him realize the truth in life, where life should be lived by one’s own standard, not by other’s standard. Gandhi experiments with life, thus he obtains the truth through experiments.
Gandhi is definitely a moral hero and an inspiration for today’s society. Gandhi lived up to his own standards, and his honesty in his autobiography made it even more convincing. There were many stories of Gandhi that I find hard to imagine if it weren’t for his autobiography. I believe everyone should live like Gandhi, not necessarily by the exact same standard as Gandhi, but a standard that suites an individual in today’s society and strictly follow it. Also by living a simpler life, one may actually achieve more happiness than a lustful and expensive life style. The many examples of Gandhi’s standing up to authority to demonstrate his belief during harsh times was an inspiration to many, and I believe that made him a moral hero. If everyone takes on Gandhi’s pacifist view, then the world will be free of war, anger, hatred, and evil. Furthermore, if everyone took upon Gandhi’s life style, problems such as pollution, money, and greed will disappear. The world will be a much simpler place if everyone lived and acted like Gandhi.
2. Compare/contrast the "moral systems" of Gandhi with Singer. Detail your answer. How might Gandhi's ethical views match or differ from Singer's. In discussing Singer make sure you define utilitarianism (explain in depth what this is) and his overall general moral stance and then compare this perspective with Gandhi. Do you think Gandhi would disagree or agree with Singer? In what areas of ethics? Explain your stance here.
Singer’s philosophy is based on utilitarianism, where ethical decisions revolve around degree of happiness. Singer bases many of his ethical decisions regarding abortion, animal rights, and human rights on the basis of utilitarianism. Singer believes that actions are moral when such actions promote happiness or reduces pain; when actions cause grief or unpleasantness to one’s self or others, the action is considered immoral. Such philosophy is called the “greatest happiness” principle, and Singer applies such principle in many ethical areas. Gandhi will agree with Singer’s “greatest happiness” principle, for he believes in creating happiness for others and eliminate pain as much as possible. However, different from Singer, Gandhi may put the happiness of others in front of his own. For example, Gandhi vowed to be a vegetarian because of his mother. Gandhi quit meat because he believes that he will cause unpleasantness for his parents; he puts his parent’s feelings before his own.
On the topic of animal rights, Singer view animal as active beings like humans, with capability to feel pleasure and pain, thus the “greatest happiness” principle should apply to animals as well. However, Singer only propose that animals should be treated the same as human, but he does not believe that animals should have the same rights as humans, rights such as voting; for animals have the same capability as human beings, but animals does not have the same intelligence and reasoning as humans. For the same reason, Singer promotes better treatments for animals and vegetarianism.
I think Gandhi will agree with many of Singer’s view on area of ethics. For example, both Gandhi and Singer adopt vegetarianism. Furthermore, Gandhi’s fight for inequalities and discriminations in society coincides with Singer’s fight for animal rights and speciesism (discrimination against other beings based on difference in species). However, I believe Gandhi prefer to solve the problems within the Homo sapiens species before advancing to equalities for all beings. One main difference between Gandhi’s ethics and Singer’s ethics is that religion and God plays a vital role in Gandhi’s view on ethics where as Singer places his own view based on utilitarianism and reasoning.
4. Discuss the ethical contributions of Einstein as presented in the web link on the course website. As you did with Gandhi, explain why do you think Einstein is considered by many to be a moral hero? What do you most admire about him? Do you think that Einstein's life can serve as an inspiration for us today? Apply Einstein's ethics to your individual life AND to the world at large.
Albert Einstein is considered one of the brightest minds that ever existed. Even though he is better known to his contribution to modern physics, namely special relativity and general relativity that revolutionized scientists’ concept of space, time, and gravity, which completely disproved hundreds of years of classical Newtonian physics, his views on humanity are also essential to philosophy community. Compare with Gandhi, I believe Einstein is more rational with his approach to pacifism. Einstein said that he is not an absolute pacifist but a devoted pacifist, which means that he will oppose the usage of force in any circumstances except when confronted by an enemy who cannot be stopped by means other than force. I strongly agree with his notion of being a dedicated pacifist rather than an absolute pacifist, I believe that it is more logical and rational. If one is an absolute pacifist, then evil will triumph since there will be no good to oppose evil. Another quality that Einstein possesses is the strong will to stand up for what he believed in; having the courage to publish a theory that falsifies two hundred years of classical physics and having to endure many opposing voices is phenomenal. Despite the number of scientists that will criticize his work, Einstein still continued with his research; I believe this is a quality that all should take upon. Furthermore, Einstein made a bold statement regarding the equality situation in
Albert Einstein stated that if he had known
5. What is the "utilitarian argument for animal rights" (define) as presented by Singer? When discussing Singer outline his argument for animal rights drawing specifically from the assigned reading (hint: you will need to mention and define speciesism and other important ideas and examples from the Singer reading and VIDEO, etc. Do not just write a vague response but draw key ideas from the material. Now answer whether YOU THINK animals have moral rights? Justify "philosophically" your position. This is not simply just your opinion. But you need to "back up" your answer with philosophical reasoning.
Peter Singer based his ethical views on his study of utilitarianism, where the integrity and rightfulness of actions is determined by the amount of happiness such actions create. If actions promotes happiness and enlarges pleasure, then the action is considered right and moral; however, if an action demotes pleasure or causes grief, then the action is wrong and immoral. Such principle is called “greatest happiness” principle, where actions should be done to create greatest amount of happiness. The greatest happiness can be extended to animals, for animals have the physical and emotional capability to sense happiness, pleasure, sadness, or pain. Therefore, human actions that cause animal pain or grief are considered immoral and should not be allowed. However, Singer only promotes the idea that animal should have the same treatments as humans, but not as the same rights as humans. For example, Singer believes that animal should have better food and living standards, but Singer does not believe that animals should have the right to vote; for animals have the capability to feel happiness, but animals do not have the intellectual qualification to vote.
Singer proposed that the discrimination against living beings based on species, speciesism, is a form of prejudice like racism and sexism, and it is immoral. He said that men should stop speciesism and begin providing animals with better treatments. The main actions of speciesism are animal experimentations and meat eating, where he believes should be terminated by society. Singer argues that experimenting on animals because of their lack of ability to defend them is immoral, and claims that animal experimentation is like experimenting on human infant that does not have the ability and reasoning to fend for itself.
I do believe that animal should have moral rights, but I have really mix feelings about it. I believe that meat eating is moral and should be allowed, however, I do not believe inhumane ways of executing the animals that we eat. Moreover, I do not believe in killing or hurting animals for pleasure, activities such as hunting should be forbidden. However, I contradict myself when I believe that fishing and rat extermination should be allowed. I also believe that animal testing for medical reasons should be allowed and my arguments is that the little grief that’s made on animal provides greater happiness for human beings. I guess I don’t have such strong feeling towards animals as Peter Singer does, I believe societal influence is stronger than moral arguments by Singer.
6. How does Peter Singer view abortion? Describe his reasoning process. More importantly, do you agree? Justify philosophically (explain in depth; do not write simply yes or no). (note: when explaining Singer's position here note that he is not simply pro-life or for abortion--his answer is a bit more complicated...explain the "specifics" of his position...it is not black or white but he holds a much more interesting position....explain this...in what circumstances is abortion acceptable to Singer and in what circumstances is it not.)
For Peter Singer, the central issue of the whole abortion issue lies on the debate that if the fetus is actually a rational human being. He identified the problem of the arguments of both abortion protesters and defenders. The pro-abortionists always call their stance as “pro-choice” because they do not want to deal with the issue that if it’s morally acceptable to kill a fetus. Instead, they make the issue of abortion an issue of personal liberty, that a woman is suppose to have the liberty of deciding for herself whether she wants to keep the baby or not. The problem with this perspective is that if a woman’s individual liberty has to be respected and protected, then should the liberty of the fetus also be protected, since some consider it a human being as well?
On the other hand, the anti-abortionists often follow this line of reasoning – it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being, a fetus is an innocent human being, therefore it’s wrong to kill a human fetus. Singer argues that it’s hard to identify when a fetus becomes a real human being; characteristics such as birth or viability are too vague in determining the line between a fertilized egg and a human being.
Combining the argument against both sides, Singer formed his own opinion. Instead of focusing on when the fetus becomes a human being, we should argue that if a fetus can ever be considered as human beings, assuming the word “human” implies both being part of the species Homo sapiens and a rational or self-conscious person. If a human being has to be rational, then a fetus shouldn’t be considered a human being. If being a human being merely means to be part of the Homo sapiens species, it’s hard to defend the right of the fetus just because it belongs to this particular species. Therefore, Singer concludes that the fetus should be looked at for what its characteristics are and what those characteristics represents, and value its existence according to that. So basically, he thinks the focus of the debate should be on the fetus itself instead of if the fetus is human or not.
While Singer identifies the shortcomings of the arguments from both pro and anti-abortionists and provided a compelling argument, he did not provide a clear stance on the issue of abortion. And I do believe that in this case, it’s difficult to separate the human being aspect of the fetus from the fetus itself, because despite its limited characteristics of human being, a fetus is still a part of the development of maturing of human beings, regardless of what “stage” it is in, regardless of if it’s a true, rational human being yet. To look at a fetus just for what it is will definitely make the process of supporting abortion or not a lot simpler, but it will not cover the whole story. It will be like determining a criminal’s rationale and motivation for committing a crime but not look at the possible external influences, such as how the parents raised him, what kind of neighborhood did he grow up in, did anything traumatic ever happened to him, etc.. Without looking at the whole picture, it’s easier to reach a conclusion, but the conclusion would often be biased and not sufficient enough to explain the whole situation.
7. How does Peter Singer view euthanasia? Describe his reasoning process. Do you agree? Justify philosophically (explain in depth). (note: there are varying types of euthanasia so make sure to explain each and his position on each one of these and your position on each of these as well.) And also, at the end of this essay, what do you think Singer would say about the past case dealing with Terri Schiavo
The term euthanasia refers to the killing of those who are incurably ill, for the patients, euthanasia is implemented to spare them of any further suffering. There are three types of euthanasia, voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia can be viewed as assisted suicide, when euthanasia is performed at the request of the killed. Singer validates the morality of voluntary euthanasia such that voluntary euthanasia fulfills the principle of respect for autonomy. Singer argues that one should have the basic right to make autonomous decisions (on a side note, suicide is illegal in the
I think Singer will support the termination of Terri Schiavo, for Terri does not have the ability to achieve happiness in life, any prolongation of her life will be causing more suffer for her and her husband. However, Singer will not argue that Terri’s parents were wrong when they wanted to keep her alive as long as possible, for the termination of Terri’s life will cause her parents suffering and grief. It is not certain that a person in comatose state can feel pain, but rather the justification to terminate her life lies in the pain generated in the people around her.
9. Do the same for STEM CELL RESEARCH. Utilizing the online article and VIDEO, discuss what it is, how it works, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the ethical (and political and religious) issues involved. Having been well informed about stem cell reseach, what is your ethical position here? Explain in depth your position on this topic.
Stem cell research took off in the 1960s, where the research focus on three categories of primal cells, adult stem cells, embryonic cells, and cord blood cells. The cord blood stem cells are found in umbilical chords, while adult stem cells are found in adult tissues. The embryonic cells are the area of study that is most contravercial, which are found in blastocysts. Blastocysts are precursor of an embryo, which means embryonic cells have the potential to develop into embryo. The number of disease that can be cured with embryonic research is phenomenal, however, the controversy heavily hindered such research process.
President Bush vetoed a bill that promotes the research in stem cell technology; stem cell research soon became a rising political issue. Religious activists are also a strong voice that speak against stem cell research, reason being the activists believe since embryonic cells are found in blastocysts, it is unethical to do further tests and experiments. Since the blastocysts have the potential to become a fetus, and even a human being, many believe that stem cell research is actually murdering a living human being. The same debate of whether embryo is life exists in topics such as abortion and stem cell research.
I personally believe that embryo is not a life form; it is merely a group of cell, granted that it has the potential to become a full grown human. Thus, I strongly support the advancement in stem cell research. The number of diseased that can be cured by stem cell research is vital in future human development. I do not believe ethical reasons should interfere with scientific advancement.
10. Out of everything you studied this term, from the ten ethical theorists, to the moral case topics, to the life of Gandhi and Einstein, to evolutionary psychology, what or who had the most impact on your thinking and may have actually impacted your life in some way? Explain in detail...apply to your life and world. I really want to see that you digested the material you studied and that somehow it affected your worldview. Articulate who or what influenced you the most and how it did. Offer details.
Out of the ten philosophers that I studied so far, I would say my favorite philosopher is Karl Marx and his view on communism. Although I regard communism as inefficient economic theory, and will never successfully be implement, I find communism an interesting concept that can be applied in everyday life. Communism will not work in a grand scale such as a country or any society in general, but communism has worked very will in small communities such as tribes and small communities or even business teams. The ancient Mongolians were living under communist ideas, where the tribe owns property and each person owns the same amount of wealth. The communist system collapsed when different Mongolian tribes unite and finally grew too large and politics begin to interfere with this way of life.
The concept of communism is wonderful, as the wealth distribution is extremely unfair. As can been seen in any major cities in the United States, cities such as Los Angeles or New York, where the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor are located close to each other. The Utopian society that Karl Marx wishes to establish will make everyone happy; however, human factors left this concept in fantasy. In the age where freedom is strongly valued, communism cannot operate smoothly in today’s society. A problem with communism is that if every occupation has the same amount of reward, society will not want to participate in occupations that have more mental and physical stress involved. Essential job such as doctor, which requires many years of training and long hours of work, deserve more pay; however, this violate the core philosophy of equality in communism.
I believe communism will work in a corporation, or any job that requires team work. As engineering major, I often work in teams to accomplish projects; Marx’s system will succeed because every team member will disregard glory and perform for the betterment of the team or project. As a result, every team member does the same amount of work; as a result, everyone will receive the same amount of glory or reward. When unnecessary competition emerges in collaboration, teamwork often collapses with arguments.
PS. #10 is the same as the midterm; my favorite/most influential philosopher did not change, the same reason applies. I included how Marx can apply to my future career and the world, so I believe the same answer from the midterm works on the final.
Research
My research is done on the research of abortion, specifically focusing on morality of abortion and whether or not it should be decided by the establishment of fetus is a person. The main reason for the establishment for a fetus to be a person is to determine whether abortion is murder or just a medical operation. If the fetus is a person, then abortion will be killing the fetus, and murder is committed. However, if the fetus is not a person, then abortion will not be murder, thus justifies the morality of abortion. It is generally accepted that if an abortion is needed to save the mother’s life, then abortion is permissible. But in my research, whether or not the mother’s life is at stake is out of the picture.
As medical technology advances in modern day society, abortion becomes more and more common. However, the debate for different moral views in debate for abortion continues. Major views on abortion can be separated to two schools, pro-life and pro-choice, where pro-life favors the ban on abortion and pro-choice favors permissibility on abortion under some restrictions.
A school of pro-choice argument assumes the condition that the fetus is a person with a right to life; under this condition whether or not the fetus is a person is completely irrelevant in the debate of abortion, hence how one establish that fetus is or is not a person with the right to life has no effect on moral decisions on abortion. In the case where abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life, both the mother’s right to life and the fetus’s right to life is at stake. Granted that abortion kills the fetus, the mother is merely exercising her right to life and proper self-defense. If a person points a gun at you, it is logical that you have the right to kill the gunman in order to protect your right to life. However, in the case that the mother’s life is not endangered by the pregnancy, the mother should still be allowed abortion. The right to life includes having given the bare minimum that one needs to continue life, but limits to cases where the right to life does not intrude or violate another person’s body. Having the right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of another person’s body. From the mother’s point of view, her right to life is more important than the fetus’s right to life; however, it is impossible for third party bystander to chose between the mother’s and the fetus’s right to life. The decision of abortion should be made entirely by the mother; bystanders have no right to make this decision for her.
An important concept to keep in mind is that abortion is not impermissible, but this does not mean that abortion is always permissible. The pro-choice party supports the idea for having abortion as an option; however the pro-choice party does not promote abortion. A teen age schoolgirl, pregnant due to rape is entitled to abortion, but having an abortion seven months into pregnancy is permissible.
An example called the sick violinist example can be used as analogy throughout to argue against many cases for abortion should be permissible. In the sick violinist example, imagine you were kidnapped one day and woke up in a hospital, having strapped to a hospital bed and having tubes inserted in you. A world famous violinist lies beside you, he as some rare disease and you are the only person in the world that can help him live. Even though you will be provided with the best food, entertainment, and environment that you desire, but you must stay in the hospital for 9 months so the violinist can survive. The instinctive decision is to pull the plug and exercise your freedom as a person; however, everyone in the world other than your relatives and friends believe that the sick violinist’s life is more important than your freedom, which shows that any third party by standard should not intrude on this matter. However, some Good Samaritan may agree to stay in the hospital for 9 months, where they believe in saving the sick violinist’s life. Nonetheless, the decision of these Good Samaritans will change if the situation changes where 5 years, 10 years, or even a life time is needed to keep the sick violinist alive. The basic argument still stays, that unwanted pregnancy is a violation of freedom for the mother.
Another argument of abortion revolve around the debate of define fetus as a person. If the fetus is indeed a person, then abortion is murder and should be forbidden; and vice versa, if fetus is not a person, then abortion is not murder and should be permissible. A school of thought state that if fetus is a person when it is “viable” – when fetus can live outside the womb and does not invades mother’s body – the boundary becomes unclear due to different scenario. Fetal development is different for each embryo, and “viability” is different for each fetus due to medical technology, hospital environment or maternal health. Therefore, “viability” is an impractical way to distinguishing fetus and person, or draw boundary between abortion and killing. Another suggestion to distinguish personhood and embryonic cell is self- consciousness. Some implies being a person is bound with minimal level of self-consciousness, an awareness of self existence in space and time. However, it is to argue that newborn baby does not have self-awareness, but that does not justify infanticide. Thus the debate for whether or not the fetus is a person should not be considered. Furthermore, if it is to say that fetus is considered a person because it has the potential of developing into a full grown person, then using condoms or birth control methods is considered murder, for the sperm and eggs killed too have the potential to develop into full grown person.
In conclusion, whether or not the fetus is a person is irrelevant in the debate for abortion. It is demonstrated that if fetus is considered a person, then sperm and eggs should be consider as persons as well, which is impractical and illogical. The sick violinist example shows that even if the fetus is considered a person, abortion should still be permissible.
Sources:
Thomson, Judith Jarvis “A Defense of Abortion”
Glover, Jonathan “Matters of Life and Death”
Wildung, Beverley “Our Right to Chose: Towards a New Ethic of Abortion”
Week 6 - Post 12
The first section of Gandhi’s book talks about his family background, childhood, marriage, and friends. His mother was very religious, which played a big role later on in his life. Through out Gandhi’s childhood, he was very shy and does not like company.
Even though Gandhi was presented as a holy figure, he had couple regrets regarding his past. For example, he regretted participating in the arranged marriage that his parents arranged for him when he was at the age of 13. He strongly believed that arranged marriage for children is wrong. In addition, he also regret about incident with wife. Gandhi’s friend convinced him of his wife’s infidelity, which lead him to act against his wife. He later realized that he had a bad friend, and he had wrongfully treated his wife. Furthermore, his friend told him that eating meat can gain strength, and then can lead to hope of overcome the English. Convinced by his friend, Gandhi betrayed his religion and began eating meat. He lied to his parents about eating meat, and that strongly bothered his conscious. He later realized that it is not worth lying to his parents in order to eating meat and gaining strength, so he quit being a meat eater. In addition, Gandhi also regretted the time he took up smoking. Smoking left Gandhi in financial need, so he stole from his brother, which he was ashamed of later in his life. Gandhi drastically changed his life style, he quite smoking and moved to a smaller house so he’d have excess money, and he also walked to school, which build up his strength and made him healthier.
Gandhi is a pacifist, and he believes non-violence approach towards all actions. He believes that by avoiding confrontations, people have a clearer mind to approach with reasoning. One of the interesting things with Gandhi is his method of finding truth; he believes in “experiment with truth,” where he explores and unveils the truth through his life experiences and many good and bad choices that he made throughout his life. Through his relationship with his wives, parents, and friends, he slowly learned to live a simple life. Gandhi’s “experiment with truth” made me realize that all experiences, regardless of good or bad, can aid one towards the path of truth seeking. Gandhi’s ability to forgive his enemies and take an absolute pacifist approach towards all actions is truly inspiring and impresses me a lot. Gandhi’s approach is uncommon in today’s society, where everything is fast paced and not much relationship is built, let alone forgiveness.
Week 5 - Post 11
Evolution psychology connects the mental and psychological traits of human beings to the process of natural selection. It attempts to “bridge the gap between philosophy and the natural sciences” and proposes the morality of human beings as a product of natural selection. Morality would help individuals to better fit into the society and therefore increase their chances of surviving in the community. Evolution psychology, when applied to the field of ethics, is known as evolutionary ethics and is most directly related to descriptive ethics, which classifies the different ethical beliefs of different groups of people and try to rationalize their beliefs. Scientists and psychologists can study the different ethical beliefs held by different groups and try to rationalize them with evolution psychology.
The thesis of the second article is that while making difficult moral judgments, instead of using our intelligence or power to reason, our emotions often gets in the way. And these emotions, as argued by Greene, are the products of millions of years of evolution of human morality. During the process of making a tough moral decision, the most important aspect is not the logic of our moral judgments but “the role our emotions play in forming them”. From living with each other, our ancestors developed feelings and senses that would best help their own survival and the prospering of their communities and then transformed those feelings into moral codes and passed it on to us. Using brain scanners, Greene found out that different regions of the brain would react when faced with tough moral questions, and those regions are part of a “neural network that produces the emotional instincts behind many of our moral judgments.” And when there’s a difference in opinion between the reasoning system and moral or emotional system, conflicts arise within the brain itself. With continued studies in the field, reasons behind human conflicts might be found, and solutions or methods of prevention can be found to reduce the harm brought about by such conflicts.
This is certainly an interesting concept and offers a different perspective in the field of ethics and morals besides the theories proposed by Kant and J.S. Mill. I, too, faced a moral and reasoning dilemma while thinking about those questions proposed by Greene. Sometimes, the answer that makes the most sense to me would also make me feel sick to the stomach, and seeing some scientific explanations to my reasoning and reaction is definitely satisfying. However, I really doubt the usefulness of such studies, for that there’s seems to be no real life application of the study other than to “understand each other better”. Not to take away anything from Greene and his studies, instead of studying the reaction of human brains to the situations proposed by Greene, maybe more efforts and resources should be dedicated to actually solving those problems in the situations, such as feeding the starving children in the world.
Week 5 - Post 10
Cloning is one of the most popular subjects in the field of biological engineering and genetic research, for it is the most amazing achievement in biologic science through recent years. Cloning is the complete replication of a living organism’s complete genetic information, where an identical copy or copies of that very organism is made. The outer appearance, genetic material, blood type are completely identical from that of the original. The concept of cloning has been around for many years, but can be only achieved in science fiction tales. However, through many years of research, cloning was made successful.
The cloning process takes genetic material from an original animal, and injects the information into mammary cell of another animal of the same species. The fertilized mammary cell is then implanted into a surrogate, where the cloned animal will be born. The most recent achievement in cloning was the creation of Dolly the sheep. Many view this as a giant leap in biological science, mainly the possibility for much medical advancement. However, there are many that reject the science of cloning due to ethical and religious influences.
For example, Christianity was a heavily opposing the development of cloning technology, for many Christians believe it violates relationship of human and God. By creating life forms in a test tube, many Christians believe that human is trying to play God, which should not be done by human beings. Some oppose cloning technology or further genetic research due to the possible application of cloning and genetic technology such as genetic enhancement or human replication. For example, cloning a deceased loved one for the sake of replacement is considered extremely unethical. In addition, the concept of genetic selection or enhancements to create the idea human is considered immoral due to reasons such as prejudice or acting God. Other issues are regarding the clone’s psychological developments. A clone child may be confused about its identity.
Week 4 - Post 8
Singer does not discuss topics on the basis on pure moral arguments, but arguing on the topic itself. Peter Singer’s utilitarian view says that “equal consideration of interest” should be applied when discussing animal rights. Utilitarian view heavily influence’s Singer, where he believes that happiness and violation of happiness is the key in making moral judgments. He takes account the effect of discrimination and liberation movements on animals. Singer believes that we should extend human morals onto animals, and perhaps generate more awareness on animal rights. However, extending moral values does not suggest giving animals the exact same right has humans, for animals cannot fulfill many rights; such as voting, freedom of speech, and more. Moreover, human should offer the same consideration on animals and humans. Singer brought up speciesism, where discriminations towards animals occur on events such as animal experimentation or consuming animals. Furthermore, the ability to reason, speak, or suffer should not be a factor in animal rights; the only thing that matters is animal discrimination where animals are not being treated correctly. The main argument that Singer is trying to convey is that humans should treat animals the same as treating a human; however, animals should not have the same rights as humans.
Lane and Singer have similar view on the topic of animal rights, where Lane argues for utilitarian view from a scientific standpoint. The Central Nervous System enables human to distinguish pleasure and pain; a system that is present in both humans and animals, which means that the ability for animals to sense pleasure and pain similar to humans. Lane suggests putting human in animal’s position, and treating animals as though humans would treat themselves. Both philosophers disregards intelligence when arguing animal rights and focus on utilitarian aspects such as pleasure and pain, and both philosopher claim that it is unnecessary to feed on animal meat for humans to survive. Singer especially opposes animal experiments and inhuman living conditions, which he claims is an act of discrimination and is a form of speciesism.
Midterm Questions
1. NAME
Kevin Liu
2. USERNAME on the yahoo club
kevinliu19
3. EMAIL ADDRESS
liu.kevin1@gmail.com
4. Offer number of posts completed and "exact dates" for each one.
I completed all my posts during Sunday night, except post 5 which I did not have time to do.
I forgot to put Post 2 on the yahoo group, I finished it, but went to the restroom and come back forgetting about it.
5. Did you complete the first field trip report?
I completed the first field trip, I went to Museum of Tolerance. I did not put this on the Yahoo group because I am not sure if you wanted us to put it on the Yahoo group or not. I did the report couple days after I done the field trip
6. What reading did you complete thus far in the course? be
specific. Is there material/chapters that you did not read?
I did most of the readings, I skipped few that seemed repetitive. Some of the posts were confusing so I had to refer to Wikipedia for extra reference
7. Did you complete any extra credit so far? be specific.
I did not have the time to do any extra credit, but I intend to do some next week
PS. I put labels on all my posts so it is easier to access, the the labels are on the right hand column
Kevin Liu
2. USERNAME on the yahoo club
kevinliu19
3. EMAIL ADDRESS
liu.kevin1@gmail.com
4. Offer number of posts completed and "exact dates" for each one.
I completed all my posts during Sunday night, except post 5 which I did not have time to do.
I forgot to put Post 2 on the yahoo group, I finished it, but went to the restroom and come back forgetting about it.
5. Did you complete the first field trip report?
I completed the first field trip, I went to Museum of Tolerance. I did not put this on the Yahoo group because I am not sure if you wanted us to put it on the Yahoo group or not. I did the report couple days after I done the field trip
6. What reading did you complete thus far in the course? be
specific. Is there material/chapters that you did not read?
I did most of the readings, I skipped few that seemed repetitive. Some of the posts were confusing so I had to refer to Wikipedia for extra reference
7. Did you complete any extra credit so far? be specific.
I did not have the time to do any extra credit, but I intend to do some next week
PS. I put labels on all my posts so it is easier to access, the the labels are on the right hand column
Museum of Tolerance
I went to the
I visited the tolerance room, where many records of historic racism where shown. Many websites with hatred content were shown on various computer screens. Disturbing videos on the topic of genocides, such as events in
The topic of genocide continues through the Holocaust room, where many racist political statements from history were shown. There were many posters and propagandas that are extremely racist. I find the replicated scene from concentration camps to be the most interesting. Having read many articles on the topic of holocaust, I have a vague idea of what the prisoners have been through; but the experience was far more intense than what I have imagined. The ground was made of dirt and rubble; the walls were dirty and dark. The replicated gas chamber was the most disturbing experience, the room was dark, and I can sense the fear coming from the walls. Many pictures from the concentration camp I’ve seen before, but they still have a large emotional impact.
Many sections of the museum were unavailable to the public due to construction. The visit was definitely worth it, I would probably never enter the museum in my life. On the drive back home, many thoughts came up about life and tolerance, and the many things that are good and bad in life. I will probably not visit the museum again, but I am glad that I went.
Week 3 - Midterm
1.
Nietzsche claims that the existence of God has been tear down by modern rationalism and scientific advancements. God, the very foundation of Christianity, has been destroyed. Christianity is now a simple guideline of moral value and virtues that its followers obey upon. Furthermore, Nietzsche shows his opposition towards Christianity when he discuss about morality. Passion is natural among all emotional beings, and when Christianity wishes to set rules of morality by oppressing this natural passion, it is viewed as anti-nature (“transvaluation of values”). Nietzsche brings up the example "If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out," and claim that it is immoral. However, Nietzsche considers Jesus to be the only true Christian. Nietzsche praises Jesus not for his sacrifice he made, but his way of living. In order to live up to the Christian values, one must be free of sin and hatred; Jesus showed mankind how to live up to Christian standards. Jesus is free of hatred, and even spreads love to those who hated him. Moreover, Jesus rejected Jewish doctrine of praying, that is not the true way to connect to God. What Nietzsche most admire about Jesus is his way of conducting Christianity, Jesus did not connect to God through praying, but rather through his actions and his love. Nietzsche believes that Paul changed the meaning of Jesus' death. Paul shifted center of attention to Jesus’ death instead of Jesus’ way of life. Paul used Jesus’ resurrection in the aid of his personal glory. Paul claims that Jesus’ crucifixion was a sacrifice for people’s sins and wrong doing and Jesus’ death freed everyone from sins. Nietzsche believes Paul altered Christianity and altered history.
Nietzsche believe the height of humanity is when humans achieve the state of “free spirit,” when human accepts the truth, and have a complete open mind regarding the truth. Instead of living by standards set by others, one will be free of such restraint and live up to one’s own morals and virtue.
2.
Epictetus is a philosopher that follows stoicism; he categorizes things in two fashions, things that are under a person’s control and things that are out of control. Epictetus believes that one should only concern events that are directly under control, and steer such events to the aid of one’s self, such as the path to happiness. It is crucial that actions are not dominated by desires and pleasure; rather actions are ruled by logic and clear reasoning. One should not be troubled by desires that are out of reach, for it will only bring discontent and frustration. It is important hold the ability to choose by remaining in control of one’s emotions so decisions do not sway to passions.
Spinoza believes that humans should be in state of “active awareness”, which coincides with Epictetus’ idea of having control. One should stay in active mind, which strengths one’s mental strength and gain closeness with God. By having active mind, one steer away from passive emotions, thus having more control and fight evil thoughts. However, Spinoza does not believe that we can ever fully be free from our passions. Therefore, one must stay connect to God, since God is an infinite being that holds the infinite truth.
Both Spinoza and Epictetus focus on the idea of gaining control of one’s actions, which builds the basis for stoicism. In stoicism, one holds the strength to fight outside forces, thus is free from outer influences. Furthermore, one must have the power to fight internal emotions, making course of actions free from passion and desire.
3.
The ideas in Communist Manifesto can be consider in ethical context because it conveys many rules that an ideal society should implement. Marx not only suggested economical mode of operation, but the same idea may be implemented and applied on human thoughts and living styles. Communism also deemed capitalism as immoral; Communist Manifesto can be viewed as ethical text because it discusses moral issues in different economical systems. Marx’s ideal moral society is a utopian society, where everyone owns exactly the same amount of wealth so there is no division of class by economical means. The proletarians will be richer, and bourgeoisies will distribute their wealth, so there’s an absolute economical balance in all members of society. Everyone will not own property, and no form of hierarchy will exist in this utopian society. This would not only solve the problem of uneven wealth distribution, also eliminate the need for economical competition and any oppression between classes.
The problem and flaw of communism lies within its impracticality; the idea strips away all human desires to create a uniform society and assumes everyone has the exact same need. Everyone is born different, each with different physical advantages or disadvantages, consequently everyone will have different desires and needs. Under different aspiration, the uniform society of communism cannot satisfy everyone, thus everyone achieve different level of happiness and defeat the ultimate purpose of communism. Furthermore, communism strips away desires from its members, which is impossible. When everyone is in the same status, the innate competitive nature of human beings will want to gain advantage over others, either through the means of property ownership or economic status. Assume under the condition that the society successfully removes all desires; the result is a never improving society that ceases any form advancement. The communist (utopian) concept is perfect as a concept, but it is not practical when used implemented practice.
4.
According to Aristotle, goal in life is to search for happiness, our desires and aspirations in life are to search for such happiness. Aristotle also state that happiness must base on human nature, so happiness cannot be found in abstract or ideal notions. Happiness must be achieved through human experience, and must be found in life and works of everyday life. Happiness is also unique to human, because humans have desires and can control those desires; the ability to control desires is called moral virtue, which determines good in life. To pursuit what ever makes us happy, under the conditions that actions have good moral and virtues.
Epicurus believes that pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain is the path that will lead to happiness. Epicurus focus on pleasure in life, and stating that life is about pleasure, and every action done is to fulfill pleasure. General concept of human is avoiding pain and obtaining greatest pleasure possible.
Epictetus’ view on happiness is opposite to Epicurus’ view, for Epictetus believe that pleasure should not be used to achieve happiness. Epictetus believe that pleasure will create intense desires, which will overshadow moral and virtues that may lead to evil. Epictetus has a stoic approach to happiness; such that happiness is obtained within the boundaries of control and preventing desires from overtaking the mind.
All Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus have very similar focus on happiness and pleasure in life. All three philosophers believe that people should pursuit after happiness, and plan actions that will achieve the most amount of happiness. The main difference between the three philosophers is their view on pleasure. Aristotle said that one should pursuit happiness under the condition of being able to maintain good virtue. Epicurus believes that going after pleasure is a path that can lead to happiness. Epictetus has a different view such that pleasure should not be sought after; rather, one should look for happiness with a stoic mind.
5.
Sartre is a philosopher in the field of existentialism. Existentialist views one as independent entity that is completely in charge of his or her actions. From Christianity stand point, humans exist on this world because God chose to put human on this world. However, according atheist view, God was only an excuse to the existence of men; because Christians do not have an answer for the existence of men besides God. Atheistic Existentialism thinks that one’s existence is due to his or her own definition, not due to God’s intentions. One must define himself in order to continue to exist in this world; God does not define any faith or future for anyone.
Even with out the set of moral rules set by God or Christianity, an atheist can still be moral. In Existentialism, a person is responsible for his or her own action because no one else chose the path for that person. Morality is defined differently in different cultures, for one’s evil may be other’s good; thus, existentialist will chose what is good for himself, and still live with good moral and virtue based on his standard. Existentialism has some similarity with Stoicism, in the sense that both regard outside source as irrelevant aspect in one’s existence.
Sartre disapproves of the Christian’s view because Sartre believes Christians are not living lives to their own standard. Furthermore, Sartre says that Christians’ course of actions are heavily influenced by what they believe as God’s intention, which completely violate Sartre’s view of existentialism, where one should be free of all influences.
6.
Kant believes that morality should follow a rational standard, which he calls “categorical imperative.” Furthermore, Kant believes that each person is of equal value, for he treats self-governed reasoning to be the central theme. His philosophy is categorical because it origins from rational reasoning, and his philosophy is imperative because it is necessary and important. Kant also describes that only actions out of good will and follow moral standards can be described as true goodness. In contrast, actions due to divine will is only performing a sense of duty and cannot be considered true goodness.
The idea of existentialism is for one to define oneself and holding responsibility for one’s own actions. However, Kierkegaard has an opposite view, he believe that doing actions to satisfy a divine purpose is far more important than one’s own purpose. This is a complete opposite view with Sartre’s philosophy, who said one should remain true to one’s moral and not try to perform duty for the purpose of higher power. In reply to Sartre’s view, Kierkegaard said that Christianity is more than simply following the churches orders; it is building on faith to further establish one’s true self. The three stages Kierkegaard are the aesthetic, ethics, and religious. The aesthetic stage refers to sensual and emotional satisfactions, what Epictetus would call pleasure. The ethical context accounts for societal views on moral guidelines, views that are defined by society. The final stage is religious view, which Kierkegaard believe is far greater than the first two stages; to be in religious stage, one has fully established one’s existence. Kierkegaard believes that to stay connected with religion has far greater purpose than that of social norm and selfish pleasures.
Kant and Kierkegaard have completely different views on the role of religion in moral and ethics. Kierkegaard believes that the devotion to God and connection to God is utmost important Holy Grail to establish one’s true identity.
7.
Both utilitarian and hedonism involves achieving happiness, but the two schools have different way on achieving happiness. Mills Utilitarian view states that one should achieve happiness under the condition that actions in pursuing happiness does not harm anyone or society. Mill also sees pleasure and happiness as the same; and Mill associate unhappiness as pain. Actions that promote pleasure are considered moral, and actions that oppress pleasure are considered immoral. On the contrary, Mills considers the sacrifice of one’s own happiness for the benefit of another to be a virtue.
In Epicurus’ Hedonism, one should seek after pleasure and treat it as a final goal in life. This is different from utilitarian view, which state that one should do actions that benefit the society instead of actions that only satisfy one. Even though both philosophers, Epicurus and Mill, talk about chasing after happiness, they have different view on the definition of greater good.
8.
Out of the ten philosophers that I studied so far, I would say my favorite philosopher is Karl Marx and his view on communism. Although I regard communism as inefficient economic theory, and will never successfully be implement, I find communism an interesting concept that can be applied in everyday life. Communism will not work in a grand scale such as a country or any society in general, but communism has worked very will in small communities such as tribes and small communities or even business teams. The ancient Mongolians were living under communist ideas, where the tribe owns property and each person owns the same amount of wealth. The communist system collapsed when different Mongolian tribes unite and finally grew too large and politics begin to interfere with this way of life.
The concept of communism is wonderful, as the wealth distribution is extremely unfair. As can been seen in any major cities in the United States, cities such as Los Angeles or New York, where the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor are located close to each other. The Utopian society that Karl Marx wishes to establish will make everyone happy; however, human factors left this concept in fantasy. In the age where freedom is strongly valued, communism cannot operate smoothly in today’s society. A problem with communism is that if every occupation has the same amount of reward, society will not want to participate in occupations that have more mental and physical stress involved. Essential job such as doctor, which requires many years of training and long hours of work, deserve more pay; however, this violate the core philosophy of equality in communism.
I believe communism will work in a corporation, or any job that requires team work. As engineering major, I often work in teams to accomplish projects; Marx’s system will succeed because every team member will disregard glory and perform for the betterment of the team or project. As a result, every team member does the same amount of work; as a result, everyone will receive the same amount of glory or reward. When unnecessary competition emerges in collaboration, teamwork often collapses with arguments.
Week 3 - Post 7
1. Death of God
Nietzsche believes that God no longer have a place in the hearts of modern men, the place for God has been taken over by modern science and rationalism. Through advancement of technology, humans have disproved many aspect of God; for example, the Earth is no longer a flat surface but a giant sphere; heaven and hell do not exist above or below us, instead there are atmosphere and molten lavas. Nietzsche thinks that even Christianity does not worship God; it is merely a system that sets moral guidelines for a certain group of people.
2. Truth
Nietzsche believe that humans are too simple and naïve to understand the real truth. With truth, comes consequences; he thinks that human would go to the extent of lying to avoid some of the consequences. Since human permits themselves to lie, the urge for truth seems skeptical. He also thinks that human are oblivious about the things around us, and human are also too arrogant to really care anything that does not relate to human. He brings up the example of mosquito, and how the mosquito may have the same emotion but humans never cared anything about it.
3. Morality as Anti-nature
Nietzsche shows his opposition towards Christianity when he discuss about morality. Passion is natural among all emotional beings, and when Christianity wishes to set rules of morality by oppressing this natural passion, it is viewed as anti-nature. Nietzsche brings up the example "If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out," and claim that it is immoral.
4. Jesus
Nietzsche considers Jesus to be the only true Christian. Nietzsche praises Jesus not for his sacrifice he made, but his way of living. In order to live up to the Christian values, one must be free of sin and hatred; Jesus showed mankind how to live up to Christian standards. Jesus rejected Jewish doctrine of praying. What Nietzsche most admire about Jesus is his way of conducting Christianity, Jesus did not connect to God through praying, but rather through his actions and his love.
5. Paul
Nietzsche believes that Paul changed the meaning of Jesus' death. Paul shifted center of attention to Jesus’ death instead of Jesus’ way of life. Paul used Jesus’ resurrection in the aid of his personal glory. Paul claim that Jesus’ crucifixion was a sacrifice for people’s sins and wrong doing; Jesus death freed everyone from sins. Nietzsche believes Paul altered Christianity and altered history.
6. Myth of Eternal Recurrence
Nietzsche say if human live life over and over again, similar to reincarnation in Buddhism, every pain, pleasure, hatred, suffering will be pointless. People will focus on the happiness and quality of life, and not live the regrets and painful memories over again. This idea encourages people to live better life and not be held back by unfortunate events that may have happened in the past.
7. Free Spirit
The “God is dead” idea spawns through Europe and left many wandering aimlessly; people are lost when many old ideas are over thrown. But Nietzsche said that those old ideas are far too distant to affect current society, there are many new variables that make old ideas obsolete. Philosophers and “Free Spirits” feel that one should keep an open mind for new possibilities and not dwell on the old ideas.
Nietzsche believes that God no longer have a place in the hearts of modern men, the place for God has been taken over by modern science and rationalism. Through advancement of technology, humans have disproved many aspect of God; for example, the Earth is no longer a flat surface but a giant sphere; heaven and hell do not exist above or below us, instead there are atmosphere and molten lavas. Nietzsche thinks that even Christianity does not worship God; it is merely a system that sets moral guidelines for a certain group of people.
2. Truth
Nietzsche believe that humans are too simple and naïve to understand the real truth. With truth, comes consequences; he thinks that human would go to the extent of lying to avoid some of the consequences. Since human permits themselves to lie, the urge for truth seems skeptical. He also thinks that human are oblivious about the things around us, and human are also too arrogant to really care anything that does not relate to human. He brings up the example of mosquito, and how the mosquito may have the same emotion but humans never cared anything about it.
3. Morality as Anti-nature
Nietzsche shows his opposition towards Christianity when he discuss about morality. Passion is natural among all emotional beings, and when Christianity wishes to set rules of morality by oppressing this natural passion, it is viewed as anti-nature. Nietzsche brings up the example "If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out," and claim that it is immoral.
4. Jesus
Nietzsche considers Jesus to be the only true Christian. Nietzsche praises Jesus not for his sacrifice he made, but his way of living. In order to live up to the Christian values, one must be free of sin and hatred; Jesus showed mankind how to live up to Christian standards. Jesus rejected Jewish doctrine of praying. What Nietzsche most admire about Jesus is his way of conducting Christianity, Jesus did not connect to God through praying, but rather through his actions and his love.
5. Paul
Nietzsche believes that Paul changed the meaning of Jesus' death. Paul shifted center of attention to Jesus’ death instead of Jesus’ way of life. Paul used Jesus’ resurrection in the aid of his personal glory. Paul claim that Jesus’ crucifixion was a sacrifice for people’s sins and wrong doing; Jesus death freed everyone from sins. Nietzsche believes Paul altered Christianity and altered history.
6. Myth of Eternal Recurrence
Nietzsche say if human live life over and over again, similar to reincarnation in Buddhism, every pain, pleasure, hatred, suffering will be pointless. People will focus on the happiness and quality of life, and not live the regrets and painful memories over again. This idea encourages people to live better life and not be held back by unfortunate events that may have happened in the past.
7. Free Spirit
The “God is dead” idea spawns through Europe and left many wandering aimlessly; people are lost when many old ideas are over thrown. But Nietzsche said that those old ideas are far too distant to affect current society, there are many new variables that make old ideas obsolete. Philosophers and “Free Spirits” feel that one should keep an open mind for new possibilities and not dwell on the old ideas.
Week 3 - Post 6
Marx believes capitalism is immoral because it puts proletariat citizens at a disadvantage compare with the bourgeoisies and the upper class. He believe that the capitalist system benefits the bourgeoisies, people who buys labor, and harms the proletarians, those who sell their land, power, and labor. Capitalism is based on private ownership of businesses and with the goal to defeat all opponents in order to generate more profit. This threatens the proletarians because they have less money to start out with, which yields fewer opportunities to fight against the bourgeoisies.
Through out history, the constant struggle between economically dominant class and the working class in capitalism has shown that capitalism favors the economically dominant. An uneven economical distribution is in capitalism, where everyone has different living standards, and many live unfortunate lives. Societal values, especially values of the bourgeoisies, begin to shift from common daily necessities to extraneous luxuries and money. The bourgeoisies own majority of the money, this means a few members of society controls majority of wealth. The Bourgeoisies commanded the proletarians to work under low wages, the proletarians must accept since they need to survive on money. The bourgeoisies also mass produce everything, making proletarians’ craftsmanship useless. Under this system, there is an economical food chain, where rich oppress the poor, and poor oppress the poorer.
Marx’s ideal moral society is a utopian society, where everyone owns exactly the same amount of wealth so there is no division of class by economical means. The proletarians will be richer, and bourgeoisies will distribute their wealth, so there’s an absolute economical balance in all members of society. Everyone will not own property, and no form of hierarchy will exist in this utopian society. This would not only solve the problem of uneven wealth distribution, also eliminate the need for economical competition and any oppression between classes.
Through out history, the constant struggle between economically dominant class and the working class in capitalism has shown that capitalism favors the economically dominant. An uneven economical distribution is in capitalism, where everyone has different living standards, and many live unfortunate lives. Societal values, especially values of the bourgeoisies, begin to shift from common daily necessities to extraneous luxuries and money. The bourgeoisies own majority of the money, this means a few members of society controls majority of wealth. The Bourgeoisies commanded the proletarians to work under low wages, the proletarians must accept since they need to survive on money. The bourgeoisies also mass produce everything, making proletarians’ craftsmanship useless. Under this system, there is an economical food chain, where rich oppress the poor, and poor oppress the poorer.
Marx’s ideal moral society is a utopian society, where everyone owns exactly the same amount of wealth so there is no division of class by economical means. The proletarians will be richer, and bourgeoisies will distribute their wealth, so there’s an absolute economical balance in all members of society. Everyone will not own property, and no form of hierarchy will exist in this utopian society. This would not only solve the problem of uneven wealth distribution, also eliminate the need for economical competition and any oppression between classes.
Week 2 - Post 4
What I see as right and wrong comes from what I have been taught through growing up with some thought and personal experience, I come up with my own personal rule. Many of such rules change over time, as it is influenced by society changes over time. My decision making is base on the criteria of protecting myself and not harming others around me. My set of rule does not necessarily fit another person’s ethic values, as we have different personal experiences and education. For example, I support abortion, prenatal genetic tests, genetic engineering, and assisted suicide of terminal patients. Large portions of my decisions are made very scientifically, I look at what’s the cost of my action (consequences), and I look at the benefits and I compare the two. I make my decisions by making a cost-benefit analysis like one would normally do when making economical decisions.
Kant believes that one should make decisions alone, free from all societal influences and peer pressure. Living by one’s own law, independent mind will shield one from outside manipulate. Human beings are rational and self-ruling, thus humans should be able to make moral decisions free from outside influences. Kant believes the source of Good does not lie in nature or given by god or anywhere outside the human subject, but Good lies in good will of human subject. Given that each person makes their own decisions, Kant also emphasize that human need to respect humanity, and not remove rights of ourselves and other people. We need to make decisions that do not sacrifice the happiness of others.
Kant will agree with only part of my moral judgment, since I base my moral decision on the grounds of not harming other’s chance to achieve happiness. However, Kant will not approve that some of my choices are influenced by societal values. Kant wants all choices to be free from outside corruption.
On the other hand, Mill follows the “Greatest Happiness Principle,” such that choices are made based on achieving the greatest happiness, both quantity and quality happiness. However, all actions are under the rule that they do not interfere with other’s entitlement to happiness, more importantly; none of the actions will harm others. People should chose actions that brings greatest happiness (profit), and cause least amount of pain; his philosophy is very economically based. Mill’s philosophy coincides with my personal values, in which both focus on creating self happiness, and both try to not inflict any harm on others. According to Mill, harming of one’s self is allowed, since this act may bring happiness to one’s self. Societal value will not approve Mill’s idea, since suicide is a crime; society thinks it is wrong for one to inflict pain on his or her self.
Kant will strongly disapprove Mill’s philosophy, Kant will think that Mill’s philosophy care too much of outside view when Mill states action should not harm others. This means that Mill’s decision is influenced by what others think, which completely go against Kant’s philosophy.
Kant believes that one should make decisions alone, free from all societal influences and peer pressure. Living by one’s own law, independent mind will shield one from outside manipulate. Human beings are rational and self-ruling, thus humans should be able to make moral decisions free from outside influences. Kant believes the source of Good does not lie in nature or given by god or anywhere outside the human subject, but Good lies in good will of human subject. Given that each person makes their own decisions, Kant also emphasize that human need to respect humanity, and not remove rights of ourselves and other people. We need to make decisions that do not sacrifice the happiness of others.
Kant will agree with only part of my moral judgment, since I base my moral decision on the grounds of not harming other’s chance to achieve happiness. However, Kant will not approve that some of my choices are influenced by societal values. Kant wants all choices to be free from outside corruption.
On the other hand, Mill follows the “Greatest Happiness Principle,” such that choices are made based on achieving the greatest happiness, both quantity and quality happiness. However, all actions are under the rule that they do not interfere with other’s entitlement to happiness, more importantly; none of the actions will harm others. People should chose actions that brings greatest happiness (profit), and cause least amount of pain; his philosophy is very economically based. Mill’s philosophy coincides with my personal values, in which both focus on creating self happiness, and both try to not inflict any harm on others. According to Mill, harming of one’s self is allowed, since this act may bring happiness to one’s self. Societal value will not approve Mill’s idea, since suicide is a crime; society thinks it is wrong for one to inflict pain on his or her self.
Kant will strongly disapprove Mill’s philosophy, Kant will think that Mill’s philosophy care too much of outside view when Mill states action should not harm others. This means that Mill’s decision is influenced by what others think, which completely go against Kant’s philosophy.
Week 2 - Post 3
Spinoza strongly believes the existence of god, and the presence of god is a great matter in human lives. Spinoza views God as a high being that is everywhere, God is in nature, God in the universe. People’s actions, events in the world are all works of god. Spinoza says that God is substance, which means that god is the matter that makes up every aspect of this world.
Spinoza also highly emphasize on the strength of mind. Spinoza suggests that in order to adequately know god, the mind must be active. An inactive mind will have a barrier between god and itself. An active mind is a strong mind, thus it is more capable of avoiding evil; and vice versa, an inactive mind is weaker from temptations of evil. So Spinoza suggests that people should keep an active mind to connect with God.
A question arouses when there are evil in this world; if God is Supreme Being, why did God allow evil to exist? Spinoza suggests that evil does not exist; the phenomenon we call evil is mere absence of good, and falsehood is absence of truth. I find this very interesting, Spinoza uses scientific phenomenon to correlate with his philosophy. For example, darkness does not exist (you can not say “I want more darkness”), darkness is the result of lack of light, and just as cold is the lack of heat energy. Falsehood arises from lack of active mind, lack of knowledge to God; thus evil arise from lack of knowledge.
Spinoza believes that human need to think about the truth, think about good and evil. According to Spinoza, people should be aware of their actions, and follow what they believe is good or evil (ethic), and not let passion lead the way. Spinoza suggests that the more people love God, the more control they will have over their emotion, which people will less likely to commit regrettable actions due to emotions such as anger, hatred, and sadness.
Spinoza also highly emphasize on the strength of mind. Spinoza suggests that in order to adequately know god, the mind must be active. An inactive mind will have a barrier between god and itself. An active mind is a strong mind, thus it is more capable of avoiding evil; and vice versa, an inactive mind is weaker from temptations of evil. So Spinoza suggests that people should keep an active mind to connect with God.
A question arouses when there are evil in this world; if God is Supreme Being, why did God allow evil to exist? Spinoza suggests that evil does not exist; the phenomenon we call evil is mere absence of good, and falsehood is absence of truth. I find this very interesting, Spinoza uses scientific phenomenon to correlate with his philosophy. For example, darkness does not exist (you can not say “I want more darkness”), darkness is the result of lack of light, and just as cold is the lack of heat energy. Falsehood arises from lack of active mind, lack of knowledge to God; thus evil arise from lack of knowledge.
Spinoza believes that human need to think about the truth, think about good and evil. According to Spinoza, people should be aware of their actions, and follow what they believe is good or evil (ethic), and not let passion lead the way. Spinoza suggests that the more people love God, the more control they will have over their emotion, which people will less likely to commit regrettable actions due to emotions such as anger, hatred, and sadness.
Week 1 - Post 2
Epicurus believes that pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain is the path that will lead to happiness. Epicurus focus on pleasure in life, and stating that life is about pleasure, and every action done is to fulfill pleasure. General concept of human is avoiding pain and obtaining greatest pleasure possible.
Epictetus’ view on happiness is opposite to Epicurus’ view, for Epictetus believe that pleasure should not be used to achieve happiness. Epictetus believe that pleasure will create intense desires, which will overshadow moral and virtues that may lead to evil. Epictetus has a stoic approach to happiness; such that happiness is obtained within the boundaries of control and preventing desires from overtaking the mind.
Both Epicurus and Epictetus have very similar focus on happiness and pleasure in life. Both philosophers believe that people should pursuit after happiness, and plan actions that will achieve the most amount of happiness. The main difference between the two philosophers is their view on pleasure. Epicurus believes that going after pleasure is a path that can lead to happiness. Epictetus has a different view such that pleasure should not be sought after; rather, one should look for happiness with a stoic mind.
Epictetus’ view on happiness is opposite to Epicurus’ view, for Epictetus believe that pleasure should not be used to achieve happiness. Epictetus believe that pleasure will create intense desires, which will overshadow moral and virtues that may lead to evil. Epictetus has a stoic approach to happiness; such that happiness is obtained within the boundaries of control and preventing desires from overtaking the mind.
Both Epicurus and Epictetus have very similar focus on happiness and pleasure in life. Both philosophers believe that people should pursuit after happiness, and plan actions that will achieve the most amount of happiness. The main difference between the two philosophers is their view on pleasure. Epicurus believes that going after pleasure is a path that can lead to happiness. Epictetus has a different view such that pleasure should not be sought after; rather, one should look for happiness with a stoic mind.
Week 1 - Post 1
Happiness is a vague concept; I often associate happiness with activities that brings pleasure. However, there are clear distinction between true happiness and pleasure. I believe happiness is events that one can reminisce and still feel content, but pleasure cannot. I believe pleasure is a short term happiness felt during the occurrence of events. I think pleasure is a path that can lead to happiness, but not all pleasure makes me happy. For example, watching television is pleasurable, but I do not feel happy after I turn off the television. When I finally perfected a song on a piano, I feel happy, the sense of accomplishment can be felt even months after I completed the song.
Events such as spending time with friends, going to the beach, or travel to an unfamiliar country for the first time makes me happy, even simple things as sitting on the couch enjoying lovely California sunshine generates happiness. As time progresses, I realize that definition of happiness changes as I experience different stages of life. Watching my baby cousin, playing with her toy dog makes her smile and happy. My sister in elementary school thinks buying a new toy makes her happy. During my high school years I think spending time with friends makes me happy. I see different goals and different dreams at different ages. I recently scored the highest score of the class on a difficult engineering final, which made me very proud of myself and exceedingly happy. The sense of accomplishment of grasping difficult concept is like achieving enlightenment, and is extremely satisfactory.
My future happiness will come when I graduate from university, perhaps get accept into a prestigious graduate school and obtaining masters degree. Hopefully achieve a successful career and able to support my parents, future wife, and future children.
According to Aristotle, goal in life is to search for happiness, our desires and aspirations in life are to search for such happiness. Aristotle also state that happiness must base on human nature, so happiness cannot be found in abstract or ideal notions. Happiness must be achieved through human experience, and must be found in life and works of everyday life. Happiness is also unique to human, because humans have desires and can control those desires; the ability to control desires is called moral virtue, which determines good in life.
Aristotle will agree with my view such that there are clear distinction between pleasure and happiness, and that happiness achieves a greater mean than pleasure. My form of happiness is accomplished through life experiences. Aristotle also coincides with my form of happiness and goals in life, which represents an ultimate end that I pursuit after.
Events such as spending time with friends, going to the beach, or travel to an unfamiliar country for the first time makes me happy, even simple things as sitting on the couch enjoying lovely California sunshine generates happiness. As time progresses, I realize that definition of happiness changes as I experience different stages of life. Watching my baby cousin, playing with her toy dog makes her smile and happy. My sister in elementary school thinks buying a new toy makes her happy. During my high school years I think spending time with friends makes me happy. I see different goals and different dreams at different ages. I recently scored the highest score of the class on a difficult engineering final, which made me very proud of myself and exceedingly happy. The sense of accomplishment of grasping difficult concept is like achieving enlightenment, and is extremely satisfactory.
My future happiness will come when I graduate from university, perhaps get accept into a prestigious graduate school and obtaining masters degree. Hopefully achieve a successful career and able to support my parents, future wife, and future children.
According to Aristotle, goal in life is to search for happiness, our desires and aspirations in life are to search for such happiness. Aristotle also state that happiness must base on human nature, so happiness cannot be found in abstract or ideal notions. Happiness must be achieved through human experience, and must be found in life and works of everyday life. Happiness is also unique to human, because humans have desires and can control those desires; the ability to control desires is called moral virtue, which determines good in life.
Aristotle will agree with my view such that there are clear distinction between pleasure and happiness, and that happiness achieves a greater mean than pleasure. My form of happiness is accomplished through life experiences. Aristotle also coincides with my form of happiness and goals in life, which represents an ultimate end that I pursuit after.