PHILOSOPHY 12

teh intharweb

2006-05-08T14:50:00.000-07:00

my AP crush, meethz has a crush on me as well! awww, how cute!

that said, dangit meethz, go online more often.

apparently people in AP forums have this fetish of seeing me with another man, and for some reason they paired me up with eggy and ocean. despite being sober, i made a claim that i'd seme eggy. then all hell broke loose, thanks to taboo:

then taboo decided to add a bit of chang into the mix.

and so i ended it with something horrible, before things get out of hand.

though, when you think about it, it might actually make things worse. <_<

post 15: gandhi

2004-08-02T02:33:00.001-07:00

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:02:37

gandhi's ethics as everyone who has heard of the name knows, revolves around non-violence in finding a solution to every problem. gandhi has a belief that as long as one sticks with the truth, any conflicts will eventually be solved, without the need for violence or force. his autobiography outlines most if not all of his success story of how truth has helped him solved many problems without means of violence. gandhi was first inspired "to follow truth and go through all the ordeals" (p.5)after watching the play HARISCHANDRA. he gave high regard to harishchandra who was fully truthful, and gandhi thought that everyone should be truthful like harishchandra. what gandhi means by "experiment with truth" is that he considers his living truthfully as a life-long experiment, and this autobiography is like the report of his success, failure, and the hardships he has to go through. gandhi experiences hardships early, but whenever his principle to uphold truth fails, he carefully studies what causes the failure. one example was when he was still in highschool and a little misunderstanding caused him to be convicted of lying. he realized that although truthful, he was also at fault for being careless; from that he concludes that "a man of truth must also be a man of care." (p.13) this is similar to an experiment, since in a experiment, one always goes by method of trials and errors. gandhi does the same. he practices his principle, and whenever it fails he adds to the principle something it was lacking before and hence causing it to fail.

gandhi, always being a shy person, realizes that shyness is a great quality to have. by being shy, one would refrain oneself from talking out loud unpreparedly, and this is considered really important for a man who upholds truth. gandhi likes the idea that silence is golden; he claims that silence is a really important aspect in the discipline one needs to uphold truth. gandhi recognizes that "proneness to exaggerate, to suppress or modify the truth, wittingly or unwittingly, is a natural weakness of man, and silence is necessary in order to surmount it." (p.55) realizing this, gandhi adds silence to his experiment with truth. another thing that gandhi learns at certain points in his life-long experiment, is that one has to be able to suppress one's emotions and pocket the insults one gets, because otherwise, whenever insulted, one will get offended and experience emotional outbursts, which is likely to result in violence and distortion of truth. gandhi experienced this when his brother asked him to use his friendship with a sahib in order to get his brother out of a trouble. gandhi recognized this as an exploitation of friendship, and to gandhi, this has proved disastrous.

gandhi's experiment with truth was showing shape when he was violently assaulted for being "coloured." he showed his passiveness by refusing to bring the matter into legal accounts. not only passiveness, but gandhi also showed forgiveness and ability to think positively. he claims that he had forgiven the man even before he apologized, because gandhi thinks that the man doesn't know what he is doing because "all coloured people are the same to him." (p.113) gandhi's reasoning to uphold truth with the highest regard becomes clear when in the case with dada abdulla he made a claim that "facts mean truth, and once we adhere to truth, the law comes to our aid naturally." gandhi was still a normal human being, he did not renounce the world nor was he able to renounce his emotions, but one success that can be learned from him is his ability to restrain his feelings. many ocassion gandhi experienced insults that enraged him, but he always managed to restrain his feelings. gandhi was also not afraid of making sacrifices, such as taking off his turban, as long as it was "worthy of a better cause." (p.129) another instance that shows gandhi's passiveness is when a christian mother he frequently visited, asked him to not talk to her son about giving up meat because she is worried that the son will become ill. to this, gandhi claims that the best solution is for him to stop his visits. (p.141). gandhi also shows his belief that people are good and practices his non-violent campaign when he claims that he "has trusts in their sense of fairness." (p.168) this happens when gandhi made a visit to south africa and people there started getting violent upon his arrival.

post 14: evolutionary psychology

2004-08-02T02:33:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:05:08

i read the article on evolutionary psychology twice and i still don't quite get how evolution plays into this. if i am not mistaken, what the writer means by evolutionary psychology, is that exposure to moral questions activate different parts of the brain, and brain is thought to be a product of evolution. what joshua greene, a neuroscientist from princeton, tries to argue, is that attempts to answer moral questions are not solely a product of human reasoning; emotions also play a role in such attempts. his current research using MRI scanner to take the image of the brain while the subject attempts to answer moral and nonmoral questions has shown that nonmoral questions activate parts of the brain used to answer logical questions, while moral questions activate both the parts used for logic, and the parts used for emotions.

greene thinks there is more to morality than just what meets the eye. he claims that morality is "instinctive" that even animals have their own systems of morality. the author of the article, carl zimmer, gives examples about how monkeys punish other monkeys who do not behave for the benefit of the whole monkey society. pretty much like mill's utilitarianism that greene claims to have put "what's good before what's right." now, if morality is really that simple, then philosophers like immanuel kant wouldn't have gone through all the trouble to formulate ethics. greene seems to have particular fondness for kantian ethics, since he claims it to put "what's right before what's good."

if the answers people give to moral dilemmas are really products of evolution, then the research greene is doing might help scientists, or psychologists, or even philosophers to understand better how people actually comes up with those answers. so far the conclusion that greene has come up with from people's brain imaging data that he collected using the MRI scanner, is that emotions does play role in moral dilemmas. so merely human reasoning does not provide adequate basis for one who wants to formulate a universal law of morality.

post 13: cloning articles

2004-08-02T02:32:00.000-07:00

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:03:16

cloning is the art of ---roughly putting it--- copy-pasting one's genetic code into a newly developed embryo. this embryo will then develop to form a copy of the person whose genetic code is copy-pasted to the embryo. in other word, this art creates a CLONE of the person, and for that reason is called cloning. one of the newest cloning method is the nuclear transplantation cloning, which successfully created a cloned sheep scientists named dolly. there are three other different types of cloning: molecular, cellular, and blastomere. molecular cloning is a method to duplicate a segment of DNA that produces a biologically significant substance, by using bacteria as a host. cellular cloning is a method that clones particular cells of the body, used to test drug effects on body cells. blastomere cloning is a method to create a copy of the embryo by splitting the embryo early in the development, before it reaches the blastocyst stage. aside from these definitions, the more interesting part of cloning is the ethical issues it raises.

human cloning is claimed to have breached the fine line between mortality and divinity, and thus scientists who practice cloning are said to be playing god, since only god can create human beings (or make copies, in this case). but the argument that people put forth for this claim seems to be based on the thought that creating a clone means defying the natural way of creation. to this, it is then argued that many things we have been doing now are also unnatural; things such as birth control pill and other medical assistance to help the birth of a child that is unlikely to survive are not natural. but the fact is that such things have been helpful to the society, and these things, though unnatural, have helped the society for the better. why then use a claim that cloning defies natural process when we're already living in a world where things do not go naturally?

another claim against the human cloning is with regard to having another identical person. this brings things back to the classic nature vs nurture argument. the unfortunate thing about cloning is that it can only make a replica of the genetic code (nature), but not the effect that is caused by nurture. now, with no intention to offend any of the nurture or nature proponent, i think it is safe to claim that on this issue there is no black or white. both nature and nurture affect the growth of a person evenly, if not almost. such a replication process as cloning, can only replicate the nature side of a person: the biological part, and this is known to make up at most 50% of a person. so there is a 50-50 chance that although the clone is identical to the original, it might behave differently and grow differently. thus, no matter how many clones we make of a person, the chances of getting an identical person with identical behaviour will be slim to none, as it would constitute the exact same environment for that person to be brought up in.

post 11: singer -- abortion, euthanasia, poverty

2004-08-02T02:31:00.001-07:00

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:13:12

abortion:

simply put, singer is for abortion. by applying his ethical theory that is highly influenced by utilitarianism, singer challenges the premise that a fetus is an innocent human being. singer claims that a fetus is not a human being; he considers the level of rationality, self-consciousness, and awareness, and concludes that a fetus is at the same level as that of nonhuman animals. a fetus, singer claims, has no sense of rationality, no awareness, and is not self-conscious. since a fetus does not have the characteristics of a person, then it cannot claim the rights of being a person. singer also challenges the claim that fetus has the right of a person because it has a potential for life. he claims that although a fetus IS a potential human being, the argument that it is wrong to kill a potential human being is a weak one. again singer claims that having a potential to become a human being does not imply that the fetus can claim the rights of a human being. he also addresses the objection that says that killing a fetus would deprive the world of something that is intrinsically valuable: he argues that contraception and celibacy does the pretty much same thing but are not considered to be morally wrong. singer claims, however, from a utilitarianist standpoint, that the killing of a fetus does cause pain and not pleasure, not to the fetus itself, but to the parents of the fetus. thus, he concludes that if the parents have no objection then abortion does not inflict pain on anyone and ---from a utilitarianist point of view--- is not morally wrong.

euthanasia:

peter singer stands to defend that euthanasia should be justified as an action that is NOT morally incorrect. he addresses three different types of euthanasia: voluntary, one in which the person to be killed requested so because he considers that his life is no longer worth living; involuntary, one in which the person to be killed is killed against his will to go on living or is killed prior to being asked for consent; and nonvoluntary, one in which the person to be killed is in such a condition that he cannot make a decision on whether to go on living or not. singer justifies voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia, but not involuntary. he considers involuntary as morally incorrect since it is done against the person's will to live on, and if the person chooses to live on, then clearly living on (although under pain) gives the person more pleasure and singer's utilitarian principle then justifies living on. this same argument goes for the voluntary euthanasia. nonvoluntary however, is quite differently argued. singer sticks with his utilitarian principle and claims that in case of defective birth, if the child cannot then lead a life of a good quality, then taking the life of the child is justified. for singer, such a thing as an unworthy life to live exists, and euthanasia is justified for those who are living unworthy lives.

poverty:

in a nutshell, singer argues that human beings are morally obliged to help prevent absolute poverty, as long as the sacrifice made to do such a thing is not something of comparable significance. singer harshly compares not helping to murder, by addressing five objections to his comparison. first, singer addresses the lack of identifiable victim: if a person KNOWS that not helping causes the death of some people, then deciding not to help will be the same as murder, despite there is no specific victim. second, singer addresses the lack of certainty that the money sent to help will actually be a help: for singer, this is a valid point in the argument, but still is not acceptable; he gives an example about a speeding motorist who does not harm any pedestrian, but the act of speeding itself is already unacceptable. third, singer addresses the claim that we are not responsible for other people starving since they would still be starving even if we didn't exist: this point is considered irrelevant to singer; he takes the notion of a consequentialist by saying that if someone starving is a result of us not sending our money to help, then we are at fault, regardless of whether we exist or not. fourth, singer addresses the claim that motivation of not helping and murder is different: again singer gives an example about the speeding motorist; his intention was of course just to feel the adrenaline rush from speeding. but if he ends up killing someone in the process, then he is held responsible, regardless of his intial intention. and the fifth, singer addresses the claim that it is easier to not kill than to save lives, since saving lives could probably mean lowering our standards to that below our bare necessities: this claim, for singer, is not sound because it takes into account our society, in which donating is done for the praise; he claims that praise or blame does not justify right or wrong. singer also argues that it is possible for us to help without lowering our standards to that of below bare necessity. he gives examples on things we can sacrifice to help prevent poverty, which is of greater moral significance: expensive dinners, overseas holidays, larger house, extra cars, etc. singer in "practical ethics" also brought up the objection from triage. the concept of triage says that we should not aid those who do not need aid and those to whom the aid will become useless. this is in a way similar to "lifeboat ethics" in which people in a lifeboat will not let those floating in the ocean to jump in because the boat will drown. singer disagrees with such a concept that claims the rich should not help the poor because the poor will drag the rich down with them. singer proposes different ways to handle different poverty type, but he insists that the poor should not be left to starve.

POST 10: singer ch.1-5

2004-08-02T02:31:00.000-07:00

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:23:56

peter singer's view on ethics is that of some universalized law that relates to equality. his ethical views on practical issues are, as he himself stated, highly utilitarianist. making references to untilitarianists like bentham and mill, singer claims that utilitarian view on ethics is highly suitable for practical issues such as animal rights, abortions, euthanasia, and poverty. utilitarianism itself is an ethical view that considers good as being the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. this idea was formerly focused on individuals, but mill generalized it to maximizing the total pleasure of the whole society. now, holding this ethical view in high regards, singer incorporates this idea of utilitarianism into the notion of equality that he considers important in formulating morality and ethics.

singer apparently takes equality into account in all of his arguments. it seems that his claim is that something is moral, or correct, or justified, if it does not create inequality. for singer, equality in a nutshell is equal consideration of interests. so an action can only uphold equality if the interests of every side that is affected by this action have been equally taken into account. in his argument on animal rights, singer claims that just because animals are different from us in many ways, does not imply that their interests can be disregarded. doing so then leads to speciesism, which is not any different from racism, only that it discriminates against other species and not other races. while singer seems to be against the killing of animals, he does accept that there are some animals that are not self-conscious and not autonomous and says that the case against animal killings is weak for these animals. however, singer addresses other arguments that may be used against animal rights. he counters the argument on whether animals can feel pain by arguing that there is no reason that they cannot since vertebrates all have fundamentally similar nervous system, including us. thus if we can feel pain, then they can, too. singer also counters the argument claiming that we are justified to eat animals since animals eat each other. but we are not like animals: while some animals are herbivores, some other are carnivores and they NEED meat to live. human beings however, do NOT NEED animals to live. eating meat is a luxury, and the very fact that we can still survive without eating meat, gives no justification on eating them.

lane's argument on animal rights is simliar to singer's. similar in a sense that they address the same kind of objections to support their claim. lane, like singer, claims that animals can experience pain, based on the fact that they have nervous system. he strengthens his argument by claiming that when the central nervous system is shut down, pain disappears; thus, anything that has a central nervous system must be able to experience pain. another point lane tries to make is the question on whether it is NECESSARY to eat meat. like singer, lane also claims that human beings do not NEED meat to survive, and that meat is simply a luxury. lane also goes on, in defense of vegetarianism, to ask us to put ourselves in the animals' position. he invents a scenario in which a transhuman being which intelligence to us is like us to a cow, comes to us wanting to eat us. lane then claims that intelligence also cannot be used as an excuse to to kill animals for food.

Re: einztein_o07

2004-08-02T02:29:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:59:12

nicely said. that's one of my life principle also; believe, and you will manage.
at the beginning of the week everything seemed impossible, but now, wow. i got all two of my midterms DONE. before time, too.

i like being nocturnal, by the way. it's much more peaceful. there's no parents telling me to do this and that, there's no sister who keeps annoying me every couple of minutes. no wonder those owls and rabbits and raccoons live in peace. well, maybe not raccoons.

has anyone ever had a fight with a raccoon? back when i lived in the ucsd dorms my friends and i always got ambushed by a family of raccoons. there were 5 of them. even the kids were vicious, it's crazy. so we usually took roundtrip just to avoid getting ambushed by the raccoons. but one day we got tired and we decided not to take a round trip. we decided to stand up against them raccoons and if they ambushed us again, we've decided to fight them. fist for a fist, bite for a bite. well, they did ambush us again and so we got into a fight. 3 guys and 5 raccoons.

raccoons 1
guys 0

don't laugh, we were outnumbered

abortion: a legalized murder

2004-08-02T02:14:00.000-07:00

Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 02:08:55

abortion is an issue that has been debated over and over again since the supreme court ruling on roe vs wade, but up until now, there has not been any agreement on either sides regarding the issue of morality in abortion. the supreme court ruling in roe vs wade in 1973 declares that abortion is permitted for a woman, given that the pregnancy has not gone past the first 2 trimesters. since such decision is made a law, people have been debating on the issues of morality implied in abortion.

the proponent of abortion calls themselves the "pro-choice" people. they hold a firm belief that all women have the right to do whatever they want with their own body. that is obviously inarguable, since they are free people, but what becomes the question is: what about the child? or to be more precise, what about the fetus? should it be given the rights of a human, which case makes abortion a murder, or not?

the opponent of abortion, calls themselves the "pro-life" people. they refuse to be simply called the "anti-abortion" people because they claim that they are more than just in opposition to abortion; pro-life people "oppose any cultural expediency that view death as a solution." of course this self-appointed title causes disagreement from the pro-choice people; they think the "pro-life" title notoriously implies that the pro-choice people are simply the exact opposite, that they are "pro-death." charles colson counters this disagreement by saying, "well, if you favor a procedure that makes a heart stop beating and brain activity cease, wouldn't an objective observer call that promoting death?" (2)

pro-choice people often claim that fetus is not living being, and hence abortion is not an act of murder. although there might be some truth in this claim, this kind of argument has been left out by modern pro-choicers. in an attempt to make their claim that abortion is not murder even stronger, they dare to agree with the pro-lifers that a fetus IS a living being. the fact that a fetus "is a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow," leads these pro-choicers to accept the fact that a fetus IS alive. however, what they disagree with the pro-lifers, is whether the fetus has the same right as a human being or not. brian elroy mckinley claims that although a fetus is alive and human ---that it has DNA and all sorts of genes that will allow it to develop into a human being--- it is not yet a PERSON who, by definition, possesses consciousness. moreover, the fact that a fetus is NOT physically independent strengthen the argument that a fetus is not a person and thus abortion is not an act of murder. mckinley considers that "abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body."(5)

from a medical point of view, it is claimed that terminating a pregnancy proves to be less of a risk for the woman herself, regardless of medical conditions or age. moreover, women who possess medical conditions such as diabetes with retinopathy, cardiac or renal complications, advanced cardiac disease, renal failure, sickle cell disease, autoimmune disease, and psychiatric disease, will be at much significant risk if they decide to carry on with their pregnancy. (8)

pro-life people have been using the bible as moral guidance to issues like abortions, but since the bible is not accepted universally as a moral guidance, i will skip any pro-life arguments that use the bible as a basis of argument. in an article in leadershipU, sue bohlin, who is a pro-lifer, claims the bible itself does not give an insight on the issue of abortion that is anything more than the "thou shalt not murder" commandment. how then, did these people come about relating such commandment to the fetus? bohlin claims that the reason to that might go all the way back to the tradition of jews. the jews word for young children, is exactly the same with the word they use for the unborn, yeled. the jews did not make any distinction between young children and the fetus, thus claiming that even killing the fetus is an act of murder. though pro-life, bohlin also avoids using the bible as the only reason to support her argument. for bohlin, the reason people want the convinience of easy access to abortion is more than just what meets the eye; she claims that the main reason is because people "want sexual freedom without consequences." abortion is a way to eliminate such consequences. according to bohlin, however, having an abortion but NOT admitting it as a wrong act is a false move. bohlin argues that if a woman does not grieve for the loss, or tries to restrain the grief, the emotional pain will not go anywhere. holding back such emotional pain will eventually turn them into "self-destruct mode" because of the severe depression they have to undergo. (1)

this view is also backed up by ian gentles, who in an article for the humanlife review claims that females do experience "negative emotional consequences" of abortion, such as depression and guilt. he brought up the survey result that says many women decide to go with abortion because they are being pressured by men. when a woman takes the decision to have an abortion due to pressure from her partner, she has a greater likelihood to be suffering from these "negative emotional consequences." gentles claims that "abortion often suits men’s convenience much better than it does women’s." (4)

the pro-life people usually consider abortion as a somewhat darwinian act of survival of the fittest. 34 states in the united states have a fetal homicidal law. this law basically says that any crime against a mother that also injures or kills her unborn will be treated as a crime with two victims, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF ABORTION. john s. piper, in an article he wrote for onDOCTRINE, claims that such a law is ridiculous. it is ridiculous in a way that the state gives the right of a human being to the fetus that the mother is carrying in the case of a crime, but deliberately takes away such right when the mother wishes for an abortion. so in other words, the will of the mother determines the life of the potential child. to put it in piper's word: "the awesome thing is that we endow her will not just with sovereignty over her unborn baby, but with the authority to define it: if she wants it, it is a baby, a person. if she does not want it, it is not a baby, not a person." piper also claims that this promotes the idea that "the will of the strong creates (or nullifies) the personhood of the weak," and in this particular case, it nullifies. (7)

mark earley, in his article also in onDOCTRINE, brought up the biological pro-choice argument made by alexander sanger, who is a pro-choice activist. in sanger's book beyond choice: reproductive freedom in the 21st century, sanger makes the claim that the reason for reproduction is to make sure that "our genes are passed along" to the offspring. if this is the case, then if the mother feels that she is unable to take care of her child, or if the child is going to be handicapped or unhealthy, then it is better for her to undergo abortion, because this ensures that her genes will be passed on in a more favorable circumstances. sanger claims that "the only thing more important than life is the propagation of life." in other words, for sanger, a life is replaceable. earley considers this as an unacceptable argument; he rebuttles it by claiming that "each human life is unique, that no one is replaceable." (3)

in defense of the pro-lifers, sue bohlin claims that early indication that the child is going to be forever handicapped or is carrying some major disease that will impair the child forever is also not a reason to allow abortion. bohlin provides an example about the sawyers family, whose third child is diagnosed with down's syndrome, even after repeated testing. doctors and fellow friends have suggested them to undergo an abortion, since the diagnosis implies that their third child will forever be handicapped. the sawyers family, however, decides to proceed with the delivery. much to their surprise, the third child ends up being "the healthiest, most robust, smartest little kid" one has ever seen. of course such case does not occur most of the time, but bohlin main point is that even medical diagnosis can sometimes not be trusted. to put it in her words: "how many other healthy babies are being aborted after the parents get misleading or just plain wrong test results?" (1)

an article in the atlantic online talks about the prosecution of dr. kenneth edelin in the killing of a child. edelin was performing a legal abortion on a seventeen-year old female, but the court found that although the abortion was legal, the act of killing of the fetus itself was not. district attorney newman flanagan argues that what edelin did was categorized as manslaughter, because according to an eyewitness, the fetus "struggled for air and died" after being taken out by edelin from the womb. the examination of a medical examiner and a pathologist determines that, on the basis of the lungs structure, it was possible that the fetus drew breath outside the womb. edelin, suspected to be a pro-choicer, claimed that he did not have any intention of delivering a live baby in the first place since he declared that doing so would be "contrary to the wishes of the mother." (6)

arguments regarding the issue of abortion from both pro-choice and pro-life people are all sound arguments. but one fact that both sides cannot deny is that a fetus is alive, and thus, taking the life of a living being can be considered a murder. however, there are still issues regarding whether the fetus has human rights or not, and such issues remain to be studied before anyone can create a universalized law of morality that can be used as a guidance in such issues.

(1) bohlin, sue -- ABORTION
(2) colson, charles --- ANTICS WITH SEMANTICS WHY 'PRO-LIFE' MEANS PRO-LIFE
(3) earley, mark --- IRREPLACEABLE - WHY THE 'BIOLOGICAL' ARGUMENT FOR ABORTION DOESN'T WORK
(4) gentles, ian -- WOMEN'S HEALTH AFTER ABORTION: A FRESH LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE
(5) mcKinley, brian elroy -- WHY ABORTION IS MORAL
(6) mydans, seth -- WHEN IS AN ABORTION NOT AN ABORTION?
(7) piper, john s. -- ABORTION AND THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
(8) trupin, suzanne r., MD -- ABORTION

FINAL

2004-07-31T15:40:00.000-07:00

a. Name: Benedectus Juwono

b. Username: einztein_o07

c. How many posts did you complete in total for the whole semester? Give me the dates for each. Make sure they are all on your website (date and number them if possible).
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 03:42:28
Subject: post 1: on happiness
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 04:26:59
Subject: discussion, rather? -- please read
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:52:07
Subject: post 2: epicurus vs epictetus
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:33:02
Subject: Re: discussion, rather? -- please read
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 21:19:40
Subject: Re: Very Important!!
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:35:10
Subject: Re: post 1: on happiness
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:34:05
Subject: post 3: existentialism
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:45:53
Subject: post 4: augustine vs aquinas
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:30:18
Subject: post 5: spinoza
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:38:05
Subject: field trip: museum of tolerance visit
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:01
Subject: Re: Question About my Blogger Site
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:32:34
Subject: Re: Just wondering
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:07:44
Subject: Re: So...house everyone's "Saturday" nite????
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:47:50
Subject: Re: [ethicssummer04] Re: I don't think I can handle
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 02:04:44
Subject: on 300 words/essay
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:30:27
Subject: POST 6: HUME VS KANT AND MY MORAL SYSTEM
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:33:29
Subject: Re: [ethicssummer04] Re: on 300 words/essay
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:03:12
Subject: post 7: marx vs hobbes vs mill
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:03:28
Subject: post 8: nietzsche
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 05:57:49
Subject: post 9: nietzsche passages
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 06:00:02
Subject: Re: einztein_o07
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:16:54
Subject: Re: einztein_o07
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:59:12
Re: einztein_o07
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:23:56
POST 10: singer ch.1-5
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:13:12
post 11: singer -- abortion, euthanasia, poverty
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:03:16
post 13: cloning articles
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:05:08
post 14: evolutionary psychology
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:02:37
post 15: gandhi
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 02:08:55
research paper -- abortion: a legalized murder

d. List ALL of the visits you made (tolerance center, Hindu temple or Humane Society or PETA organization, etc.). Make sure you have a section on your website for your research where you "detail with thick description" these field trips/projects. If you did not visit a location for the second project indicate what topic you researched and how many sources you utilized for it. i have visited only the museum of tolerance. the second half of the course might be considered easier than the first, but it's still a lot of readings and posts to do. plus i have another philosophy class (david lane's phil 5 class), which also takes up a lot of my time. so i have not yet gotten a chance to visit any of the place for the 2nd research. i think i'll just do the individual research.

e. Please list what "grade" you received on your midterm examination. A-

f. What reading did you complete in this course? Did you read the fourteen theorists in Great Traditions? Did you read the material by Nietzsche (packet I gave a meeting)? Did you read ALL of Singer's book? Did you read the Gandhi book pp. 1-250? Did you read the article on CLONING? Evolutionary Psychology article? Explain in detail what reading you completed and "what reading you skipped." Be exact. i read all fourteen theorists in the great traditions, all materials in the handout, all of singer's book, and page 1-250 of gandhi's book. i have also read all of the internet articles that are required for posts. i did not read any of the optional readings.

g. Out of all the reading that you were assigned what reading would you recommmend for future ethics classes? be specific. Which books? which articles? which chapters? is there reading that you would absolutely not recommend? why? in my philosophy 5 class we read a book by donald palmer, "looking at philosophy," which also talks about the 14 philosophers we read in great traditions. personally, i think palmer's book is much easier to follow than the great traditions. for the nietzsche reading, i think it would be better to assign the whole book to read instead of just selected passages from the book; that way students can really understand the context of the idea he is talking about.

h. Did you complete any extra credit this summer? explain. no i did not. like i have said before in the midterm, the reading workload for two 18-week philosophy classes crammed into 5 weeks is enormous and i couldn't find the time to do beyond the minimum requirement.

***********************

1. Give a very specific outline of the ETHICS of Gandhi as presented in his "autobiography" from pp. 1-250 (up to p. 300 if you read this far) 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? 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.

gandhi's ethics as everyone who has heard of the name knows, revolves around non-violence in finding a solution to every problem. gandhi has a belief that as long as one sticks with the truth, any conflicts will eventually be solved, without the need for violence or force. his autobiography outlines most if not all of his success story of how truth has helped him solved many problems without means of violence. gandhi was first inspired "to follow truth and go through all the ordeals" (p.5)after watching the play HARISCHANDRA. he gave high regard to harishchandra who was fully truthful, and gandhi thought that everyone should be truthful like harishchandra. what gandhi means by "experiment with truth" is that he considers his living truthfully as a life-long experiment, and this autobiography is like the report of his success, failure, and the hardships he has to go through. gandhi experiences hardships early, but whenever his principle to uphold truth fails, he carefully studies what causes the failure. one example was when he was still in highschool and a little misunderstanding caused him to be convicted of lying. he realized that although truthful, he was also at fault for being careless; from that he concludes that "a man of truth must also be a man of care." (p.13) this is similar to an experiment, since in a experiment, one always goes by method of trials and errors. gandhi does the same. he practices his principle, and whenever it fails he adds to the principle something it was lacking before and hence causing it to fail.

gandhi, always being a shy person, realizes that shyness is a great quality to have. by being shy, one would refrain oneself from talking out loud unpreparedly, and this is considered really important for a man who upholds truth. gandhi likes the idea that silence is golden; he claims that silence is a really important aspect in the discipline one needs to uphold truth. gandhi recognizes that "proneness to exaggerate, to suppress or modify the truth, wittingly or unwittingly, is a natural weakness of man, and silence is necessary in order to surmount it." (p.55) realizing this, gandhi adds silence to his experiment with truth. another thing that gandhi learns at certain points in his life-long experiment, is that one has to be able to suppress one's emotions and pocket the insults one gets, because otherwise, whenever insulted, one will get offended and experience emotional outbursts, which is likely to result in violence and distortion of truth. gandhi experienced this when his brother asked him to use his friendship with a sahib in order to get his brother out of a trouble. gandhi recognized this as an exploitation of friendship, and to gandhi, this has proved disastrous.

gandhi's experiment with truth was showing shape when he was violently assaulted for being "coloured." he showed his passiveness by refusing to bring the matter into legal accounts. not only passiveness, but gandhi also showed forgiveness and ability to think positively. he claims that he had forgiven the man even before he apologized, because gandhi thinks that the man doesn't know what he is doing because "all coloured people are the same to him." (p.113) gandhi's reasoning to uphold truth with the highest regard becomes clear when in the case with dada abdulla he made a claim that "facts mean truth, and once we adhere to truth, the law comes to our aid naturally." gandhi was still a normal human being, he did not renounce the world nor was he able to renounce his emotions, but one success that can be learned from him is his ability to restrain his feelings. many ocassion gandhi experienced insults that enraged him, but he always managed to restrain his feelings. gandhi was also not afraid of making sacrifices, such as taking off his turban, as long as it was "worthy of a better cause." (p.129) another instance that shows gandhi's passiveness is when a christian mother he frequently visited, asked him to not talk to her son about giving up meat because she is worried that the son will become ill. to this, gandhi claims that the best solution is for him to stop his visits. (p.141). gandhi also shows his belief that people are good and practices his non-violent campaign when he claims that he "has trusts in their sense of fairness." (p.168) this happens when gandhi made a visit to south africa and people there started getting violent upon his arrival.

i think such philosopy of live creates amazement on people, and that makes gandhi a moral hero for many people. gandhi was not the only one in this world who believes that peace is a much better solution than violence, but these people who believe rarely turn their belief into realization. gandhi makes himself an example that it is possible for one not to get provoked into violence. gandhi's principle of non-violent protest is EXACTLY what we need in the world today. when a number of people rally together to protest about an issue, their main purpose is to get their message of disapproval across. but these sorts of rallies often end up in violence, either provoked or not. when a protest turns violent, what the world sees at fault is the protesters, not the main issue they are protesting about, thus defeating the whole purpose of the protest AND making the participants look bad. if they apply gandhi's non-violent system and learn how to pocket insults in order not to get provoked, the world will be moved and understand the issue they are protesting. people like john lennon and his wife, yoko ono, had been a follower of gandhi's ethics and their non-violent campaign against war: "give peace a chance," has been much more successful than other campaigns that people carry out.

------------------------------------------

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. Would Gandhi disagree or agree with Singer? In what areas of ethics? Explain your stance here.

utilitarianism is an ethical theory that based itself on the concept of greatest pleasure for the most people. what defines good is pleasure, and evil is pain. so in order for one to reach true happiness, pain has to nullified and pleasure has to me maximized. utalitarianism is in a way not any different than hedonism, goes on a little further to claim that morality means promoting the greatest happiness to the most of society. happiness for oneself is not yet the final happiness that everyone seeks, but happiness for the whole entire society is.

singer being a utilitarianist, introduces the importance of the concept of pain in all of his arguments. it seems to me, however, that singer concerns more with nullifying pain rather than maximizing pleasure. for singer, one out of many reasons he considers animal killing (for food) as immoral is the fact that animals experiences pain and pain reduces pleasure. not only this, but also for the case of abortion and euthanasia. whatever results in pain should not be done because it only reduces pleasure, a typical view of utilitarianist. now, of course singer's view on each of these subjects are not exactly that, there is more to it, but for the sake of comparison, i take only the outline of his argument.

this argument would not be very compelling to gandhi. while singer also argues against animal killing, gandhi's reasons concern less on the pain vs pleasure concept that singer's argument revolves around. gandhi's argument is based on his belief that animals ARE inferior to human beings, but because of this human beings should protect them. gandhi does not concern whether animals feel pain or not, but his argument against animal killing proves to be stronger ---at least for me--- because he looks into the values of animals themselves. he sees animals as living beings with values, not something that is to be judged solely on pain and pleasure, like the argument peter singer and david lane gave. if it were up to me only, gandhi's argument is much more convincing than both singer and lane.

on the issue of euthanasia and abortion, i think singer's as-long-as-it-does-not-inflict-pain policy would also not be very compelling to gandhi. gandhi is not a utilitarianist, so whether a fetus can experience pain or not will not be taken into account on his view on abortions. gandhi will most likely argue against abortion, because he is a person who values life, and regardless of whether fetus can experience pain, fetus has a potential of becoming a human being, and for gandhi this is much more valuable. on euthanasia, it is likely that gandhi would be against such a thing, regardless of voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. but when put to practice, say gandhi is faced by someone who voluntarily requests euthanasia, gandhi's passiveness makes it possible that gandhi would just let him have it. after all, gandhi has firm belief in people's "sense of fairness" and therefore trusts them to know what is best for themselves.

------------------------------------------

3. Now reflect on what you think Nietzsche would say about Gandhi's ethics? Would he be impressed or disgusted and WHY??? Make sure to thoroughly explain your answer in light of what you read in the autobiography and what you read by Nietzsche. Be specific.

nietzsche would definitely be disgusted. gandhi's high regards of passiveness in his ethical theory is completely opposite of nietzsche's ethical theory. nietzsche claims that human beings have to use force in order for them to persevere. unlike gandhi, nietzsche have high regards for confrontation; nietzsche claims that confrontation is the only way human beings can evolve for the better. his perfect image of a human being is the superman, one who is able to refuse traditional values and dominate nature as to act the way the superman wills it to be. for nietzsche, evolution means becoming a person who can surpass humanity and master nature. nietzsche's conception of good and evil relates to nature; whatever conforms to nature is good, and whatever contrary is bad, but nietzsche's nature is that of darwin's definition: the survival of the fittest, and nietzsche seems to be taking it literally. he thinks that in nature only the strongest can survive and therefore everyone must strive to be stronger. to this he introduces the idea of "will to power." nietzsche claims that will can be the source of one's power, and with power, one can evolve to be the superman nietzsche regards as the perfect human being.

this idea is completely opposite from gandhi's. gandhi claims that peace and non-violence is the solution to everything, and in his experiment with truth, he has proven that his theory was correct. nietzsche would be disgusted of gandhi's ethics, however, especially with gandhi's passiveness and tendency to avoid conflict. nietzsche claims that only by undergoing conflict can a person evolve for the better, and thus is contradictive with gandhi's ethical theory that teaches one to learn to control emotions and pocket insults. for nietzsche, gandhian ideas like this ---if followed--- will never get human beings to the level of the superman, and thus it is only normal for nietzsche to abhor such passiveness.

nietzsche would also be disgusted by gandhi's ethical view on animals. gandhi values the lives of animals as much as he values the lives of human beings, and thus refrains from killing animals for food. this is in opposition to nietzsche's idea of man's domination over nature. nietzsche claims that the highest level of human beings, the superman, is achieved only after man can use the "will to power" to dominate over nature. but dominating over nature would also mean full domination of animals. gandhi, on the other hand, claims that human beings have to use their superiority to protect the inferior ones, the animals. this idea of protecting the weak goes against nietzsche's principle that in nature, only the strong survives. therefore, it is not a wonder if nietzsche and gandhi can never sit and drink tea together.

------------------------------------------

4. What is the neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism as presented by Lane? (outline the main points/ideas in the article WHY I DO NOT EAT FACES). What is the "utilitarian argument for animal rights" (define) as presented by Singer? Are they the same argument or not? When discussing Singer outline his argument for animal rights drawing specifically from the first couple chapters of his book to illustrate that you read. (hint: you will need to mention and define speciesism and other important ideas and examples from the reading, etc.)

lane's argument on animal rights is simliar to singer's. similar in a sense that they address the same kind of objections to support their claim. lane, like singer, claims that animals can experience pain, based on the fact that they have nervous system. he strengthens his argument by claiming that when the central nervous system is shut down, pain disappears; thus, anything that has a central nervous system must be able to experience pain. another point lane tries to make is the question on whether it is NECESSARY to eat meat. like singer, lane also claims that human beings do not NEED meat to survive, and that meat is simply a luxury. lane also goes on, in defense of vegetarianism, to ask us to put ourselves in the animals' position. he invents a scenario in which a transhuman being which intelligence to us is like us to a cow, comes to us wanting to eat us. lane then claims that intelligence also cannot be used as an excuse to to kill animals for food.

singer's "utilitarian argument for animal rights" apparently takes equality into account in all of his arguments. it seems that his claim is that something is moral, or correct, or justified, if it does not create inequality. for singer, equality in a nutshell is equal consideration of interests. so an action can only uphold equality if the interests of every side that is affected by this action have been equally taken into account. in his argument on animal rights, singer claims that just because animals are different from us in many ways, does not imply that their interests can be disregarded. doing so then leads to speciesism, which is not any different from racism, only that it discriminates against other species and not other races. while singer seems to be against the killing of animals, he does accept that there are some animals that are not self-conscious and not autonomous and says that the case against animal killings is weak for these animals. however, singer addresses other arguments that may be used against animal rights. he counters the argument on whether animals can feel pain by arguing that there is no reason that they cannot since vertebrates all have fundamentally similar nervous system, including us. thus if we can feel pain, then they can, too. singer also counters the argument claiming that we are justified to eat animals since animals eat each other. but we are not like animals: while some animals are herbivores, some other are carnivores and they NEED meat to live. human beings however, do NOT NEED animals to live. eating meat is a luxury, and the very fact that we can still survive without eating meat, gives no justification on eating them.

------------------------------------------

5. Now answer whether 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....use other "ethical theorists," ones that we covered in the course, as a backbone. I encourage your to draw upon material from earlier in the semester. I would like you to use at least three philosophers to justify your position (Hobbes, Mill, Nietzsche, Spinoza, Sartre...whoever you think might fit here and exlain why).

i do NOT believe that animals should have animal rights, but this does not mean that we can then just go around killing animals all we want; there are limits to this. the difficulty of assigning rights to animals is this: should we give all animals the same rights or not? if the answer is yes, we should, then that means a dog in the living room has the same right as the mosquito spreading the west-nile virus. if we can't kill dogs, then we can't kill mosquito as well. if the answer is no, we shouldn't, then we will be giving unfair rights to animals; we will be considering a species of animal greater than another species. why should mammals be considered a higher species to reptiles? why should reptiles be considered a higher species to bugs? or vice versa. this difficulty makes it impossible to assign rights to animals. what kind of rights? which animals should be affected?

many argue using the same basis of argument: "animals can feel pain. humans can feel pain. if humans don't like pain then animals don't like pain as well. if we shouldn't kill human beings because it inflicts pain on them, then we shouldn't kill animals either." as far as the argument goes, it is valid and sound. but there is a problem with it. what is defined by "animals?" mammals? reptiles? or everything in the animal kingdom? vegetarians use the claim that it is immoral to kill animals, but do they not kill ants? or bugs? or gophers causing ruckus in their yard? this might sound extreme, but they never say it is immoral to kill or hurt cows, chicken, fish, and pigs; they claim it is immoral to kill or hurt ANIMALS. no offense, but do they not consider reptiles and bugs animals? again i need to emphasize that i am not saying that we should go around and make every animals extinct.

peter singer argue for animal rights, claiming that as long as killing animals cause pain, then we should not kill animals. in other words, he is saying that if the animal does not feel pain, it is okay to kill it. the problem with this argument is that it is difficult for us to know which animals feel pain and which animal does not. when you hit a dog with a stick, how do you know the howl means that the dog is in pain? how do you know that the dog doesn't have a twisted or retarded dog-brain that the dog becomes one who takes pleasure in being hit by a stick? this might seem ridiculous, but it is not impossible. just like there are people who enjoy hurting themselves, like cutting or stabbing themselves. i forgot the politically correct term for these people, but they do exist. also, how much is it required for the animals before they feel pain? a pinch to a 3-month-old baby does not inflict the same pain as a pinch to arnold schwarznegger. the latter one might inflict pain on the person who pinches instead. if singer claims that killing animals is immoral because it causes pain to the animal, then if we put all the animals to sleep with, say, sleeping gas, then shut down all their nervous system so they cannot feel pain, then it is okay to kill them? of course it is still not okay. pain cannot and should not be used as a reason against animal killing.

david lane uses an example about transhuman being who are far more intelligent than us and find our meat to be delicious and argues that it is still not moral for them to eat us. lane also compares these intelligence of these transhuman being to us is like us to cows. well, if there is such a thing as those transhuman beings, then maybe they DO deserve to enjoy our meat as delicacies. of course lane was just taking an extreme example, and i fully understand that he is just trying to put us in the position of the cows. but here is the reason why ---even if these transhuman beings do exist--- we are different from the cows. we can assemble. we can join forces to resist. if these transhuman beings try to eat us, of course we will fight back. if we do not have the will to fight back in order to preserve ourselves, then sure, they have all the right in the universe to eat us. i am not joking, but if somehow these cows, chickens, and pigs join forces to freed themselves from being the source of food of human beings, then maybe they won't be food anymore. i am not talking about intelligence either; a bird is more intelligent than any of us in building a stiff, strong nest that will not fall of a branch of a tree from merely a bunch of trunks. i am talking about the will. we have will, and that makes us superior than these animals.

regarding gandhi's argument, claiming that since we are superior to animals, it is our duty to protect them, i have to say i agree, though not fully. but again this does not mean we should all give up from eating meat. i didn't fully agree with gandhi because again, what kind of animals are we talking about here? why should we prefer cows over slugs or mosquitos? now, i do not know whether mosquitos or slugs have nervous system or not, but IF THEY DON'T, then a cow with its nervous system shut down is no different than these puny mosquitos. and even if they DO have nervous system, why is it not immoral for us to kill mosquitos? lately, mosquitos have been threatening our lives with the west nile virus, so to take precaution, we clean up all kinds of place that can be used by these mosquitos to live. in other words, we are killing these mosquitos so that we do not die. and when we kill these mosquitos, do we carefully look first and give them the benefit of the doubt that they're just regular blood-sucking creatures with no west-nile virus? no. we just smack them with our palms instantly and after they're squashed, we then look and say: "oh well, it's just a regular mosquito after all." but again i need to emphasize that i am NOT saying we should all just kill every living animal.

if one wants to defend the cows chickens pigs and fish being killed daily for our food sources, do not use animal rights as a reason to back up the argument. i firmly do NOT believe that animals should be given rights, not because they are worthless or anything degrading like that, but because we have to ask the question to ourselves: WHO ARE WE TO GIVE THESE ANIMALS RIGHTS? are we their creators? no. are they the citizen of our country? no. they just happen to be living here. if they don't like it they can rebel and leave, i would not mind. if one wants to defend these animals from being eaten daily, DO IT OUT OF RESPECT. i can give up meat whenever i want, for i usually give up meat for 40 days every year during lent. of course there are trouble finding variety of cheap nourishing non-meat food that can sustain my need to stay awake for 18-20 hours everyday doing college work, but meat is NOT something i need to survive. i DO agree with that argument. all i'm saying is that pain should not be used as an excuse for us to not eat animals. when gandhi argues that we do not meat to survive, i feel that such is a much stronger argument than what singer and lane has proposed. of course singer proposed such an argument as well, but his main point lies in the "pain" argument.

argument to defend animals based on their pain is ---at least for me--- ridiculous. giving animals their rights is even worse. what's next? the neighbor cat being taken into prison, tried, and sentenced into 5 years in prison for hurting my hamster? some other animal rights activist argue that we shouldn't feel superior to animals, that they have rights as well. but think of it this way: if we give them rights, then they have to follow regulations as well, and by regulations i mean the constitution and the state laws. are they able to comprehend such? if they ARE able, that means we have to give them the same right we have, and that means cats and dogs and mosquitos and slugs will have as much right to education as us. i can sense affirmative action bill being passed by the supreme court to let these animals the right to a higher education. am i being ridiculous? i think not. this is what will happen if we give animals the same right as us. "well, of course not the SAME right, you doofus," you say. okay, let's give them lesser rights. they don't need education and cars, maybe just a right for them to live. but then that implies most if not all of the people in the world will be sentenced to prison for mass massacre of ants, attempted murders mosquitos, and such ridiculous charges. like i have said before: when animal rights activists argue for the rights for animals, they should be implying ALL animals, because otherwise they will have to be specifics like dog rights activist, or cow rights activist. i do not think animals not need rights, what they need is RESPECT.

friedrich nietzsche will, of course, support this argument of mine. as much as i hate him for his arguments (and i have my own reasons for that), he will agree that my argument here reflects his "will to power" concept. nietzsche claims that human beings will have the power to dominate over nature if they can evolve into a better human beings he called superman. this idea of nietzsche reflects darwin's theory of evolution, or simply put, the survival of the fittest. this is the concept i used in my argument; if those cows or chickens can evolve into a better beings (like supercow or superchicken) that can think and join forces, then they will be able to fight us, the demonic meat-eaters. kinda like the movie "chicken run." too bad the chickens in this world don't have mel-gibson-like intelligence to organize such an escape.

mill's utilitarian principle would also support this view, but for a weaker reasoning. utilitarianism concerns with the concept of the greatest pleasure for the most people. well, although living without meat is possible, but giving up something tasty will result in less pleasure and will not go along with utilitarianim. one might argue against this by saying that vegans gain longer healthy life by giving up meat, but then again, it all comes back to the questions: how much longer? is longer really worth it? and why can't a meat-eater live a healthy life?

kant's categorical imperative, however, will be the strongest to back up my philosophy regarding animal rights. kant claims that we should "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." so if we want to give animals their rights, then it SHOULD apply to all animals, because otherwise it won't be universal. like i have said before, what right do we have to prefer dogs over mosquitos? if we try the maxim "we should not kill animals" then it would also apply to mosquitos and flies. but now we have west-nile-virus-carrying mosquitos around us, will we just let ourselves be obliterated because of such maxim, and our persistency on animal rights? (animal rights, not dog or cat or cows or chicken rights)

------------------------------------------

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 a bit grey....explain the greyness.....in what circumstances is abortion acceptable to Singer and in what circumstances is it not.)

simply put, singer is for abortion. by applying his ethical theory that is highly influenced by utilitarianism, singer challenges the premise that a fetus is an innocent human being. singer claims that a fetus is not a human being; he considers the level of rationality, self-consciousness, and awareness, and concludes that a fetus is at the same level as that of nonhuman animals. a fetus, singer claims, has no sense of rationality, no awareness, and is not self-conscious. since a fetus does not have the characteristics of a person, then it cannot claim the rights of being a person. singer also challenges the claim that fetus has the right of a person because it has a potential for life. he claims that although a fetus IS a potential human being, the argument that it is wrong to kill a potential human being is a weak one. again singer claims that having a potential to become a human being does not imply that the fetus can claim the rights of a human being. he also addresses the objection that says that killing a fetus would deprive the world of something that is intrinsically valuable: he argues that contraception and celibacy does the pretty much same thing but are not considered to be morally wrong. singer claims, however, from a utilitarianist standpoint, that the killing of a fetus does cause pain and not pleasure, not to the fetus itself, but to the parents of the fetus. thus, he concludes that if the parents have no objection then abortion does not inflict pain on anyone and ---from a utilitarianist point of view--- is not morally wrong.

i have personal dislikes for singer and his argument, although at first i found them quite convincing. singer based his arguments solely on materialistic aspect, but probably all utilitarianists do. the way he values life is through the concept of "pleasure vs pain." something is valuable if it produces pleasure, and not if it produces pain. his argument makes sense, but i feel that it lacks the compassion for the fetus itself. singer claims from a utilitarian point of view that since a fetus is not a human being, then the interest of the fetus itself should not be taken into consideration. i am not against animal killing, but fetus is not the same as animals, so i am against the killing of a fetus. it is extremely displeasing to see how singer classifies fetus in the same category as a nonhuman animals. a fetus has the potential to develop into human beings with intelligence while animals will develop into animals whose instinct dominates over intelligence. for this reason, a fetus should be valued more than animals.

------------------------------------------

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.)

peter singer stands to defend that euthanasia should be justified as an action that is NOT morally incorrect. he addresses three different types of euthanasia: voluntary, one in which the person to be killed requested so because he considers that his life is no longer worth living; involuntary, one in which the person to be killed is killed against his will to go on living or is killed prior to being asked for consent; and nonvoluntary, one in which the person to be killed is in such a condition that he cannot make a decision on whether to go on living or not. singer justifies voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia, but not involuntary. he considers involuntary as morally incorrect since it is done against the person's will to live on, and if the person chooses to live on, then clearly living on (although under pain) gives the person more pleasure and singer's utilitarian principle then justifies living on. this same argument goes for the voluntary euthanasia. nonvoluntary however, is quite differently argued. singer sticks with his utilitarian principle and claims that in case of defective birth, if the child cannot then lead a life of a good quality, then taking the life of the child is justified. for singer, such a thing as an unworthy life to live exists, and euthanasia is justified for those who are living unworthy lives.

i hold firmly to my belief that there is no life not worth living, no matter how painful or unpleasant. so regardless of the utilitarian principle that singer upholds, i am against the concept of euthanasia, involuntary or nonvoluntary. however, on the case of voluntary euthanasia, if the person keeps insisting that his life is not worth living, then no matter how hard i try to talk him into not doing it, i will not succeed. like gandhi, i also believe that a person knows what is best for himself, and thus if he thinks death is the best possible solution, then euthanasia is justified. but in the event where the person cannot make a decision for himself, then euthanasia should never be done. such a strong issue as euthanasia is only justified if personally requested by the person suffering.

------------------------------------------

8. As an ethical theorist what does Singer say about poverty, refugees and the environment? Explain his position in each of these area. Do you agree with his positions here....explain? If so (or for the sake of the argument imagine that you do) what can you personally do to "make a difference" in these areas. Explain in depth.

apparently the singer book i bought online was not the correct one. i did not notice this until now, because singer's discussions on animals, euthanasia, and abortion were all there. even the chapter on poverty was there also. but this edition of practical ethics stops at chapter 10. i have punched in the correct ISBN number, but apparently the person selling it was not being truthful about it. there is no edition number written on the book, but my guess is that this is definitely an older edition and not the 3rd. in this book, chapter 5 talks about animal rights, chapter 6 talks about abortion, chapter 7 talks about euthanasia, chapter 8 talks about poverty, but chapter 9 and 10 does not talk about any of the refugees or environment that is being asked. chapter 9 is titled "ends and means" and chapter 10 is titled "why act morally?" so i guess i would have to skip the question about refugees and environment.

on poverty however, i can say this much:

in a nutshell, singer argues that human beings are morally obliged to help prevent absolute poverty, as long as the sacrifice made to do such a thing is not something of comparable significance. singer harshly compares not helping to murder, by addressing five objections to his comparison. first, singer addresses the lack of identifiable victim: if a person KNOWS that not helping causes the death of some people, then deciding not to help will be the same as murder, despite there is no specific victim. second, singer addresses the lack of certainty that the money sent to help will actually be a help: for singer, this is a valid point in the argument, but still is not acceptable; he gives an example about a speeding motorist who does not harm any pedestrian, but the act of speeding itself is already unacceptable. third, singer addresses the claim that we are not responsible for other people starving since they would still be starving even if we didn't exist: this point is considered irrelevant to singer; he takes the notion of a consequentialist by saying that if someone starving is a result of us not sending our money to help, then we are at fault, regardless of whether we exist or not. fourth, singer addresses the claim that motivation of not helping and murder is different: again singer gives an example about the speeding motorist; his intention was of course just to feel the adrenaline rush from speeding. but if he ends up killing someone in the process, then he is held responsible, regardless of his intial intention. and the fifth, singer addresses the claim that it is easier to not kill than to save lives, since saving lives could probably mean lowering our standards to that below our bare necessities: this claim, for singer, is not sound because it takes into account our society, in which donating is done for the praise; he claims that praise or blame does not justify right or wrong. singer also argues that it is possible for us to help without lowering our standards to that of below bare necessity. he gives examples on things we can sacrifice to help prevent poverty, which is of greater moral significance: expensive dinners, overseas holidays, larger house, extra cars, etc. singer in "practical ethics" also brought up the objection from triage. the concept of triage says that we should not aid those who do not need aid and those to whom the aid will become useless. this is in a way similar to "lifeboat ethics" in which people in a lifeboat will not let those floating in the ocean to jump in because the boat will drown. singer disagrees with such a concept that claims the rich should not help the poor because the poor will drag the rich down with them. singer proposes different ways to handle different poverty type, but he insists that the poor should not be left to starve.

------------------------------------------

9. Outline the articles on CLONING (handed out at the mandatory meeting), discussing what it is, how is works and MOST IMPORTANTLY the ethical issues involved. Most importanly, having been well informed about cloning now, what is your ethical position here? Explain in depth your position on this topic.

cloning is the art of ---roughly putting it--- copy-pasting one's genetic code into a newly developed embryo. this embryo will then develop to form a copy of the person whose genetic code is copy-pasted to the embryo. in other word, this art creates a CLONE of the person, and for that reason is called cloning. one of the newest cloning method is the nuclear transplantation cloning, which successfully created a cloned sheep scientists named dolly. there are three other different types of cloning: molecular, cellular, and blastomere. molecular cloning is a method to duplicate a segment of DNA that produces a biologically significant substance, by using bacteria as a host. cellular cloning is a method that clones particular cells of the body, used to test drug effects on body cells. blastomere cloning is a method to create a copy of the embryo by splitting the embryo early in the development, before it reaches the blastocyst stage. aside from these definitions, the more interesting part of cloning is the ethical issues it raises.

human cloning is claimed to have breached the fine line between mortality and divinity, and thus scientists who practice cloning are said to be playing god, since only god can create human beings (or make copies, in this case). but the argument that people put forth for this claim seems to be based on the thought that creating a clone means defying the natural way of creation. to this, it is then argued that many things we have been doing now are also unnatural; things such as birth control pill and other medical assistance to help the birth of a child that is unlikely to survive are not natural. but the fact is that such things have been helpful to the society, and these things, though unnatural, have helped the society for the better. why then use a claim that cloning defies natural process when we're already living in a world where things do not go naturally?

another claim against the human cloning is with regard to having another identical person. this brings things back to the classic nature vs nurture argument. the unfortunate thing about cloning is that it can only make a replica of the genetic code (nature), but not the effect that is caused by nurture. now, with no intention to offend any of the nurture or nature proponent, i think it is safe to claim that on this issue there is no black or white. both nature and nurture affect the growth of a person evenly, if not almost. such a replication process as cloning, can only replicate the nature side of a person: the biological part, and this is known to make up at most 50% of a person. so there is a 50-50 chance that although the clone is identical to the original, it might behave differently and grow differently. thus, no matter how many clones we make of a person, the chances of getting an identical person with identical behaviour will be slim to none, as it would constitute the exact same environment for that person to be brought up in.

though i tend to go against cloning, i do feel that there are many benefits we can get from the research. my only reason to be against cloning is the thought that once people can clone, they might not be interested in reproducing anymore. not that i think we should go follow what is natural, but i fear the fact that is also brought up in the article: reducing genetic variation. it might not be scary to have many identical people around the neighborhood, but such a thing will leave the society stagnant. we have to admit that genetic variation does play some role in the various development of a person. with cloning, we reduce this variety of development by half, because now the nature aspect hardly plays any role anymore. variety is thus left only to nurture to determine. i don't know if it will come to that, but it is not an impossibility that this might lead to reducing the growth of the society by half. the positive aspect of cloning, on the other hand, is the development of the stem cell research, which may eventually lead to the development of a treatment that can cure cancer. cellular cloning can be used to replace the cell that is disfunctional due to the tumor growing in or around it. with the development of the method to clone cells, replacement of the cells after the removal of tumor can be made easier.

------------------------------------------

10. Out of everything you studied this term, from the fifteen ethical theorists, to the moral case topics, to the life of Gandhi, 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.

i was astonished that saint augustine and i hold the same ethical view. i have never been exposed to the writings of saint augustine before, until i had to read the confession for my humanities class last spring. i was shocked. as i was reading i thought to myself: hey, this guy came up with the same idea a long time ago, so i've got to be on the right track. i would spend more time reading the city of god over the rest of the summer, since i've got nothing to do after this course. another philosopher whose ethical view has somewhat affected my life is that of epictetus. his idea that true happiness can only be achieved by a disciplined mind, being able to accept the events that are beyond our control, is exactly the way my dad has taught me over the course of my life. epictetus' ethical view is somewhat similar to the old saying that goes: do not want what you do not have, but want what you have. it is quite astonishing, it seems to me, that my dad, who has never studied philosophy throughout his life, was able to teach me the ethical view of a great philosopher of the past.

another philosopher that affected my view on the world is friedrich nietzsche, but in a bad way. it is not that i am biased because i am a catholic, but i just cannot see nietzsche's logic. if his ethical view is ---god forbid--- held to be the correct morality and everyone follows, this world will be filled with war and people who are trying to dominate others in order to become the strongest --- the superman. maybe nietzsche doesn't mean it to be promoting war and violence, but aside from the fact that human beings ARE violent in nature, nietzsche's ethical view will nonetheless promotes such violence to persist. gandhi, however, was a great example and has earned my full respect and admiration. if i had the opportunity, i would probably be like miss schlesin, who worked for gandhi on low salary just because she admires him and likes his principles. i can relate to gandhi in many ways. i have been provoked many times into violence and sometimes the only thing that stops me from bursting into anger is the fear of pain i will get. but now i learned from gandhi that peace and passiveness can also settle a conflict. before reading gandhi i've always been upholding the nietzschian view that only through conflict can human beings evolve for the better. as much as i dislike nietzsche, i had always thought that whenever something unpleasant happens, the best way to settle it is to confront it. gandhi taught me a different method, and he himself has proven it to be successful.

the articles on cloning has also somewhat shifted my stance on the cloning issue. like i have explained in #9, i fear that cloning produces identical persons, and hence reducing genetic variation. from the articles, i learned that although cloning basically copies someone's genetic code, the mutation and the complex development of the DNA and the genes allow a small variation between the copy and the original. not much, but at least not fully identical.

FINAL #10

2004-07-31T06:24:00.000-07:00

10. Out of everything you studied this term, from the fifteen ethical theorists, to the moral case topics, to the life of Gandhi, 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.

i was astonished that saint augustine and i hold the same ethical view. i have never been exposed to the writings of saint augustine before, until i had to read the confession for my humanities class last spring. i was shocked. as i was reading i thought to myself: hey, this guy came up with the same idea a long time ago, so i've got to be on the right track. i would spend more time reading the city of god over the rest of the summer, since i've got nothing to do after this course. another philosopher whose ethical view has somewhat affected my life is that of epictetus. his idea that true happiness can only be achieved by a disciplined mind, being able to accept the events that are beyond our control, is exactly the way my dad has taught me over the course of my life. epictetus' ethical view is somewhat similar to the old saying that goes: do not want what you do not have, but want what you have. it is quite astonishing, it seems to me, that my dad, who has never studied philosophy throughout his life, was able to teach me the ethical view of a great philosopher of the past.

another philosopher that affected my view on the world is friedrich nietzsche, but in a bad way. it is not that i am biased because i am a catholic, but i just cannot see nietzsche's logic. if his ethical view is ---god forbid--- held to be the correct morality and everyone follows, this world will be filled with war and people who are trying to dominate others in order to become the strongest --- the superman. maybe nietzsche doesn't mean it to be promoting war and violence, but aside from the fact that human beings ARE violent in nature, nietzsche's ethical view will nonetheless promotes such violence to persist. gandhi, however, was a great example and has earned my full respect and admiration. if i had the opportunity, i would probably be like miss schlesin, who worked for gandhi on low salary just because she admires him and likes his principles. i can relate to gandhi in many ways. i have been provoked many times into violence and sometimes the only thing that stops me from bursting into anger is the fear of pain i will get. but now i learned from gandhi that peace and passiveness can also settle a conflict. before reading gandhi i've always been upholding the nietzschian view that only through conflict can human beings evolve for the better. as much as i dislike nietzsche, i had always thought that whenever something unpleasant happens, the best way to settle it is to confront it. gandhi taught me a different method, and he himself has proven it to be successful.

the articles on cloning has also somewhat shifted my stance on the cloning issue. like i have explained in #9, i fear that cloning produces identical persons, and hence reducing genetic variation. from the articles, i learned that although cloning basically copies someone's genetic code, the mutation and the complex development of the DNA and the genes allow a small variation between the copy and the original. not much, but at least not fully identical.

FINAL #09

2004-07-31T06:20:00.000-07:00

9. Outline the articles on CLONING (handed out at the mandatory meeting), discussing what it is, how is works and MOST IMPORTANTLY the ethical issues involved. Most importanly, having been well informed about cloning now, what is your ethical position here? Explain in depth your position on this topic.

cloning is the art of ---roughly putting it--- copy-pasting one's genetic code into a newly developed embryo. this embryo will then develop to form a copy of the person whose genetic code is copy-pasted to the embryo. in other word, this art creates a CLONE of the person, and for that reason is called cloning. one of the newest cloning method is the nuclear transplantation cloning, which successfully created a cloned sheep scientists named dolly. there are three other different types of cloning: molecular, cellular, and blastomere. molecular cloning is a method to duplicate a segment of DNA that produces a biologically significant substance, by using bacteria as a host. cellular cloning is a method that clones particular cells of the body, used to test drug effects on body cells. blastomere cloning is a method to create a copy of the embryo by splitting the embryo early in the development, before it reaches the blastocyst stage. aside from these definitions, the more interesting part of cloning is the ethical issues it raises.

human cloning is claimed to have breached the fine line between mortality and divinity, and thus scientists who practice cloning are said to be playing god, since only god can create human beings (or make copies, in this case). but the argument that people put forth for this claim seems to be based on the thought that creating a clone means defying the natural way of creation. to this, it is then argued that many things we have been doing now are also unnatural; things such as birth control pill and other medical assistance to help the birth of a child that is unlikely to survive are not natural. but the fact is that such things have been helpful to the society, and these things, though unnatural, have helped the society for the better. why then use a claim that cloning defies natural process when we're already living in a world where things do not go naturally?

another claim against the human cloning is with regard to having another identical person. this brings things back to the classic nature vs nurture argument. the unfortunate thing about cloning is that it can only make a replica of the genetic code (nature), but not the effect that is caused by nurture. now, with no intention to offend any of the nurture or nature proponent, i think it is safe to claim that on this issue there is no black or white. both nature and nurture affect the growth of a person evenly, if not almost. such a replication process as cloning, can only replicate the nature side of a person: the biological part, and this is known to make up at most 50% of a person. so there is a 50-50 chance that although the clone is identical to the original, it might behave differently and grow differently. thus, no matter how many clones we make of a person, the chances of getting an identical person with identical behaviour will be slim to none, as it would constitute the exact same environment for that person to be brought up in.

though i tend to go against cloning, i do feel that there are many benefits we can get from the research. my only reason to be against cloning is the thought that once people can clone, they might not be interested in reproducing anymore. not that i think we should go follow what is natural, but i fear the fact that is also brought up in the article: reducing genetic variation. it might not be scary to have many identical people around the neighborhood, but such a thing will leave the society stagnant. we have to admit that genetic variation does play some role in the various development of a person. with cloning, we reduce this variety of development by half, because now the nature aspect hardly plays any role anymore. variety is thus left only to nurture to determine. i don't know if it will come to that, but it is not an impossibility that this might lead to reducing the growth of the society by half. the positive aspect of cloning, on the other hand, is the development of the stem cell research, which may eventually lead to the development of a treatment that can cure cancer. cellular cloning can be used to replace the cell that is disfunctional due to the tumor growing in or around it. with the development of the method to clone cells, replacement of the cells after the removal of tumor can be made easier.

FINAL #08

2004-07-31T03:35:00.000-07:00

8. As an ethical theorist what does Singer say about poverty, refugees and the environment? Explain his position in each of these area. Do you agree with his positions here....explain? If so (or for the sake of the argument imagine that you do) what can you personally do to "make a difference" in these areas. Explain in depth.

apparently the singer book i bought online was not the correct one. i did not notice this until now, because singer's discussions on animals, euthanasia, and abortion were all there. even the chapter on poverty was there also. but this edition of practical ethics stops at chapter 10. i have punched in the correct ISBN number, but apparently the person selling it was not being truthful about it. there is no edition number written on the book, but my guess is that this is definitely an older edition and not the 3rd. in this book, chapter 5 talks about animal rights, chapter 6 talks about abortion, chapter 7 talks about euthanasia, chapter 8 talks about poverty, but chapter 9 and 10 does not talk about any of the refugees or environment that is being asked. chapter 9 is titled "ends and means" and chapter 10 is titled "why act morally?" so i guess i would have to skip the question about refugees and environment.

on poverty however, i can say this much:

in a nutshell, singer argues that human beings are morally obliged to help prevent absolute poverty, as long as the sacrifice made to do such a thing is not something of comparable significance. singer harshly compares not helping to murder, by addressing five objections to his comparison. first, singer addresses the lack of identifiable victim: if a person KNOWS that not helping causes the death of some people, then deciding not to help will be the same as murder, despite there is no specific victim. second, singer addresses the lack of certainty that the money sent to help will actually be a help: for singer, this is a valid point in the argument, but still is not acceptable; he gives an example about a speeding motorist who does not harm any pedestrian, but the act of speeding itself is already unacceptable. third, singer addresses the claim that we are not responsible for other people starving since they would still be starving even if we didn't exist: this point is considered irrelevant to singer; he takes the notion of a consequentialist by saying that if someone starving is a result of us not sending our money to help, then we are at fault, regardless of whether we exist or not. fourth, singer addresses the claim that motivation of not helping and murder is different: again singer gives an example about the speeding motorist; his intention was of course just to feel the adrenaline rush from speeding. but if he ends up killing someone in the process, then he is held responsible, regardless of his intial intention. and the fifth, singer addresses the claim that it is easier to not kill than to save lives, since saving lives could probably mean lowering our standards to that below our bare necessities: this claim, for singer, is not sound because it takes into account our society, in which donating is done for the praise; he claims that praise or blame does not justify right or wrong. singer also argues that it is possible for us to help without lowering our standards to that of below bare necessity. he gives examples on things we can sacrifice to help prevent poverty, which is of greater moral significance: expensive dinners, overseas holidays, larger house, extra cars, etc. singer in "practical ethics" also brought up the objection from triage. the concept of triage says that we should not aid those who do not need aid and those to whom the aid will become useless. this is in a way similar to "lifeboat ethics" in which people in a lifeboat will not let those floating in the ocean to jump in because the boat will drown. singer disagrees with such a concept that claims the rich should not help the poor because the poor will drag the rich down with them. singer proposes different ways to handle different poverty type, but he insists that the poor should not be left to starve.

FINAL #07

2004-07-31T02:59:00.000-07:00

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.)

peter singer stands to defend that euthanasia should be justified as an action that is NOT morally incorrect. he addresses three different types of euthanasia: voluntary, one in which the person to be killed requested so because he considers that his life is no longer worth living; involuntary, one in which the person to be killed is killed against his will to go on living or is killed prior to being asked for consent; and nonvoluntary, one in which the person to be killed is in such a condition that he cannot make a decision on whether to go on living or not. singer justifies voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia, but not involuntary. he considers involuntary as morally incorrect since it is done against the person's will to live on, and if the person chooses to live on, then clearly living on (although under pain) gives the person more pleasure and singer's utilitarian principle then justifies living on. this same argument goes for the voluntary euthanasia. nonvoluntary however, is quite differently argued. singer sticks with his utilitarian principle and claims that in case of defective birth, if the child cannot then lead a life of a good quality, then taking the life of the child is justified. for singer, such a thing as an unworthy life to live exists, and euthanasia is justified for those who are living unworthy lives.

i hold firmly to my belief that there is no life not worth living, no matter how painful or unpleasant. so regardless of the utilitarian principle that singer upholds, i am against the concept of euthanasia, involuntary or nonvoluntary. however, on the case of voluntary euthanasia, if the person keeps insisting that his life is not worth living, then no matter how hard i try to talk him into not doing it, i will not succeed. like gandhi, i also believe that a person knows what is best for himself, and thus if he thinks death is the best possible solution, then euthanasia is justified. but in the event where the person cannot make a decision for himself, then euthanasia should never be done. such a strong issue as euthanasia is only justified if personally requested by the person suffering.

FINAL #06

2004-07-31T02:45:00.000-07:00

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 a bit grey....explain the greyness.....in what circumstances is abortion acceptable to Singer and in what circumstances is it not.)

simply put, singer is for abortion. by applying his ethical theory that is highly influenced by utilitarianism, singer challenges the premise that a fetus is an innocent human being. singer claims that a fetus is not a human being; he considers the level of rationality, self-consciousness, and awareness, and concludes that a fetus is at the same level as that of nonhuman animals. a fetus, singer claims, has no sense of rationality, no awareness, and is not self-conscious. since a fetus does not have the characteristics of a person, then it cannot claim the rights of being a person. singer also challenges the claim that fetus has the right of a person because it has a potential for life. he claims that although a fetus IS a potential human being, the argument that it is wrong to kill a potential human being is a weak one. again singer claims that having a potential to become a human being does not imply that the fetus can claim the rights of a human being. he also addresses the objection that says that killing a fetus would deprive the world of something that is intrinsically valuable: he argues that contraception and celibacy does the pretty much same thing but are not considered to be morally wrong. singer claims, however, from a utilitarianist standpoint, that the killing of a fetus does cause pain and not pleasure, not to the fetus itself, but to the parents of the fetus. thus, he concludes that if the parents have no objection then abortion does not inflict pain on anyone and ---from a utilitarianist point of view--- is not morally wrong.

i have personal dislikes for singer and his argument, although at first i found them quite convincing. singer based his arguments solely on materialistic aspect, but probably all utilitarianists do. the way he values life is through the concept of "pleasure vs pain." something is valuable if it produces pleasure, and not if it produces pain. his argument makes sense, but i feel that it lacks the compassion for the fetus itself. singer claims from a utilitarian point of view that since a fetus is not a human being, then the interest of the fetus itself should not be taken into consideration. i am not against animal killing, but fetus is not the same as animals, so i am against the killing of a fetus. it is extremely displeasing to see how singer classifies fetus in the same category as a nonhuman animals. a fetus has the potential to develop into human beings with intelligence while animals will develop into animals whose instinct dominates over intelligence. for this reason, a fetus should be valued more than animals.

FINAL #03

2004-07-31T01:42:00.000-07:00

3. Now reflect on what you think Nietzsche would say about Gandhi's ethics? Would he be impressed or disgusted and WHY??? Make sure to thoroughly explain your answer in light of what you read in the autobiography and what you read by Nietzsche. Be specific.

nietzsche would definitely be disgusted. gandhi's high regards of passiveness in his ethical theory is completely opposite of nietzsche's ethical theory. nietzsche claims that human beings have to use force in order for them to persevere. unlike gandhi, nietzsche have high regards for confrontation; nietzsche claims that confrontation is the only way human beings can evolve for the better. his perfect image of a human being is the superman, one who is able to refuse traditional values and dominate nature as to act the way the superman wills it to be. for nietzsche, evolution means becoming a person who can surpass humanity and master nature. nietzsche's conception of good and evil relates to nature; whatever conforms to nature is good, and whatever contrary is bad, but nietzsche's nature is that of darwin's definition: the survival of the fittest, and nietzsche seems to be taking it literally. he thinks that in nature only the strongest can survive and therefore everyone must strive to be stronger. to this he introduces the idea of "will to power." nietzsche claims that will can be the source of one's power, and with power, one can evolve to be the superman nietzsche regards as the perfect human being.

this idea is completely opposite from gandhi's. gandhi claims that peace and non-violence is the solution to everything, and in his experiment with truth, he has proven that his theory was correct. nietzsche would be disgusted of gandhi's ethics, however, especially with gandhi's passiveness and tendency to avoid conflict. nietzsche claims that only by undergoing conflict can a person evolve for the better, and thus is contradictive with gandhi's ethical theory that teaches one to learn to control emotions and pocket insults. for nietzsche, gandhian ideas like this ---if followed--- will never get human beings to the level of the superman, and thus it is only normal for nietzsche to abhor such passiveness.

nietzsche would also be disgusted by gandhi's ethical view on animals. gandhi values the lives of animals as much as he values the lives of human beings, and thus refrains from killing animals for food. this is in opposition to nietzsche's idea of man's domination over nature. nietzsche claims that the highest level of human beings, the superman, is achieved only after man can use the "will to power" to dominate over nature. but dominating over nature would also mean full domination of animals. gandhi, on the other hand, claims that human beings have to use their superiority to protect the inferior ones, the animals. this idea of protecting the weak goes against nietzsche's principle that in nature, only the strong survives. therefore, it is not a wonder if nietzsche and gandhi can never sit and drink tea together.

FINAL #02

2004-07-31T00:47:00.000-07:00

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. Would Gandhi disagree or agree with Singer? In what areas of ethics? Explain your stance here.

utilitarianism is an ethical theory that based itself on the concept of greatest pleasure for the most people. what defines good is pleasure, and evil is pain. so in order for one to reach true happiness, pain has to nullified and pleasure has to me maximized. utalitarianism is in a way not any different than hedonism, goes on a little further to claim that morality means promoting the greatest happiness to the most of society. happiness for oneself is not yet the final happiness that everyone seeks, but happiness for the whole entire society is.

singer being a utilitarianist, introduces the importance of the concept of pain in all of his arguments. it seems to me, however, that singer concerns more with nullifying pain rather than maximizing pleasure. for singer, one out of many reasons he considers animal killing (for food) as immoral is the fact that animals experiences pain and pain reduces pleasure. not only this, but also for the case of abortion and euthanasia. whatever results in pain should not be done because it only reduces pleasure, a typical view of utilitarianist. now, of course singer's view on each of these subjects are not exactly that, there is more to it, but for the sake of comparison, i take only the outline of his argument.

this argument would not be very compelling to gandhi. while singer also argues against animal killing, gandhi's reasons concern less on the pain vs pleasure concept that singer's argument revolves around. gandhi's argument is based on his belief that animals ARE inferior to human beings, but because of this human beings should protect them. gandhi does not concern whether animals feel pain or not, but his argument against animal killing proves to be stronger ---at least for me--- because he looks into the values of animals themselves. he sees animals as living beings with values, not something that is to be judged solely on pain and pleasure, like the argument peter singer and david lane gave. if it were up to me only, gandhi's argument is much more convincing than both singer and lane.

on the issue of euthanasia and abortion, i think singer's as-long-as-it-does-not-inflict-pain policy would also not be very compelling to gandhi. gandhi is not a utilitarianist, so whether a fetus can experience pain or not will not be taken into account on his view on abortions. gandhi will most likely argue against abortion, because he is a person who values life, and regardless of whether fetus can experience pain, fetus has a potential of becoming a human being, and for gandhi this is much more valuable. on euthanasia, it is likely that gandhi would be against such a thing, regardless of voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. but when put to practice, say gandhi is faced by someone who voluntarily requests euthanasia, gandhi's passiveness makes it possible that gandhi would just let him have it. after all, gandhi has firm belief in people's "sense of fairness" and therefore trusts them to know what is best for themselves.

FINAL #05

2004-07-31T00:46:00.000-07:00

5. Now answer whether 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....use other "ethical theorists," ones that we covered in the course, as a backbone. I encourage your to draw upon material from earlier in the semester. I would like you to use at least three philosophers to justify your position (Hobbes, Mill, Nietzsche, Spinoza, Sartre...whoever you think might fit here and exlain why).

i do NOT believe that animals should have animal rights, but this does not mean that we can then just go around killing animals all we want; there are limits to this. the difficulty of assigning rights to animals is this: should we give all animals the same rights or not? if the answer is yes, we should, then that means a dog in the living room has the same right as the mosquito spreading the west-nile virus. if we can't kill dogs, then we can't kill mosquito as well. if the answer is no, we shouldn't, then we will be giving unfair rights to animals; we will be considering a species of animal greater than another species. why should mammals be considered a higher species to reptiles? why should reptiles be considered a higher species to bugs? or vice versa. this difficulty makes it impossible to assign rights to animals. what kind of rights? which animals should be affected?

many argue using the same basis of argument: "animals can feel pain. humans can feel pain. if humans don't like pain then animals don't like pain as well. if we shouldn't kill human beings because it inflicts pain on them, then we shouldn't kill animals either." as far as the argument goes, it is valid and sound. but there is a problem with it. what is defined by "animals?" mammals? reptiles? or everything in the animal kingdom? vegetarians use the claim that it is immoral to kill animals, but do they not kill ants? or bugs? or gophers causing ruckus in their yard? this might sound extreme, but they never say it is immoral to kill or hurt cows, chicken, fish, and pigs; they claim it is immoral to kill or hurt ANIMALS. no offense, but do they not consider reptiles and bugs animals? again i need to emphasize that i am not saying that we should go around and make every animals extinct.

peter singer argue for animal rights, claiming that as long as killing animals cause pain, then we should not kill animals. in other words, he is saying that if the animal does not feel pain, it is okay to kill it. the problem with this argument is that it is difficult for us to know which animals feel pain and which animal does not. when you hit a dog with a stick, how do you know the howl means that the dog is in pain? how do you know that the dog doesn't have a twisted or retarded dog-brain that the dog becomes one who takes pleasure in being hit by a stick? this might seem ridiculous, but it is not impossible. just like there are people who enjoy hurting themselves, like cutting or stabbing themselves. i forgot the politically correct term for these people, but they do exist. also, how much is it required for the animals before they feel pain? a pinch to a 3-month-old baby does not inflict the same pain as a pinch to arnold schwarznegger. the latter one might inflict pain on the person who pinches instead. if singer claims that killing animals is immoral because it causes pain to the animal, then if we put all the animals to sleep with, say, sleeping gas, then shut down all their nervous system so they cannot feel pain, then it is okay to kill them? of course it is still not okay. pain cannot and should not be used as a reason against animal killing.

david lane uses an example about transhuman being who are far more intelligent than us and find our meat to be delicious and argues that it is still not moral for them to eat us. lane also compares these intelligence of these transhuman being to us is like us to cows. well, if there is such a thing as those transhuman beings, then maybe they DO deserve to enjoy our meat as delicacies. of course lane was just taking an extreme example, and i fully understand that he is just trying to put us in the position of the cows. but here is the reason why ---even if these transhuman beings do exist--- we are different from the cows. we can assemble. we can join forces to resist. if these transhuman beings try to eat us, of course we will fight back. if we do not have the will to fight back in order to preserve ourselves, then sure, they have all the right in the universe to eat us. i am not joking, but if somehow these cows, chickens, and pigs join forces to freed themselves from being the source of food of human beings, then maybe they won't be food anymore. i am not talking about intelligence either; a bird is more intelligent than any of us in building a stiff, strong nest that will not fall of a branch of a tree from merely a bunch of trunks. i am talking about the will. we have will, and that makes us superior than these animals.

regarding gandhi's argument, claiming that since we are superior to animals, it is our duty to protect them, i have to say i agree, though not fully. but again this does not mean we should all give up from eating meat. i didn't fully agree with gandhi because again, what kind of animals are we talking about here? why should we prefer cows over slugs or mosquitos? now, i do not know whether mosquitos or slugs have nervous system or not, but IF THEY DON'T, then a cow with its nervous system shut down is no different than these puny mosquitos. and even if they DO have nervous system, why is it not immoral for us to kill mosquitos? lately, mosquitos have been threatening our lives with the west nile virus, so to take precaution, we clean up all kinds of place that can be used by these mosquitos to live. in other words, we are killing these mosquitos so that we do not die. and when we kill these mosquitos, do we carefully look first and give them the benefit of the doubt that they're just regular blood-sucking creatures with no west-nile virus? no. we just smack them with our palms instantly and after they're squashed, we then look and say: "oh well, it's just a regular mosquito after all." but again i need to emphasize that i am NOT saying we should all just kill every living animal.

if one wants to defend the cows chickens pigs and fish being killed daily for our food sources, do not use animal rights as a reason to back up the argument. i firmly do NOT believe that animals should be given rights, not because they are worthless or anything degrading like that, but because we have to ask the question to ourselves: WHO ARE WE TO GIVE THESE ANIMALS RIGHTS? are we their creators? no. are they the citizen of our country? no. they just happen to be living here. if they don't like it they can rebel and leave, i would not mind. if one wants to defend these animals from being eaten daily, DO IT OUT OF RESPECT. i can give up meat whenever i want, for i usually give up meat for 40 days every year during lent. of course there are trouble finding variety of cheap nourishing non-meat food that can sustain my need to stay awake for 18-20 hours everyday doing college work, but meat is NOT something i need to survive. i DO agree with that argument. all i'm saying is that pain should not be used as an excuse for us to not eat animals. when gandhi argues that we do not meat to survive, i feel that such is a much stronger argument than what singer and lane has proposed. of course singer proposed such an argument as well, but his main point lies in the "pain" argument.

argument to defend animals based on their pain is ---at least for me--- ridiculous. giving animals their rights is even worse. what's next? the neighbor cat being taken into prison, tried, and sentenced into 5 years in prison for hurting my hamster? some other animal rights activist argue that we shouldn't feel superior to animals, that they have rights as well. but think of it this way: if we give them rights, then they have to follow regulations as well, and by regulations i mean the constitution and the state laws. are they able to comprehend such? if they ARE able, that means we have to give them the same right we have, and that means cats and dogs and mosquitos and slugs will have as much right to education as us. i can sense affirmative action bill being passed by the supreme court to let these animals the right to a higher education. am i being ridiculous? i think not. this is what will happen if we give animals the same right as us. "well, of course not the SAME right, you doofus," you say. okay, let's give them lesser rights. they don't need education and cars, maybe just a right for them to live. but then that implies most if not all of the people in the world will be sentenced to prison for mass massacre of ants, attempted murders mosquitos, and such ridiculous charges. like i have said before: when animal rights activists argue for the rights for animals, they should be implying ALL animals, because otherwise they will have to be specifics like dog rights activist, or cow rights activist. i do not think animals not need rights, what they need is RESPECT.

friedrich nietzsche will, of course, support this argument of mine. as much as i hate him for his arguments (and i have my own reasons for that), he will agree that my argument here reflects his "will to power" concept. nietzsche claims that human beings will have the power to dominate over nature if they can evolve into a better human beings he called superman. this idea of nietzsche reflects darwin's theory of evolution, or simply put, the survival of the fittest. this is the concept i used in my argument; if those cows or chickens can evolve into a better beings (like supercow or superchicken) that can think and join forces, then they will be able to fight us, the demonic meat-eaters. kinda like the movie "chicken run." too bad the chickens in this world don't have mel-gibson-like intelligence to organize such an escape.

mill's utilitarian principle would also support this view, but for a weaker reasoning. utilitarianism concerns with the concept of the greatest pleasure for the most people. well, although living without meat is possible, but giving up something tasty will result in less pleasure and will not go along with utilitarianim. one might argue against this by saying that vegans gain longer healthy life by giving up meat, but then again, it all comes back to the questions: how much longer? is longer really worth it? and why can't a meat-eater live a healthy life?

kant's categorical imperative, however, will be the strongest to back up my philosophy regarding animal rights. kant claims that we should "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." so if we want to give animals their rights, then it SHOULD apply to all animals, because otherwise it won't be universal. like i have said before, what right do we have to prefer dogs over mosquitos? if we try the maxim "we should not kill animals" then it would also apply to mosquitos and flies. but now we have west-nile-virus-carrying mosquitos around us, will we just let ourselves be obliterated because of such maxim, and our persistency on animal rights? (animal rights, not dog or cat or cows or chicken rights)

FINAL #04

2004-07-31T00:44:00.000-07:00

4. What is the neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism as presented by Lane? (outline the main points/ideas in the article WHY I DO NOT EAT FACES). What is the "utilitarian argument for animal rights" (define) as presented by Singer? Are they the same argument or not? When discussing Singer outline his argument for animal rights drawing specifically from the first couple chapters of his book to illustrate that you read. (hint: you will need to mention and define speciesism and other important ideas and examples from the reading, etc.)

lane's argument on animal rights is simliar to singer's. similar in a sense that they address the same kind of objections to support their claim. lane, like singer, claims that animals can experience pain, based on the fact that they have nervous system. he strengthens his argument by claiming that when the central nervous system is shut down, pain disappears; thus, anything that has a central nervous system must be able to experience pain. another point lane tries to make is the question on whether it is NECESSARY to eat meat. like singer, lane also claims that human beings do not NEED meat to survive, and that meat is simply a luxury. lane also goes on, in defense of vegetarianism, to ask us to put ourselves in the animals' position. he invents a scenario in which a transhuman being which intelligence to us is like us to a cow, comes to us wanting to eat us. lane then claims that intelligence also cannot be used as an excuse to to kill animals for food.

singer's "utilitarian argument for animal rights" apparently takes equality into account in all of his arguments. it seems that his claim is that something is moral, or correct, or justified, if it does not create inequality. for singer, equality in a nutshell is equal consideration of interests. so an action can only uphold equality if the interests of every side that is affected by this action have been equally taken into account. in his argument on animal rights, singer claims that just because animals are different from us in many ways, does not imply that their interests can be disregarded. doing so then leads to speciesism, which is not any different from racism, only that it discriminates against other species and not other races. while singer seems to be against the killing of animals, he does accept that there are some animals that are not self-conscious and not autonomous and says that the case against animal killings is weak for these animals. however, singer addresses other arguments that may be used against animal rights. he counters the argument on whether animals can feel pain by arguing that there is no reason that they cannot since vertebrates all have fundamentally similar nervous system, including us. thus if we can feel pain, then they can, too. singer also counters the argument claiming that we are justified to eat animals since animals eat each other. but we are not like animals: while some animals are herbivores, some other are carnivores and they NEED meat to live. human beings however, do NOT NEED animals to live. eating meat is a luxury, and the very fact that we can still survive without eating meat, gives no justification on eating them.

FINAL #01

2004-07-31T00:41:00.000-07:00

1. Give a very specific outline of the ETHICS of Gandhi as presented in his "autobiography" from pp. 1-250 (up to p. 300 if you read this far) 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? 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.

gandhi's ethics as everyone who has heard of the name knows, revolves around non-violence in finding a solution to every problem. gandhi has a belief that as long as one sticks with the truth, any conflicts will eventually be solved, without the need for violence or force. his autobiography outlines most if not all of his success story of how truth has helped him solved many problems without means of violence. gandhi was first inspired "to follow truth and go through all the ordeals" (p.5)after watching the play HARISCHANDRA. he gave high regard to harishchandra who was fully truthful, and gandhi thought that everyone should be truthful like harishchandra. what gandhi means by "experiment with truth" is that he considers his living truthfully as a life-long experiment, and this autobiography is like the report of his success, failure, and the hardships he has to go through. gandhi experiences hardships early, but whenever his principle to uphold truth fails, he carefully studies what causes the failure. one example was when he was still in highschool and a little misunderstanding caused him to be convicted of lying. he realized that although truthful, he was also at fault for being careless; from that he concludes that "a man of truth must also be a man of care." (p.13) this is similar to an experiment, since in a experiment, one always goes by method of trials and errors. gandhi does the same. he practices his principle, and whenever it fails he adds to the principle something it was lacking before and hence causing it to fail.

gandhi, always being a shy person, realizes that shyness is a great quality to have. by being shy, one would refrain oneself from talking out loud unpreparedly, and this is considered really important for a man who upholds truth. gandhi likes the idea that silence is golden; he claims that silence is a really important aspect in the discipline one needs to uphold truth. gandhi recognizes that "proneness to exaggerate, to suppress or modify the truth, wittingly or unwittingly, is a natural weakness of man, and silence is necessary in order to surmount it." (p.55) realizing this, gandhi adds silence to his experiment with truth. another thing that gandhi learns at certain points in his life-long experiment, is that one has to be able to suppress one's emotions and pocket the insults one gets, because otherwise, whenever insulted, one will get offended and experience emotional outbursts, which is likely to result in violence and distortion of truth. gandhi experienced this when his brother asked him to use his friendship with a sahib in order to get his brother out of a trouble. gandhi recognized this as an exploitation of friendship, and to gandhi, this has proved disastrous.

gandhi's experiment with truth was showing shape when he was violently assaulted for being "coloured." he showed his passiveness by refusing to bring the matter into legal accounts. not only passiveness, but gandhi also showed forgiveness and ability to think positively. he claims that he had forgiven the man even before he apologized, because gandhi thinks that the man doesn't know what he is doing because "all coloured people are the same to him." (p.113) gandhi's reasoning to uphold truth with the highest regard becomes clear when in the case with dada abdulla he made a claim that "facts mean truth, and once we adhere to truth, the law comes to our aid naturally." gandhi was still a normal human being, he did not renounce the world nor was he able to renounce his emotions, but one success that can be learned from him is his ability to restrain his feelings. many ocassion gandhi experienced insults that enraged him, but he always managed to restrain his feelings. gandhi was also not afraid of making sacrifices, such as taking off his turban, as long as it was "worthy of a better cause." (p.129) another instance that shows gandhi's passiveness is when a christian mother he frequently visited, asked him to not talk to her son about giving up meat because she is worried that the son will become ill. to this, gandhi claims that the best solution is for him to stop his visits. (p.141). gandhi also shows his belief that people are good and practices his non-violent campaign when he claims that he "has trusts in their sense of fairness." (p.168) this happens when gandhi made a visit to south africa and people there started getting violent upon his arrival.

i think such philosopy of live creates amazement on people, and that makes gandhi a moral hero for many people. gandhi was not the only one in this world who believes that peace is a much better solution than violence, but these people who believe rarely turn their belief into realization. gandhi makes himself an example that it is possible for one not to get provoked into violence. gandhi's principle of non-violent protest is EXACTLY what we need in the world today. when a number of people rally together to protest about an issue, their main purpose is to get their message of disapproval across. but these sorts of rallies often end up in violence, either provoked or not. when a protest turns violent, what the world sees at fault is the protesters, not the main issue they are protesting about, thus defeating the whole purpose of the protest AND making the participants look bad. if they apply gandhi's non-violent system and learn how to pocket insults in order not to get provoked, the world will be moved and understand the issue they are protesting. people like john lennon and his wife, yoko ono, had been a follower of gandhi's ethics and their non-violent campaign against war: "give peace a chance," has been much more successful than other campaigns that people carry out.

Re: einztein_o07

2004-07-18T08:26:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:16:54

i have actually been sleeping during the day and working during the night. i find that helpful to avoid the heat. the house got no AC so daytime gets really hot and i couldnt concentrate.
so this whole week i've been sleeping from 10 in the morning until about 5-6 in the evening, then work on the two midterms i have this week, until 10am the next day again. that same pattern over and over. i guess i'll skip sleeping today so i can go back to my normal sleeping pattern tonight. oh the life of a college student.
x_X

Re: einztein_o07

2004-07-18T06:31:00.001-07:00

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 06:00:02

i'm done with the midterm. and i just finished the last 4 posts we needed to do (6-9)
#6 i didnt have time last week so that one was late, but meh. at least i turned it in. i don't quite care about my grade at all. just wanna get my GEs done. =P

Re: on 300 words/essay

2004-07-18T06:31:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:33:29

same with mine. of course some other ones i only end up with 200-250 but i've got some that went almost up to 1.5 pages

on 300 words/essay

2004-07-18T06:30:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 02:04:44

is it just me or the question seems to be asking a lot for a 300 words essay? questions like #1 and #3.
does that 300 words/essay guideline have like +/- 200 words error bars? =P

Re: I don't think I can handle

2004-07-18T06:29:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:47:50

one more and i'm done with this midterm. man, what a workload. none of the 130something units i've taken at ucsd is this much work, and i'm telling the truth.
for those who are thinking about giving up:
*cough* google up some terms *cough*
*cough* GOOGLE HELPS ALOT *cough*
*cough* if you're lucky you might even come across some old midterms that haven't been taken down by the previous online students. copy pasting is illegal (plagiarization), but looking at the ideas is not; they might help you understand stuff faster *cough*

man, that's a lot of coughing. hope i didn't do anything illegal. need to get some water now. *cough*

Re: So...house everyone's "Saturday" nite????

2004-07-18T06:11:00.000-07:00

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:07:44

meh, i got this and philosophy 5 midterm this week. plus the despicable summer heat. this is such a hellish week. haha.
i'm thinking about taking a two weeks off before another hellish week (finals). =D

POST 9: NIETZSCHE PASSAGES

2004-07-18T06:02:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 05:57:49

will to power: #3
nietzsche makes a harsh yet true remark on the nature of human. he claims in this passage that behind every innocent faces, there is the desire to tower above others. even for people who might seem to have no ambition to compete whatsoever, there is an innate desire in him for superiority. in fact, nietzsche claims that everyone has this desire. not only that, but nietzsche also maintains that human nature is even worse than that; people don't just have the desire to succeed, but also to see others suffer from our success.

truth: #32
on this section about truth, nietzsche defines a lie. to nietzsche, lie is a wanting. if one is performing something but wanting not to, then it is a lie. in other word, for nietzsche a lie is making up excuses for something that one sees as not making sense. he takes for example the will of god and the law. nietzsche's theory is centered around the concept that human beings desire power, and the will of god and the law is simply excuses used by priests to gain power. thus nietzsche claims that these are lies.

god: #40
nietzsche claims that god is dead, that human beings have killed him. now, since nietzsche admires jesus so much ---for his way of living, not his doctrines--- i think nietzsche was talking about jesus and how we have crucified him. nietzsche also claims that since god is dead, human beings should then strive to replace god. this refers back to the superman being he was talking about. basically anyone who can master nature and "surpass" the state of man will be superman and qualified to replace god. nietzsche claims that churches are basically the tombs of god and proofs that god is dead.

immoralist: #72
in this passage nietzsche makes the claim that christianity reverses the doctrines of nature. he does not specifically mention what are being reversed, but he claims christianity to be "anti-nature" and therefore is wrong. nietzsche is astonished that lies such as the christianity doctrine can end up being highly regarded as morality. the main reason that nietzsche claims christianity as wrong is the fact that christianity inserts the concept of "spirit" to life, which nietzsche claims to be a lying concept that destroys the meaning of the body.

christianity: #108
nietzsche openly admits in this passage of his admiration toward the figure of jesus. he claims that the reason jesus lived was not to redeem human beings from their sins, but to show us the way to live. nietzsche admires the way jesus lives and maintains that everyone should live on the basis of love like jesus. now, just something i've been wondering since i first start reading about nietzsche: i thought nietzsche claims that christianity doctrine that says "love thy enemies" is anti-nature. but this is the way jesus lives. if nietzsche condemns that one particular teaching so much, why would he promote jesus' way of living as the way we all ought to live?

christianity: #115
paul is the one that nietzsche seems to hate with passion, and nietzsche seems to openly admit that in this passage. although both jesus and paul are spreading the doctrine of christianity, nietzsche thinks paul is using christianity to gain power, to have influence on people, which is exactly nietzsche's "will to power." paul only talks about faith, believing in a higher being and mentions nothing about the way jesus lives. nietzsche cannot accept the fact that paul finds things to teach the society about in jesus' DEATH and not in jesus' EXISTENCE.

the free spirit: #136
nietzsche claims in this passage that the greatest news is that of the death of god. he argues that only in accepting that god is dead can one continue on with one's life and be what nietzsche claims as "the free spirit." the death of god means that one no longer has to fear divine punishment or retribution, nor has to anticipate divine intervention; there is no more divine being, so human beings are free. for nietzsche, accepting that god is death means acknowledging this, and only after acknowledging this can human beings live up to their potential to strive for power to be "superman," for now they believe that they are free to do whatever they want.

higher humanity: #149
here nietzsche makes his claim that all human beings are destined to reach a higher form of humanity, a god-like form of humanity. this passage indicates nietzsche's belief in evolution. nietzsche claims that human beings do not stop evolving after reaching the human stage. the evolution from ape to human beings was an evolution directed toward a higher humanity, and so will the evolution from man to superman. nietzsche argues that superman is a being that dominates nature, for he wrote that superman "is the meaning of the earth."]

joyful wisdom: #184
now this passage i don't quite get, but if i understand correctly, nietzsche is trying to tell us to be happy with the life we have right now, since what is there to expect beyond this life? apparently nietzsche's understanding of the concept of eternal life that the christianity promotes is that to life this life over and over again without number, and nietzsche argues that this is not something to look forward to since even every pain would return over and over. nietzsche maintains that human beings should have "no greater desire" toward the life after this life and instead, should be satisfied and try to make the fullest of this life that one is living.

POST 8: NIETZSCHE

2004-07-18T04:00:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:03:28

simply put, the doctrine of nietzsche is that of a harsh, aggresive doctrine. he dislikes christianity doctrine and outright claims it to be wrong. for nietzsche, who regards highly the theory of evolution, what human beings have to strive for is the "will to power." nietzsche claims that human beings should dominate and be a master of their environment. for nietzsche, evolution means becoming a person who can surpass humanity and master nature. nietzsche's conception of good and evil relates to nature; whatever conforms to nature is good, and whatever contrary is bad, but nietzsche's nature is that of darwin's definition: the survival of the fittest, and nietzsche seems to be taking it literally. he thinks that in nature only the strongest can survive and therefore everyone must strive to be stronger.

now, nietzsche is not a big fan of the christian doctrine; in fact, he condemns it to death. nietzsche claims that christianity reverses the true values of human beings. he finds the doctrine of christianity undermining nature, for christianity claims that one must love one's enemy while nature claims for one to hate one's enemies. nietzsche thinks these values that christianity maintain should only be true for the old jewish community, and the existence of christianity these days have been destructive to nature, since he claims that christianity preserves what supposed to be eliminated in nature.

POST 7: MARX VS HOBBES VS MILL

2004-07-18T03:28:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:03:12

karl marx's ethical theory is centered around the idea of an innate economic principle in human nature. marx claims that all actions that human beings commit has economic basis underlying them, whether they realize it or not. for marx, ethical theories that philosophers have proposed and claim to be a product of pure reason, are simply "ideology," and are deceptive; marx thinks these people are not aware that even their theories are influenced by some economic principles. marx also argues that what is right for one is never necessarily right for everyone, and from this concludes that to formulate ethical theory for morality in general is meaningless. marx also despises capitalism since capitalism involves labor exploitation and therefore cannot bring happiness.

hobbes' ethical theory is centered around scientific concepts. he essentially claims that nothing is intrinsically good. people call good the things they desire and bad the things they do not desire. for hobbes, morality is relative for individuals, as in good and bad; what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another. hobbes depicts people to be selfish and that everyone's actions are centered around one thing: maximization of individual benefit. because of this, there required a central governing system that governs these individuals' thirst for the maximization of own benefits. hobbes claims that since this governing system represents each individual, whatever the system approves is right and whatever the system disapproves is wrong.

mill's ethical theory is utalitarianism, which is based on the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. to mill, what defines good is pleasure, and evil is pain. so in order for one to reach true happiness, pain has to nullified and pleasure has to me maximized. mill's utalitarianism is in a way not any different than hedonism, but mill goes on a little further to claim that morality means promoting the greatest happiness to the most of society. for mill, happiness for oneself is not yet the final happiness that everyone seeks, but happiness for the whole entire society. what is important to mill's utalitarianism is not only the quantitative aspects of the pleasure ---like that of bentham's--- but also the qualitative aspects. mill's utalitarianism also introduces the idea of sanction, which is an incentive for individuals to focus not only on happiness for their individual self, but also for the benefit of the whole society.

marx would agree with hobbes since he himself proposes in his ethical theory that what is good for one society does not necessarily imply good for another society, even though their situations are alike. for both hobbes and marx, morality IS simply ideology; concepts of morality that philosophers have been proposing are not a depiction of what the real life actually is.

the idea of utalitarianism, for marx, is just another form of labor exploitation. one would always want to maximize one's pleasure, and since the nature of human is influenced by economics principles, the idea of maximization of pleasure promotes capitalism, and in capitalism, labor exploitation, which marx despises so much.

POST 6: HUME VS KANT AND MY MORAL SYSTEM

2004-07-18T03:26:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:30:27

i stick to the my own belief that human beings cannot define what is right or what is wrong because morality is relative. what is right for one is not necessarily right for another. even with laws imposed in our society, there are still exceptions; things like "abortion is illegal, except on cases where it threatens the life of the mother," or anything along those lines. so for me, rules and laws serve only as a guideline.

as for the reasoning behind MY moral system, it's simply intuition. i believe that human beings possess human nature good enough to decide whether something is right or wrong. so whenever i'm in doubt, i do what my inner-self tells me to. i could care less what other people think as right or wrong because even if majority is always right, there is always an exception, and i could probably be that exception. as for what my inner-self always tells me, anything that does not harm anyone is not wrong. smoking weed, for example, is not wrong, until someone gets out of control because of that and hurts someone else. same thing with alcohol; it's not wrong until you sit behind the wheel while you're still not sober.

hume's ethical theory is based on moral assertions that is innate in human nature. for hume, what determines morality is one's approval or disapproval on certain events. hume highly regards individual feelings because he believes that in them is asserted moral principles by default. these moral principles are a product of human nature, that is innate in every human beings. human nature is good, and therefore what comes from human nature is also good. hume argues that these moral principles are innately good because they are product of human nature. thus, he concludes that one's feeling of approval or disapproval is enough to determine whether an action is moral or immoral, for in society, approved actions are the ones that are socially useful and disapproved ones are mostly socially detrimental. morality, then, can be achieved by obeying this sense of approval, which in society is piled up into rules of justice. from this, i would say that hume would disagree with my reasoning. for hume what is right is what the society approves, while for me, what is right is what i approve, and i am ignorant toward the society's approval.

kant's ethical theory stems from going against the idea of skepticism. he claims that everyone is obliged to some duty, and only in carrying out the duty can a person be moral. kant's theory also relies highly on reasoning, for he claims that in reasoning can be found the grounds to certainty. these reasonings, kant said, have to be a priori, that is, does not require experience to prove true. using reasoning, kant develops the categorical imperative, that is, categories that one can use to test one's action to determine whether it is moral or not. in general, kant's categorical imperative says that an action is only moral and should be done if one can apply the moral principle behind such action to be true for everyone else. principles that "survive" this test are the ones that form a person's duty, to which that person is obliged. kant would also disagree with my reasonings, since for kant categorical imperative determines morality. although not all, but i am certain that some of the principles behind my actions are not true universally and hence will not survive the test of kant's categorical imperative, but regardless, if i believe that these actions of mine do not cause harm to anyone else, they are justified as being right.

MIDTERM

2004-07-18T02:19:00.000-07:00

STUDENT INFORMATION:

1. NAME: Benedectus Juwono

2. USERNAME: einztein_o07

3. EMAIL ADDRESS: einztein__o07@juno.com

4. Offer number of posts completed and "exact dates" for each one.
have completed a total of 21 posts, listed chronologically:
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 03:42:28
Subject: post 1: on happiness
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 04:26:59
Subject: discussion, rather? -- please read
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:52:07
Subject: post 2: epicurus vs epictetus
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:33:02
Subject: Re: discussion, rather? -- please read
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 21:19:40
Subject: Re: Very Important!!
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:35:10
Subject: Re: post 1: on happiness
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:34:05
Subject: post 3: existentialism
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:45:53
Subject: post 4: augustine vs aquinas
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:30:18
Subject: post 5: spinoza
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:38:05
Subject: field trip: museum of tolerance visit
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:01
Subject: Re: Question About my Blogger Site
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:32:34
Subject: Re: Just wondering
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:07:44
Subject: Re: So...house everyone's "Saturday" nite????
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:47:50
Subject: Re: [ethicssummer04] Re: I don't think I can handle
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 02:04:44
Subject: on 300 words/essay
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:30:27
Subject: POST 6: HUME VS KANT AND MY MORAL SYSTEM
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:33:29
Subject: Re: [ethicssummer04] Re: on 300 words/essay
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:03:12
Subject: post 7: marx vs hobbes vs mill
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:03:28
Subject: post 8: nietzsche
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 05:57:49
Subject: post 9: nietzsche passages
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 06:00:02
Subject: Re: einztein_o07
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:16:54
Subject: Re: einztein_o07

5. Did you complete the first field trip report? YES When? july 11th

6. What reading/chapters did you complete thus far in the course? be specific. Is there material/chapters that you did not read? be specific. read assigned chapter from the great traditions (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22), the internet article on paine, and the entire nietzsche's part of the handout.

7. Did you complete any extra credit so far? be specific. NO. with the amount of readings from this class and philosophy 5, i have no time to do the extra credit questions.

********************************************

ANSWERS TO MIDTERM (also available in individual pages, link on the side under MIDTERM section):

1. This first question is a very important one: the topic is Nietzsche. Offer a detailed description of Nietzsche's ethical views. Since we spent a little more time on this philospher I will weigh it a bit more than the other questions. When giving his overall ethical stance make sure that you explain what is his opposition to Christian morality. What does he mean by "transvaluation of values?" Why does he love Jesus but hate Paul (this last part is found specifically in the Nietzcshe packet)? Why does Christian morality offend him? What does he envision for the height of humanity? etc... Now you may not agree with Nietzsche but my concern here is whether you understood his ideas. Try to "objectively" describe his views. (Utilize both the material in Great Traditions and the reading in the Nietzsche packet).

simply put, the doctrine of nietzsche is that of a harsh, aggresive doctrine. he does not ---sorry--- give a damn on christianity doctrine and outright claims it to be wrong. for nietzsche, who regards highly the theory of evolution, what human beings have to strive for is the "will to power." nietzsche claims that human beings should dominate and be a master of their environment. for nietzsche, evolution means becoming a person who can surpass humanity and master nature. nietzsche's conception of good and evil relates to nature; whatever conforms to nature is good, and whatever contrary is bad, but nietzsche's nature is that of darwin's definition: the survival of the fittest, and nietzsche seems to be taking it literally. he thinks that in nature only the strongest can survive and therefore everyone must strive to be stronger.

now, nietzsche is not a big fan of the christian doctrine; in fact, he condemns it to death. nietzsche claims that christianity reverses the true values of human beings. he finds the doctrine of christianity undermining nature, for christianity claims that one must love one's enemy while nature claims for one to hate one's enemies. nietzsche thinks these values that christianity maintain should only be true for the old jewish community, and the existence of christianity these days have been destructive to nature, since he claims that christianity preserves what supposed to be eliminated in nature.

nietzsche is, however, a fan of jesus. not because of the theological concepts that then becomes christianity, but because of his way of living. nietzsche finds that what should be taken from jesus is not the doctrine of christianity, but the way of life that jesus lead. nietzsche claims that everyone should live the way jesus lives. now, paul is the one that nietzsche seems to hate with passion. although both jesus and paul are spreading the doctrine of christianity, nietzsche thinks paul is using christianity to gain power, to have influence on people, which is exactly nietzsche's "will to power." paul only talks about faith, believing in a higher being and mentions nothing about the way jesus lives. nietzsche cannot accept the fact that paul finds things to teach the society about in jesus' DEATH and not in jesus' EXISTENCE.

2. Explain the ethical system of Epictetus and then of Spinoza. Next compare and contrast their ethical theories. Offer specifics detailing how they are similar and how they are different. (I recommend writing this in three sections: Epictetus; Spinoza; Comparision.)

the main idea of epictetus' ethical theory is that of rationality and discipline. he claims that the reason for unhappiness is the inability of human beings to let things go. epictetus is a believer of god, and his believe of divine supremacy influences his ethical theory, as well as his practice of stoicism. according to epictetus, since god is a divine being, all powerful and benevolent, all events that occur in this world are essentially good; this is what epictetus argues that people do not understand. if people can understand that all events are essentially good, then there will be no unhappiness. epictetus claims that human beings have to realize that there are two categories of things in this world: one is things that human beings have control over, and two is things the human beings have NO control over; events and occurence are examples of the latter. emotions and attitudes are, however, considered the former. epictetus says that since emotions and attitudes are things that are within one's control, one should learn to discipline oneself by using rationality. ultimately, human beings will be able to obtain true happiness if they can have indifferent attitudes toward good and bad fortunes, because ability to have such attitude indicates one's complete understanding that events are outside one's power and there is nothing one can do to prevent the bad ones from happening or to make the good ones happen. in epictetus' ethical theory, the key to happiness is practicing self-restraint.

spinoza is also a believer of god, only in a different way: spinoza's god is nature. the reason why spinoza sees god in nature is probably because in nature everything is good and perfect. it's like seeing sunset from yosemite standing next to a waterfall; it will be hard for one not to admit the outstanding beauty that nature possess. spinoza's ethical theory is influenced by this god, nature. the main idea is that he believes that human beings strive for self-preservation and self-perfection. therefore, one's actions will always be directed toward the goals to preserve oneself and move oneself closer to perfection. spinoza believes that rationality is essential for one to fulfill these goals; without rationality, one will not be preserved, nor will one get any closer to happiness. the striving to reach these goals, spinoza claims, will lead one to happiness, for the process to reach perfection involves virtue and in virtue there is happiness. spinoza highly regards the concept of rationality, for he believes that the concept of free will does not mean that one is free to do anything one wants, but free to be able to REASON one's actions. again, in rationality, one also finds happiness that brings one closer to perfection and preservation.

the ethical theory of spinoza and epictetus are quite alike. both believe in the existence of god, and both highly incorporate rationality into their ethical theory. basically the basis of their ethical theories are alike, it's the implementation of the basis to the theory itself that distinguishes these two philosophers. spinoza's god is nature, and in that spinoza sees perfection, which then leads him to conclude that people strive for perfection because god ---nature--- is perfect. epictetus's god is this omnibenevolent, omnipotent divine being, and in that epictetus sees good; this leads him to conclude that good or bad fortunes are essentially good, because they come from god. the use of reasoning in their theories are also different: spinoza claims that since human seeks perfection, they have to REASON their actions to get to perfection. for epictetus, however, since all events are in the hands of god, one must USE reason to discipline one's mind into being able to accept the fact that events, whether they are good or bad, are essentially good. both philosophers think that the use of reason in the way they suggest will eventually lead one into happiness.

3. What does Marx mean when he says "morally is essentially ideology?" Furthermore, what is his criticism of Bentham's and Mill's utilitarianism (explain what this is)? Next compare Marx to Hobbes. What is Marx's view of human nature and an ideal society and compare this to Hobbes's view of human nature and an ideal society. Who do you agree with and why? (again, it may be helpful to write this in sections so that each philosopher is given his due.)

the question asks what marx means by "morally is essentially ideology." now, i will take that as a typo and assume that it's "morality" instead of "morally." for marx, every human situations have economic basis in it. whether one realizes it or not, economics principles underlie and become the motives to one's actions. marx thinks it is foolish for people who are not willing to admit to this. morality principles that have been formulated by philosophers for ages, then, are simply "ideology." though they are considered the product of pure reasons, they have also been influenced by these economics principles in the process of formulation.

mill's and bentham's utalitarianism is based on the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. to mill, what defines good is pleasure, and evil is pain. so in order for one to reach true happiness, pain has to nullified and pleasure has to me maximized. for mill, it is important that the maximization of pleasure is for the majority, or the most, of the society. for marx, this idea of utalitarianism is just another form of labor exploitation. one would always wants to maximize one's pleasure, and since the nature of human is influenced by economics principles, the idea of maximization of pleasure promotes capitalism, and in capitalism, labor exploitation.

hobbes' ethical theory is essentially claiming that nothing is intrinsically good. people call good the things they desire and bad the things they do not desire. for hobbes, morality is relative for individuals, as in good and bad; what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another. marx would entirely agree with this idea since he himself proposes in his ethical theory that what is good for one society does not necessarily imply good for another society, even though their situations are alike. for both hobbes and marx, morality IS simply ideology; concepts of morality that philosophers have been proposing are not a depiction of what the real life actually is.

i would have to agree with marx's and hobbes' theory. one must realize that no matter what ethical principle one holds, it is only true for oneself. any ethical principle is relative, not universal like what kant maintains. although i don't quite agree about economics principle influencing everyone's actions, marx and hobbes are correct in saying that what is true for one is not true for everyone else. the way i see it, economic principle is one that influences human nature, but not the ONLY one. there are many other factors that influence human nature as well.

4. Aquinas is said to be a Christian with an Aristotlian bent. Explain how he is similar to Aristotle and how he is very different. Explain each philosopher and then compare/contrast them (write in three sections).

the main idea of aristotle's ethical theory is that of ends, that all actions are geared toward the realization of one final end. aristotle claims that this final end has to be something that everyone desires; that is, has to be self-sufficient, final, and attainable. being self-sufficient means that in it alone, it is desirable. being final means that it is not used to achieve something else. being attainable means, well, attainable; can be obtained with one's power. after all, if something is not attainable, how can everyone desire it? aristotle then comes to a conclusion that the only thing that fits in all three categories is happiness itself. that is, happiness is self-sufficient, final, and attainable. but how does one go about obtaining happiness? this is where the concept that most if not all philosophers incorporate in their theories comes in play: rationality. incorporating this idea on rationality, aristotle concludes that happiness can be obtained from the realization of rationality.

aquinas, who is a believer of god, incorporates aristotle's ethical theory into his own theory, but with a theological twist to it. for aquinas, while it is true that human beings desire happiness, and that happiness is the FINAL end ---meaning fulfilling the three categories aristotle has proposed--- but true happiness is a higher level happiness that cannot be obtained without knowledge of god. in other words, the happiness that aristotle defines as being desired by everyone, is not YET the highest level of happiness, and therefore is not YET the final end. the concept of rationality is also incorporated by aquinas to his theory. aquinas argues that one must use rationality to help oneself in realizing that there are two kinds of happiness in this world: one that can be obtained with human power and another one that cannot be obtained without the understanding of god.

in comparison, aquinas is not that much different from aristotle. all aquinas does is basically taking aristotle's ethical theory and incorporating the concept of god in it. of course, aristotle's ethical theory goes deep into explaining what virtue is since he claims that happiness has to be "in accordance with virtue," while aquinas barely touches the idea of virtue. also, aquinas goes deep into explaining will, an important concept in determining what choice one makes, which is something that aristotle barely touches. these two philosophers have differing idea on what concept should be emphasized, but even so, they both agree that human beings desire happiness and rationality must be incorporated in order to obtain true happiness. the definition of true happiness, however, differ slightly for these two philosophers, as well as the implementation of rationality. aquinas and aristotle essentially agree on what true happiness should be like, but aquinas adds the concept of god in it; that true happiness can only be found in god, since god is a higher being than humans and therefore happiness in god should also be higher than happiness in humans. with regards to incorporating rationality, aristotle claims that rationality must be applied when one makes choices since only rational actions can lead to happiness, while aquinas claims that rationality should be used to distinguish the kind of happiness one can receive from the world and the kind of happiness one can receive only in god.

5. Augustine and Sartre may seem like radically different philosophers. Highlight these differences (explain the main ideas of each separately and them contrast them) but also point out in what way they might be similar. What would Sarte find disgusting about Augustine's philosophy and what might he find acceptable, if any.

augustine's philosophy stems from his belief on god. he claims that for one who seeks truth, the concept of god must be incorporated, for only in god can one find the truth. however, in seeking truth, one must also have faith, for without faith, one cannot obtain the true knowledge. augustine claims that human beings are predetermined to go into salvation or damnation, and since the first man, adam, chose evil, we are all bound to damnation. however, this is before jesus sacrifices himself for the forgiveness of that sin. since then, one can escape damnation if one has faith and follows the examples of jesus. the wisdom of god, augustine claims, is beyond human reasoning, and thus, human beings cannot rely on worldly knowledge only, to understand god. this idea is similar to what dante tries to express in his divine comedy; that unexpected people show up in inferno and in paradiso also gives a clear indication that wisdom of god cannot be understood with only human reasoning.

for sartre, who does not believe in the existence of a divine being, his ethical theory stems from the concept of existentialism. he claims that in reality, imposing rational categories does not help one better understand humanity. the main idea of sartre's ethical theory is that one has to bear the responsibility and consequences of one's action. this is why sartre finds it difficult to accept religion, because sartre thinks that in religion, people look for excuses to justify their actions and find escapes from being held responsible for their actions.

the most obvious difference between these two philosophers is their understanding on the concept of god. while augustine maintains that god is the only way to the truth, sartre sees god as an excuse for one's action. now, augustine never mentions directly that one does not have to be responsible for the action one commits because there is god, but nevertheless the claim that faith is required to understand the wisdom of god leads existentialist like sartre to think that faith is nothing but a sorry excuse. there is a similarity between these two, however. both sartre and augustine ADMIT to the existence of free will, only the defintion differs. augustine sees free will as a gift from god; free will lets human beings choose between good and evil. sartre on the other hand, sees free will as a CONDITION of human existence, not a characteristic, for he claims that if free will were to be a characteristic, then human beings are not exactly free because they cannot choose to NOT be free, which is a contradiction. since every aspect of augustine's theory is based on god, i doubt there is any part of his theory that is acceptable to sartre, since sartre maintains that god is merely an excuse used by people who do not want to be responsible for their actions.

6. In what ways is Kant similiar to Kierkegaard? And, more importantly, in what ways is he different? Why does Kierkegaard critique Kant's duty based morality. Make sure you explain each philospher's view of ethics in depth here (separate sections) and offer specifics like Kant's categorical imperative and Kierkegaard three stages, etc.

kant's ethical theory stems from going against the idea of skepticism. he claims that everyone is obliged to some duty, and only in carrying out the duty can a person be moral. kant's theory also relies highly on reasoning, for he claims that in reasoning can be found the grounds to certainty. these reasonings, kant said, have to be a priori, that is, does not require experience to prove true. using reasoning, kant develops the categorical imperative, that is, categories that one can use to test one's action to determine whether it is moral or not. in general, kant's categorical imperative says that an action is only moral and should be done if one can apply the moral principle behind such action to be true for everyone else. principles that "survive" this test are the ones that form a person's duty, to which that person is obliged.

kierkegaard's ethical theory is basically the reverse of descarte's "i think therefore i am." being an existentialist, kierkegaard highly regards the concept of existence and puts it before anything else in his theory. kierkegaard claims that there is three different kinds of existence, in hierarchical order: the aesthetic, ethical, and religious mode of life. the lowest of all is the aesthetic, in which one pursues pleasure and pleasure only. kierkegaard highly regards choice, and for kierkegaard, the aesthetic mode does not regard choice. the ethical mode is the mode that one reaches after one is able to change one's attitude towards making a choice. like many other philosophers, kierkegaard also claims that the choices made must be rational. however, morality is not complete before one can reach the highest mode of all, the religious. being a believer of god, kierkegaard claims that reason cannot provide moral truth, but faith can.

kierkegaard's theory does not seem similar to kant's at all, even though it is derived from kant's and uses kant's categorical imperative. essentially they ARE similar, but kierkegaard's incorporation of religious concept in his theory provides a radical extension to kant's idea. the most obvious differences between the two philosopher is, like many others, their different understanding of god. while kant mentions nothing about god in his theory, kierkegaard incorporates such concept entirely to his theory. kierkegaard's ethical mode is like kant's ethical theory in which one uses the categorical imperative to test whether one's actions are moral or not. but for kierkegaard, this is not enough. to be truly moral, one has to surpass that level and get to the religious level, for only with faith can one find moral truth. by incorporating religious aspects in his theory, derived from kant, kierkegaard brings kant's theory to a whole new level of understanding.

7. Discuss the philosophy of Mill's utilitarianism (define) and compare/contrast it with Epicurus' hedonism (define). While they both speak of pursuing pleasure explain how each one means it. Compare and contrast their views.

mill's ethical theory is utalitarianism, which is based on the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. to mill, what defines good is pleasure, and evil is pain. so in order for one to reach true happiness, pain has to nullified and pleasure has to me maximized. mill's utalitarianism is in a way not any different than hedonism, but mill goes on a little further to claim that morality means promoting the greatest happiness to the most of society. for mill, happiness for oneself is not yet the final happiness that everyone seeks, but happiness for the whole entire society. what is important to mill's utalitarianism is not only the quantitative aspects of the pleasure ---like that of bentham's--- but also the qualitative aspects. mill's utalitarianism also introduces the idea of sanction, which is an incentive for individuals to focus not only on happiness for their individual self, but also for the benefit of the whole society.

epicurus' hedonism, is quite similar to mill's utalitarianism, only it's focused more on individuals rather than the entire society. for epicurus, pain and pleasure are the only intrinsic evil and good. so in order for one to achieve happiness, pleasure must be maximized and pain minimized. epicurus, however, claims that duration of the pleasure is much more important than intensity, and from this idea, he maintains that mental pleasure is therefore valued higher than physical pleasure. epicurus argues that peace of mind lasts longer than, say, sexual intercourse, because peace of mind is mental while sexual intercourse is physical. epicurus also pursues the idea of passive pleasure over active. such a thing as the absence of pain (passive) for epicurus is superior in pleasure than fulfilment of momentary desires (active), because the former lasts longer compared to the latter, which is, of course, momentary.

for both mill and epicurus, pleasure means the same thing: good. epicurus, however, focuses his ethical theory more on an individual while mill focuses his utalitarianism on a wider scope, that is the entire society. epicurus' hedonism, is more strictly focused on the absolute absence of pain; he maintains that such a thing results in the greatest happiness. for epicurus, as long as there is no pain whatsoever, getting no pleasure or much pleasure makes no difference. this idea differs from that of mill's utalitarianism. mill considers that the absence of pain does not mean the greatest happiness; one must also pursue to maximize happiness. so for mill, if one manages to nullify pain but cannot achieve happiness at the same time, then that means nothing. mill argues that one does not need to completely NULLIFY pain like epicurus' hedonism suggests, but as long as one can manage to obtain more pleasure than pain, one can be in the state of greatest happiness. so in epicurus' hedonistic term, mill is more of an active pleasure seeker, while epicurus maintains his passiveness.

8. Offer a summary of Hume's ethical theory...give details. Now what would Kant say to Hume about his ethical theory?
hume's ethical theory is based on moral assertions that is innate in human nature. for hume, what determines morality is one's approval or disapproval on certain events. hume highly regards individual feelings because he believes that in them is asserted moral principles by default. these moral principles are a product of human nature, that is innate in every human beings. human nature is good, and therefore what comes from human nature is also good. hume argues that these moral principles are innately good because they are product of human nature. thus, he concludes that one's feeling of approval or disapproval is enough to determine whether an action is moral or immoral, for in society, approved actions are the ones that are socially useful and disapproved ones are mostly socially detrimental. morality, then, can be achieved by obeying this sense of approval, which in society is piled up into rules of justice.

kant's theory is centered around his categorical imperative, so my take is that kant would be a proponent to hume's theory. kant's categorical imperative says that an action should be done only if the moral principle behind it is true for everyone else. this is in a way no different than hume's theory, since hume's theory claims that right actions are the ones which the society approve, and wrong actions are the ones which the society disapprove. both regards highly the majority's opinion in deciding what is right or wrong.

9. Can an atheist be moral? Is a theist notion of ethics superior to an atheist notion of ethics? Explain either way. Support your position with "material from the reading" (see Pain internet article hyperlinked on syllabus; Sartre, Kierkegaard and many other philosophers can fit here).

i personally think there is no logical impossibility in saying that an atheist can be moral. i mean, everyone can be moral, and for the most part of it, religion almost has nothing to do with morality. with this in mind, i say that a theist notion of ethics is no more superior or inferior than an that of an atheist. despite being a religious person, i make the claim that being moral does not mean being religious, nor being religion means being moral. in fact, there are plenty religious characters out there who are not moral, and non-religious characters out there who are moral.

being moral to me, is not something the involves religion. of course, religion promotes being moral, but religion is not the only one promoting that; society itself promotes being moral. if one goes around killing and raping people, it doesn't require a theist to say that such action is immoral. even an atheist can say the same thing. what eventually leads one to choose being moral, as opposed to being immoral, is not religion, but society. in most if not all society, immoral behavior is never accepted. this is what then promotes morality; one wants to be accepted in the society, one does not want to be outcasted. immoral behavior generally causes one to be outcasted from the society, and as social beings, one needs to be in a society. with this logic, one would choose being moral over being immoral. also, everyone's desire for a peaceful environment also drives one to choose being moral, since immoral behavior often leads to unpeacefulness.

if so, then why do people have religion? if being a theist is not any different morally than being an atheist, then why would one want to be theist? well, religion has another incentive for one to be moral, that is the kingdom of heaven. in general, those who are morally good will go to heaven and have eternal life, and those who are morally evil will go to hell and have eternal death. this becomes another incentive for one to be moral, as opposed to atheists, who have no notion of heaven versus hell and thus have no sense of reward or punishment from being moral or immoral.

the required reading, the article by thomas paine, is a bit hard to accept for me, even after putting aside all of my religious sense. it seems, to me at least, that paine is not a big fan of peace. he claims that "there is no end to retaliation," yet he argues that it is "morally and physically impossible" to retaliate evil with good. now, violence is inarguably the nature of human. if one keeps retaliating violence with violence ---as the old saying goes, "an eye for an eye,"--- when will the violence end? when will be able to live in peace? even without the doctrine of christianity, i still claim one should not continue the act of revenge, because if one does, then this world will have no more people left on it since people will just keep killing each other out of vengeance.

paine also claims that to love voluntarily without a motive is morally and physically impossible. now, what is the motive for atheist like paine to love? in christianity, the motive is clear: it's the doctrine. but for non believers like paine, what is the motive to love voluntarily? apparently paine forgot to mention about what his motive is in his essay. putting aside religion, i still claim that nothing can be build from involuntary love. if one keeps expecting something in return, in the end it will be like a trade, ruled with specific laws, not love.

10. Altogether we have studied 14 ethical theorists thus far. Who is your favorite ethical theorist among the 14? Explain in depth why. APPLY their ideas to the modern world and/or your own personal life. Explain in depth.

many of the ethical theorist actually have acceptable ethical views. by acceptable, i mean they agree with my ethical views, but if i have to pick ONE favorite, i'd have to choose st. augustine. maybe the choice is biased, since i am a catholic, and by being so, of course i would have the same ethical view as augustine, but my ethical view did not come from reading augustine; it was purely developed from my own contemplation of things as i grow up. the reason augustine becomes a favorite among these philosophers is that i was astonished how my view can be so similar with his.

being a catholic, i believe strongly in the power of faith, that without faith, there is no way one can understand humanity. the problem of evil has always been a major talk between philosophers, yet until now, no one is able to give a rational answer that everyone can accept. well, i've contemplated about it alot and i came to a conclusion that maybe there is no such thing as a rational answer when one breaches the boundary of things that involve divinity. there are many different religions in this world, but all of them, including pagan, believe in the existence of a divine being (or beings). now, the doctrines may differ, but in essence all of them makes basically the same remark about what is right and what is wrong. so from there i conclude that there exists a divine being, no matter what is the form or the doctrine. now, on the problem of evil, since even the greatest minds could not provide an acceptable rational answer, maybe there is no rational answer. why do bad things happen to good people? why do good things happen to bad people? augustine is right, divine justice and wisdom is beyond our knowledge, and human rationality cannot be used to understand that.

i've read dante's divine comedy (inferno, purgatorio, paradiso) and that also emphasizes this idea. some figures who commit grave sins when they're on earth end up in paradise, but some figures who commit not-too-grave sins end up in inferno. this seems to be injustice, but dante shows that it's god's justice, and god has reasons that cannot be justified by human reasonings.

QUESTION ONE

2004-07-18T02:13:00.000-07:00

1. This first question is a very important one: the topic is Nietzsche. Offer a detailed description of Nietzsche's ethical views. Since we spent a little more time on this philospher I will weigh it a bit more than the other questions. When giving his overall ethical stance make sure that you explain what is his opposition to Christian morality. What does he mean by "transvaluation of values?" Why does he love Jesus but hate Paul (this last part is found specifically in the Nietzcshe packet)? Why does Christian morality offend him? What does he envision for the height of humanity? etc... Now you may not agree with Nietzsche but my concern here is whether you understood his ideas. Try to "objectively" describe his views. (Utilize both the material in Great Traditions and the reading in the Nietzsche packet).

simply put, the doctrine of nietzsche is that of a harsh, aggresive doctrine. he does not ---sorry--- give a damn on christianity doctrine and outright claims it to be wrong. for nietzsche, who regards highly the theory of evolution, what human beings have to strive for is the "will to power." nietzsche claims that human beings should dominate and be a master of their environment. for nietzsche, evolution means becoming a person who can surpass humanity and master nature. nietzsche's conception of good and evil relates to nature; whatever conforms to nature is good, and whatever contrary is bad, but nietzsche's nature is that of darwin's definition: the survival of the fittest, and nietzsche seems to be taking it literally. he thinks that in nature only the strongest can survive and therefore everyone must strive to be stronger.

now, nietzsche is not a big fan of the christian doctrine; in fact, he condemns it to death. nietzsche claims that christianity reverses the true values of human beings. he finds the doctrine of christianity undermining nature, for christianity claims that one must love one's enemy while nature claims for one to hate one's enemies. nietzsche thinks these values that christianity maintain should only be true for the old jewish community, and the existence of christianity these days have been destructive to nature, since he claims that christianity preserves what supposed to be eliminated in nature.

nietzsche is, however, a fan of jesus. not because of the theological concepts that then becomes christianity, but because of his way of living. nietzsche finds that what should be taken from jesus is not the doctrine of christianity, but the way of life that jesus lead. nietzsche claims that everyone should live the way jesus lives. now, paul is the one that nietzsche seems to hate with passion. although both jesus and paul are spreading the doctrine of christianity, nietzsche thinks paul is using christianity to gain power, to have influence on people, which is exactly nietzsche's "will to power." paul only talks about faith, believing in a higher being and mentions nothing about the way jesus lives. nietzsche cannot accept the fact that paul finds things to teach the society about in jesus' DEATH and not in jesus' EXISTENCE.

QUESTION THREE

2004-07-17T20:24:00.000-07:00

3. What does Marx mean when he says "morally is essentially ideology?" Furthermore, what is his criticism of Bentham's and Mill's utilitarianism (explain what this is)? Next compare Marx to Hobbes. What is Marx's view of human nature and an ideal society and compare this to Hobbes's view of human nature and an ideal society. Who do you agree with and why? (again, it may be helpful to write this in sections so that each philosopher is given his due.)

the question asks what marx means by "morally is essentially ideology." now, i will take that as a typo and assume that it's "morality" instead of "morally." for marx, every human situations have economic basis in it. whether one realizes it or not, economics principles underlie and become the motives to one's actions. marx thinks it is foolish for people who are not willing to admit to this. morality principles that have been formulated by philosophers for ages, then, are simply "ideology." though they are considered the product of pure reasons, they have also been influenced by these economics principles in the process of formulation.

mill's and bentham's utalitarianism is based on the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. to mill, what defines good is pleasure, and evil is pain. so in order for one to reach true happiness, pain has to nullified and pleasure has to me maximized. for mill, it is important that the maximization of pleasure is for the majority, or the most, of the society. for marx, this idea of utalitarianism is just another form of labor exploitation. one would always wants to maximize one's pleasure, and since the nature of human is influenced by economics principles, the idea of maximization of pleasure promotes capitalism, and in capitalism, labor exploitation.

hobbes' ethical theory is essentially claiming that nothing is intrinsically good. people call good the things they desire and bad the things they do not desire. for hobbes, morality is relative for individuals, as in good and bad; what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another. marx would entirely agree with this idea since he himself proposes in his ethical theory that what is good for one society does not necessarily imply good for another society, even though their situations are alike. for both hobbes and marx, morality IS simply ideology; concepts of morality that philosophers have been proposing are not a depiction of what the real life actually is.

i would have to agree with marx's and hobbes' theory. one must realize that no matter what ethical principle one holds, it is only true for oneself. any ethical principle is relative, not universal like what kant maintains. although i don't quite agree about economics principle influencing everyone's actions, marx and hobbes are correct in saying that what is true for one is not true for everyone else. the way i see it, economic principle is one that influences human nature, but not the ONLY one. there are many other factors that influence human nature as well.

QUESTION EIGHT

2004-07-17T18:45:00.000-07:00

8. Offer a summary of Hume's ethical theory...give details. Now what would Kant say to Hume about his ethical theory?

hume's ethical theory is based on moral assertions that is innate in human nature. for hume, what determines morality is one's approval or disapproval on certain events. hume highly regards individual feelings because he believes that in them is asserted moral principles by default. these moral principles are a product of human nature, that is innate in every human beings. human nature is good, and therefore what comes from human nature is also good. hume argues that these moral principles are innately good because they are product of human nature. thus, he concludes that one's feeling of approval or disapproval is enough to determine whether an action is moral or immoral, for in society, approved actions are the ones that are socially useful and disapproved ones are mostly socially detrimental. morality, then, can be achieved by obeying this sense of approval, which in society is piled up into rules of justice.

kant's theory is centered around his categorical imperative, so my take is that kant would be a proponent to hume's theory. kant's categorical imperative says that an action should be done only if the moral principle behind it is true for everyone else. this is in a way no different than hume's theory, since hume's theory claims that right actions are the ones which the society approve, and wrong actions are the ones which the society disapprove. both regards highly the majority's opinion in deciding what is right or wrong.

QUESTION SIX

2004-07-17T07:50:00.000-07:00

6. In what ways is Kant similiar to Kierkegaard? And, more importantly, in what ways is he different? Why does Kierkegaard critique Kant's duty based morality. Make sure you explain each philospher's view of ethics in depth here (separate sections) and offer specifics like Kant's categorical imperative and Kierkegaard three stages, etc.

kant's ethical theory stems from going against the idea of skepticism. he claims that everyone is obliged to some duty, and only in carrying out the duty can a person be moral. kant's theory also relies highly on reasoning, for he claims that in reasoning can be found the grounds to certainty. these reasonings, kant said, have to be a priori, that is, does not require experience to prove true. using reasoning, kant develops the categorical imperative, that is, categories that one can use to test one's action to determine whether it is moral or not. in general, kant's categorical imperative says that an action is only moral and should be done if one can apply the moral principle behind such action to be true for everyone else. principles that "survive" this test are the ones that form a person's duty, to which that person is obliged.

kierkegaard's ethical theory is basically the reverse of descarte's "i think therefore i am." being an existentialist, kierkegaard highly regards the concept of existence and puts it before anything else in his theory. kierkegaard claims that there is three different kinds of existence, in hierarchical order: the aesthetic, ethical, and religious mode of life. the lowest of all is the aesthetic, in which one pursues pleasure and pleasure only. kierkegaard highly regards choice, and for kierkegaard, the aesthetic mode does not regard choice. the ethical mode is the mode that one reaches after one is able to change one's attitude towards making a choice. like many other philosophers, kierkegaard also claims that the choices made must be rational. however, morality is not complete before one can reach the highest mode of all, the religious. being a believer of god, kierkegaard claims that reason cannot provide moral truth, but faith can.

kierkegaard's theory does not seem similar to kant's at all, even though it is derived from kant's and uses kant's categorical imperative. essentially they ARE similar, but kierkegaard's incorporation of religious concept in his theory provides a radical extension to kant's idea. the most obvious differences between the two philosopher is, like many others, their different understanding of god. while kant mentions nothing about god in his theory, kierkegaard incorporates such concept entirely to his theory. kierkegaard's ethical mode is like kant's ethical theory in which one uses the categorical imperative to test whether one's actions are moral or not. but for kierkegaard, this is not enough. to be truly moral, one has to surpass that level and get to the religious level, for only with faith can one find moral truth. by incorporating religious aspects in his theory, derived from kant, kierkegaard brings kant's theory to a whole new level of understanding.

QUESTION SEVEN

2004-07-17T05:18:00.000-07:00

7. Discuss the philosophy of Mill's utilitarianism (define) and compare/contrast it with Epicurus' hedonism (define). While they both speak of pursuing pleasure explain how each one means it. Compare and contrast their views.

mill's ethical theory is utalitarianism, which is based on the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. to mill, what defines good is pleasure, and evil is pain. so in order for one to reach true happiness, pain has to nullified and pleasure has to me maximized. mill's utalitarianism is in a way not any different than hedonism, but mill goes on a little further to claim that morality means promoting the greatest happiness to the most of society. for mill, happiness for oneself is not yet the final happiness that everyone seeks, but happiness for the whole entire society. what is important to mill's utalitarianism is not only the quantitative aspects of the pleasure ---like that of bentham's--- but also the qualitative aspects. mill's utalitarianism also introduces the idea of sanction, which is an incentive for individuals to focus not only on happiness for their individual self, but also for the benefit of the whole society.

epicurus' hedonism, is quite similar to mill's utalitarianism, only it's focused more on individuals rather than the entire society. for epicurus, pain and pleasure are the only intrinsic evil and good. so in order for one to achieve happiness, pleasure must be maximized and pain minimized. epicurus, however, claims that duration of the pleasure is much more important than intensity, and from this idea, he maintains that mental pleasure is therefore valued higher than physical pleasure. epicurus argues that peace of mind lasts longer than, say, sexual intercourse, because peace of mind is mental while sexual intercourse is physical. epicurus also pursues the idea of passive pleasure over active. such a thing as the absence of pain (passive) for epicurus is superior in pleasure than fulfilment of momentary desires (active), because the former lasts longer compared to the latter, which is, of course, momentary.

for both mill and epicurus, pleasure means the same thing: good. epicurus, however, focuses his ethical theory more on an individual while mill focuses his utalitarianism on a wider scope, that is the entire society. epicurus' hedonism, is more strictly focused on the absolute absence of pain; he maintains that such a thing results in the greatest happiness. for epicurus, as long as there is no pain whatsoever, getting no pleasure or much pleasure makes no difference. this idea differs from that of mill's utalitarianism. mill considers that the absence of pain does not mean the greatest happiness; one must also pursue to maximize happiness. so for mill, if one manages to nullify pain but cannot achieve happiness at the same time, then that means nothing. mill argues that one does not need to completely NULLIFY pain like epicurus' hedonism suggests, but as long as one can manage to obtain more pleasure than pain, one can be in the state of greatest happiness. so in epicurus' hedonistic term, mill is more of an active pleasure seeker, while epicurus maintains his passiveness.

QUESTION NINE

2004-07-17T02:51:00.000-07:00

9. Can an atheist be moral? Is a theist notion of ethics superior to an atheist notion of ethics? Explain either way. Support your position with "material from the reading" (see Pain internet article hyperlinked on syllabus; Sartre, Kierkegaard and many other philosophers can fit here).

i personally think there is no logical impossibility in saying that an atheist can be moral. i mean, everyone can be moral, and for the most part of it, religion almost has nothing to do with morality. with this in mind, i say that a theist notion of ethics is no more superior or inferior than an that of an atheist. despite being a religious person, i make the claim that being moral does not mean being religious, nor being religion means being moral. in fact, there are plenty religious characters out there who are not moral, and non-religious characters out there who are moral.

being moral to me, is not something the involves religion. of course, religion promotes being moral, but religion is not the only one promoting that; society itself promotes being moral. if one goes around killing and raping people, it doesn't require a theist to say that such action is immoral. even an atheist can say the same thing. what eventually leads one to choose being moral, as opposed to being immoral, is not religion, but society. in most if not all society, immoral behavior is never accepted. this is what then promotes morality; one wants to be accepted in the society, one does not want to be outcasted. immoral behavior generally causes one to be outcasted from the society, and as social beings, one needs to be in a society. with this logic, one would choose being moral over being immoral. also, everyone's desire for a peaceful environment also drives one to choose being moral, since immoral behavior often leads to unpeacefulness.

if so, then why do people have religion? if being a theist is not any different morally than being an atheist, then why would one want to be theist? well, religion has another incentive for one to be moral, that is the kingdom of heaven. in general, those who are morally good will go to heaven and have eternal life, and those who are morally evil will go to hell and have eternal death. this becomes another incentive for one to be moral, as opposed to atheists, who have no notion of heaven versus hell and thus have no sense of reward or punishment from being moral or immoral.

the required reading, the article by thomas paine, is a bit hard to accept for me, even after putting aside all of my religious sense. it seems, to me at least, that paine is not a big fan of peace. he claims that "there is no end to retaliation," yet he argues that it is "morally and physically impossible" to retaliate evil with good. now, violence is inarguably the nature of human. if one keeps retaliating violence with violence ---as the old saying goes, "an eye for an eye,"--- when will the violence end? when will be able to live in peace? even without the doctrine of christianity, i still claim one should not continue the act of revenge, because if one does, then this world will have no more people left on it since people will just keep killing each other out of vengeance.

paine also claims that to love voluntarily without a motive is morally and physically impossible. now, what is the motive for atheist like paine to love? in christianity, the motive is clear: it's the doctrine. but for non believers like paine, what is the motive to love voluntarily? apparently paine forgot to mention about what his motive is in his essay. putting aside religion, i still claim that nothing can be build from involuntary love. if one keeps expecting something in return, in the end it will be like a trade, ruled with specific laws, not love.

QUESTION TEN

2004-07-17T01:11:00.000-07:00

10. Altogether we have studied 14 ethical theorists thus far. Who is your favorite ethical theorist among the 14? Explain in depth why. APPLY their ideas to the modern world and/or your own personal life. Explain in depth.

many of the ethical theorist actually have acceptable ethical views. by acceptable, i mean they agree with my ethical views, but if i have to pick ONE favorite, i'd have to choose st. augustine. maybe the choice is biased, since i am a catholic, and by being so, of course i would have the same ethical view as augustine, but my ethical view did not come from reading augustine; it was purely developed from my own contemplation of things as i grow up. the reason augustine becomes a favorite among these philosophers is that i was astonished how my view can be so similar with his.

being a catholic, i believe strongly in the power of faith, that without faith, there is no way one can understand humanity. the problem of evil has always been a major talk between philosophers, yet until now, no one is able to give a rational answer that everyone can accept. well, i've contemplated about it alot and i came to a conclusion that maybe there is no such thing as a rational answer when one breaches the boundary of things that involve divinity. there are many different religions in this world, but all of them, including pagan, believe in the existence of a divine being (or beings). now, the doctrines may differ, but in essence all of them makes basically the same remark about what is right and what is wrong. so from there i conclude that there exists a divine being, no matter what is the form or the doctrine. now, on the problem of evil, since even the greatest minds could not provide an acceptable rational answer, maybe there is no rational answer. why do bad things happen to good people? why do good things happen to bad people? augustine is right, divine justice and wisdom is beyond our knowledge, and human rationality cannot be used to understand that.

i've read dante's divine comedy (inferno, purgatorio, paradiso) and that also emphasizes this idea. some figures who commit grave sins when they're on earth end up in paradise, but some figures who commit not-too-grave sins end up in inferno. this seems to be injustice, but dante shows that it's god's justice, and god has reasons that cannot be justified by human reasonings.

QUESTION FIVE

2004-07-16T22:58:00.000-07:00

5. Augustine and Sartre may seem like radically different philosophers. Highlight these differences (explain the main ideas of each separately and them contrast them) but also point out in what way they might be similar. What would Sarte find disgusting about Augustine's philosophy and what might he find acceptable, if any.

augustine's philosophy stems from his belief on god. he claims that for one who seeks truth, the concept of god must be incorporated, for only in god can one find the truth. however, in seeking truth, one must also have faith, for without faith, one cannot obtain the true knowledge. augustine claims that human beings are predetermined to go into salvation or damnation, and since the first man, adam, chose evil, we are all bound to damnation. however, this is before jesus sacrifices himself for the forgiveness of that sin. since then, one can escape damnation if one has faith and follows the examples of jesus. the wisdom of god, augustine claims, is beyond human reasoning, and thus, human beings cannot rely on worldly knowledge only, to understand god. this idea is similar to what dante tries to express in his divine comedy; that unexpected people show up in inferno and in paradiso also gives a clear indication that wisdom of god cannot be understood with only human reasoning.

for sartre, who does not believe in the existence of a divine being, his ethical theory stems from the concept of existentialism. he claims that in reality, imposing rational categories does not help one better understand humanity. the main idea of sartre's ethical theory is that one has to bear the responsibility and consequences of one's action. this is why sartre finds it difficult to accept religion, because sartre thinks that in religion, people look for excuses to justify their actions and find escapes from being held responsible for their actions.

the most obvious difference between these two philosophers is their understanding on the concept of god. while augustine maintains that god is the only way to the truth, sartre sees god as an excuse for one's action. now, augustine never mentions directly that one does not have to be responsible for the action one commits because there is god, but nevertheless the claim that faith is required to understand the wisdom of god leads existentialist like sartre to think that faith is nothing but a sorry excuse. there is a similarity between these two, however. both sartre and augustine ADMIT to the existence of free will, only the defintion differs. augustine sees free will as a gift from god; free will lets human beings choose between good and evil. sartre on the other hand, sees free will as a CONDITION of human existence, not a characteristic, for he claims that if free will were to be a characteristic, then human beings are not exactly free because they cannot choose to NOT be free, which is a contradiction. since every aspect of augustine's theory is based on god, i doubt there is any part of his theory that is acceptable to sartre, since sartre maintains that god is merely an excuse used by people who do not want to be responsible for their actions.

QUESTION FOUR

2004-07-16T22:53:00.001-07:00

4. Aquinas is said to be a Christian with an Aristotlian bent. Explain how he is similar to Aristotle and how he is very different. Explain each philosopher and then compare/contrast them (write in three sections).

the main idea of aristotle's ethical theory is that of ends, that all actions are geared toward the realization of one final end. aristotle claims that this final end has to be something that everyone desires; that is, has to be self-sufficient, final, and attainable. being self-sufficient means that in it alone, it is desirable. being final means that it is not used to achieve something else. being attainable means, well, attainable; can be obtained with one's power. after all, if something is not attainable, how can everyone desire it? aristotle then comes to a conclusion that the only thing that fits in all three categories is happiness itself. that is, happiness is self-sufficient, final, and attainable. but how does one go about obtaining happiness? this is where the concept that most if not all philosophers incorporate in their theories comes in play: rationality. incorporating this idea on rationality, aristotle concludes that happiness can be obtained from the realization of rationality.

aquinas, who is a believer of god, incorporates aristotle's ethical theory into his own theory, but with a theological twist to it. for aquinas, while it is true that human beings desire happiness, and that happiness is the FINAL end ---meaning fulfilling the three categories aristotle has proposed--- but true happiness is a higher level happiness that cannot be obtained without knowledge of god. in other words, the happiness that aristotle defines as being desired by everyone, is not YET the highest level of happiness, and therefore is not YET the final end. the concept of rationality is also incorporated by aquinas to his theory. aquinas argues that one must use rationality to help oneself in realizing that there are two kinds of happiness in this world: one that can be obtained with human power and another one that cannot be obtained without the understanding of god.

in comparison, aquinas is not that much different from aristotle. all aquinas does is basically taking aristotle's ethical theory and incorporating the concept of god in it. of course, aristotle's ethical theory goes deep into explaining what virtue is since he claims that happiness has to be "in accordance with virtue," while aquinas barely touches the idea of virtue. also, aquinas goes deep into explaining will, an important concept in determining what choice one makes, which is something that aristotle barely touches. these two philosophers have differing idea on what concept should be emphasized, but even so, they both agree that human beings desire happiness and rationality must be incorporated in order to obtain true happiness. the definition of true happiness, however, differ slightly for these two philosophers, as well as the implementation of rationality. aquinas and aristotle essentially agree on what true happiness should be like, but aquinas adds the concept of god in it; that true happiness can only be found in god, since god is a higher being than humans and therefore happiness in god should also be higher than happiness in humans. with regards to incorporating rationality, aristotle claims that rationality must be applied when one makes choices since only rational actions can lead to happiness, while aquinas claims that rationality should be used to distinguish the kind of happiness one can receive from the world and the kind of happiness one can receive only in god.

QUESTION TWO

2004-07-16T10:15:00.000-07:00

2. Explain the ethical system of Epictetus and then of Spinoza. Next compare and contrast their ethical theories. Offer specifics detailing how they are similar and how they are different. (I recommend writing this in three sections: Epictetus; Spinoza; Comparision.)

the main idea of epictetus' ethical theory is that of rationality and discipline. he claims that the reason for unhappiness is the inability of human beings to let things go. epictetus is a believer of god, and his believe of divine supremacy influences his ethical theory, as well as his practice of stoicism. according to epictetus, since god is a divine being, all powerful and benevolent, all events that occur in this world are essentially good; this is what epictetus argues that people do not understand. if people can understand that all events are essentially good, then there will be no unhappiness. epictetus claims that human beings have to realize that there are two categories of things in this world: one is things that human beings have control over, and two is things the human beings have NO control over; events and occurence are examples of the latter. emotions and attitudes are, however, considered the former. epictetus says that since emotions and attitudes are things that are within one's control, one should learn to discipline oneself by using rationality. ultimately, human beings will be able to obtain true happiness if they can have indifferent attitudes toward good and bad fortunes, because ability to have such attitude indicates one's complete understanding that events are outside one's power and there is nothing one can do to prevent the bad ones from happening or to make the good ones happen. in epictetus' ethical theory, the key to happiness is practicing self-restraint.

spinoza is also a believer of god, only in a different way: spinoza's god is nature. the reason why spinoza sees god in nature is probably because in nature everything is good and perfect. it's like seeing sunset from yosemite standing next to a waterfall; it will be hard for one not to admit the outstanding beauty that nature possess. spinoza's ethical theory is influenced by this god, nature. the main idea is that he believes that human beings strive for self-preservation and self-perfection. therefore, one's actions will always be directed toward the goals to preserve oneself and move oneself closer to perfection. spinoza believes that rationality is essential for one to fulfill these goals; without rationality, one will not be preserved, nor will one get any closer to happiness. the striving to reach these goals, spinoza claims, will lead one to happiness, for the process to reach perfection involves virtue and in virtue there is happiness. spinoza highly regards the concept of rationality, for he believes that the concept of free will does not mean that one is free to do anything one wants, but free to be able to REASON one's actions. again, in rationality, one also finds happiness that brings one closer to perfection and preservation.

the ethical theory of spinoza and epictetus are quite alike. both believe in the existence of god, and both highly incorporate rationality into their ethical theory. basically the basis of their ethical theories are alike, it's the implementation of the basis to the theory itself that distinguishes these two philosophers. spinoza's god is nature, and in that spinoza sees perfection, which then leads him to conclude that people strive for perfection because god ---nature--- is perfect. epictetus's god is this omnibenevolent, omnipotent divine being, and in that epictetus sees good; this leads him to conclude that good or bad fortunes are essentially good, because they come from god. the use of reasoning in their theories are also different: spinoza claims that since human seeks perfection, they have to REASON their actions to get to perfection. for epictetus, however, since all events are in the hands of god, one must USE reason to discipline one's mind into being able to accept the fact that events, whether they are good or bad, are essentially good. both philosophers think that the use of reason in the way they suggest will eventually lead one into happiness.

Re: Just wondering

2004-07-13T17:16:00.001-07:00

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:32:34

meh, don't worry. you guys aren't the only one confused. if you're not confused, you're not learning philosophy. =P

Re: Question About my Blogger Site

2004-07-13T16:56:00.000-07:00

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:01

i think you'd rather hear an answer from prof. diem, since she'll be the one grading it, but just to let you know, blogger.com organizes your posts CHRONOLOGICALLY. so newest posts will be at the top and oldest will be at the bottom. i don't think there's any way to organize them in groups, like maybe you want the ethics to be at the top, chronologically, and then religion below that, also chronologically. it might be better if you make another blog for the other class, as it will be easier that way. also, the new power blogger allows you a link to EACH post. if you go to the dashboard, and check out the settings, there's an option in one of tabs (i can't remember which) that asks if you want to enable individual page for each post. select yes and each post should have it's own page created automatically for you. blogger rules. =)

FIELD TRIP: MUSEUM OF TOLERANCE

2004-07-13T01:18:00.000-07:00

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:38:05

so i finally had the chance to visit the museum of tolerance today. the trip itself took about a little over an hour due to traffic, and the museum was farther than i thought it would be. got there and went through all kinds of security inspection, including the metal detector gate that wouldn't stop beeping even after i took off everything i had with me that was metal. the security guard looked at me suspiciously, but since i was wearing a hawaiian shirt, shorts, beach sandals, with backpack on, sunglasses, and a cap, he probably thought i was just a mere tourist. so in the end he decided to let me go even though the metal detector kept going off on me. i was tempted to say "sorry, i had a terrible accident a couple years back and had to have it replaced with a metal one," leaving the "it" part open to his interpretation, but he doesn't seem like a guy who would take a joke, so i kept that thought to myself since i didn't want any unpleasantness.

i purposely did not read anyone else's field trip report, since i thought that would have spoiled everything, so i went there not knowing what to expect. apparently we had to go through a little orientation before going on a self-guided tour, and a tall guy with a tie told me the next orientation will start in ten minutes and asked me to wait. as i have expected, it took them over ten minutes to get prepared; turns out the total time waiting was about twenty-five minutes, but we eventually got to go. went downstairs through a circular, downward-sloping walkway with a lady who then told us about how the museum is divided into two parts: the tolerance, and the holocaust. she said the tolerance section will probably take only 20 minutes, while the holocaust section, which she repeatedly said will be "guided by lights and sounds," will take about 65 minutes. there were approximately 20 people in the group that went downstairs with me, and most of them went straight to the holocaust section, while me and three other people went to the tolerance section, following the lady.

first we get to see a video on a bigscreen TV about how "words" can cause different things, varying from one extreme to the other. the video has a message from osama bin laden that says something like "calling all muslim to kill the american people and plunder their money," and a quote from someone i can't remember saying in sarcasm something along the lines of, "how can muslim not be the right religion? it's founded by mohammed, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives." these were supposed to be sad and whatnot, but i thought the quotes were pretty funny. it's funny how people can say many different things, sometimes even without proofs, and THERE ARE STILL people who would believe and hold it true deep inside their hearts. this first video reminded me of the doonesbury strip in LA times this morning:

i hope i don't offend anyone if i find this whole thing in the museum quite funny; it's not that i don't take these things seriously, i do. it's just my nature to look for the funny side in things, that way i get to take the depression away and make someone smile. however, when i go by myself, the only person around that i can amuse is myself.

then not far from the video about "words" that kept repeating itself over and over, there's a small auditorium, set up like cafetarias back in the 50s or 60s. people walked in there and watched this slideshow of people and text about hate crime. after the slideshow, people are given a chance to pick up a phone in front of them and ask questions. of course, there's no one on the other side of the line but machine recording, but people do it anyway. mine was broken so i don't get to hear what the answers to the questions were. what was interesting about this section was when everyone in the audience was asked to vote on some issues. 1 being totally agree and 5 being totally disagree. a question popped out that asked something like, "hate speech should be a part of the protected speech." now, i counted and there were 17 people in the audience, not including me because mine was broken and i couldn't vote. when the result of the instant voting came out, 13% of the people voted for 1, which means they AGREED that hate speech should be protected. 13%. that means either 2 or 3 people, given that all 17 people voted. i was quite surprised that there are still people who would allow hate speech. it's either that these people just don't get the whole point of simon wiesenthal building this museum, or they're just messing around. either way, i still think it was quite amusing to see 13% of the audience would OK hate speech. i bet everyone else in the audience was thinking of the same thing.

nothing else in the tolerance section seemed interesting to me. there was this big room that said something like "millenium machine" in the front, but i walked in there and nothing was working, so i left. there was a video, footage from a news channel about LA riot in 1992, but that was just that, nothing interesting. one thing i did find interesting though, was a quote from simon wiesenthal, printed in huge letters on the wall: "freedom is not a gift from heaven. one must fight for it everyday." true, but brought to my mind this: WHO do we fight in order to gain freedom? people who oppress? but why do they oppress us? can't be just because they feel like it. then this crossed my mind: these people, who oppressed us, they want freedom also, and for that, they oppress. oppression is THEIR way to fight for THEIR freedom. but ironically, WE ALSO GAIN OUR FREEDOM FROM OPPRESSING PEOPLE. don't believe me? let's see. we now think that america is a free country, a melting pot. sure. but how does america gets to be a free country? let's recap. columbus got lost looking for india and accidentally landed on this huge land with a bunch of natives living in it. columbus thought it was india, so he called the natives "indian" when they're actually native americans. these natives know nothing about the foreigners, and even if they had intention to harm the foreigners, it's because these foreigners tresspass their lands. wouldn't you start throwing sharp heavy objects and whatnot if a bunch of people you've never seen before jumped over your fence, carrying guns and swords? well, exactly how the natives felt. then the british troops came along and invaded the east coast. natives felt threatened, natives attacked. brits felt threatened, brits yelled "savages" and started shooting. then british started their colonization of this so-claimed NEW land after they successfully got rid of the natives. from here, you all know what happened. british government opressed the new colony, george got pissed, then mel gibson-like people, along with george, chased away the british troops and declared this to be america, a free country. sure, we are now free. the new colony got rid of an oppressing government (british) and freed themselves. but look back, how did we get this land in the first place? it's not god-given, although some people would like to claim it to be so. WE OPPRESSED THE NATIVES FIRST. oppression seems to always has been the initial movement that triggers something big. sure we fought for our freedom, but what were we fighting for? A LAND THAT WAS ONCE SOMEONE ELSE'S AND WE TOOK IT OVER BY FORCE. so i called this quote an overrated one and left. think about it.

then i went to the holocaust exhibit of the museum, which was not quite so amusing since it was not any different than those i've seen on TVs and movies. the best part of the exhibit was the free please-take-one card with the history of holocaust survivor. if the museum guards weren't already looking at me suspiciously i'd have taken a bunch, just for memento. the so called self-guided tour "by lights and sounds" weren't that interesting either; it's much more interesting to see the wooden and wax figures and the setups they have for display, since all the facts they mentioned was already mentioned to me back in history class in highschool. one interesting quote that i couldn't get off my mind was by a german (i think) on one of the videos whose name i couldn't remember either. he said something like this: "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it." sad, but it's true, and i speak of experience. maybe it's the nature of human, i have no idea; but if you speak of something even without a factual evidence, as long as you have the charisma and the convincing look, people WILL believe you. unless of course, they know the truth. if you get A's in your physics class, it is likely that people who get lower grade will come to you for help, and sometimes they can get really curious, up to the point where they start asking you questions which answers you don't have. i've experienced this, and it seems that these people would rather have me LIE to them than say "i don't know." see, i don't like lying, since everytime i lied to my dad for some reason he always found out, so i deemed myself horrible at lying; so everytime people ask me a question which answer i do not know, i told them the truth: "i have no idea." but for some reason i could never figure out, people always say, "oh come on, you should know. you're smart." since these people NEVER accept "i don't know" as an answer, no matter how many times i say it, i am always forced to make up answers. fortunately my answers are close enough to the real answer, but still, at the time i was forced to answer, i DID NOT KNOW the answer, and yet people would still rather have an answer than "i don't know." so after years of dealing with this, i came to a conclusion that what that german guy said is true. as long as people regard you highly, they will most likely believe whatever you say, regardless of whether you can supply them ample evidence or not. it's the charisma and the public speaking skills that count in this world. i guess that's what brought hitler to his position back then, clinton to almost 8 years in office, and JFK to assassination by some kook. i mean, seriously. look at JFK. "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." if that line were said by GW instead, people will go "yeah, right. i've done enough for this country, time for some payback." so brush up on your public speaking skills. =)

i didn't get to see a holocaust survivor because my parents called and said that one of my relatives from michigan would be visiting this afternoon, so i had to rush home. they should have given me the heads up; that way i would have gone to the museum earlier. oh well, maybe some other time.

POST 5: SPINOZA

2004-07-13T01:17:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:30:18

spinoza's ethical theory is based on some concepts that are not quite so different than other philosophers that we have so far read. like augustine and some others, he also claims material happiness such as riches, fame, and pleasure cause the mind to be "disturbed and dulled." spinoza also takes stance on defining good and evil; he claims that happiness is dependent upon the "quality of the object," and the highest level of happiness can only be obtained through "love towards a thing eternal and infinite," since such a love "feeds the mind wholly." unlike other philosophers, however, spinoza's take on the idea of free will is rather different; not that he claims that human beings possess no free will, but he claims that true freedom is "action in accordance with the laws of our reason." in his doctrine, having admitted that god is the supreme being, spinoza claims that "our highest happiness and blessedness is... solely in the knowledge of god," thus claiming that even without the established notion of free will (that human beings are in control of their own actions), true happiness can be obtained.

the main idea in spinoza's theory is the idea that human beings strive to preserve oneself and to reach perfection; things that helps human beings become "more perfect" cause happiness and are called "good" while things that make human beings become "less perfect" cause unhappiness and are therefore called "evil." by generalizing that every human beings strive to preserve oneself, spinoza continues on to claim that they then should follow "nature's general laws." in other words, human behaviors to spinoza are completely deterministic. for spinoza, "nothing comes to pass in nature." it is almost as if nature is spinoza's definition of god, as he continues on by claiming that in terms of laws and ordinances, "nature is always the same." from this, he concludes that "there should be one and the same method of understanding the nature of all things whatsoever." from his assumption that nature is the same, spinoza claims that since there are laws governing nature, then there should be laws that govern human behaviors as well; thus, human behaviors are deterministic.

another philosopher that is quite close in terms of concept to spinoza would be aristotle. while aristotle does not believe in such a thing as a supreme being, nor talks about free will, aristotle highly regards reasoning, and claims that true happiness can only be obtained if human beings apply rational reasonings to their actions. although unclear in spinoza's theory, spinoza also regards reasons as being essential in reaching happiness. in his argument regarding free will, he claims that true freedom is obtained when our actions are "in accordance with the laws of our reasons." spinoza's view on reasons is similar to that of aristotle, although aristotle's theory is geared more toward the concept of human beings determining their own actions while spinoza's theory is more toward the concept that human behavior is deterministic.

POST 4: AUGUSTINE VS AQUINAS

2004-07-13T01:16:00.000-07:00

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:45:53

augustine's philosophical view stems from the simple idea of "the love of god." his theory starts by his trying to provide an answer to the problem of evil. the problem of evil basically states that if god is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then there cannot be evil in this world; but evil exists, thus god does not exist. augustine provides a reasoning to refute this claim, by arguing that all things are created good, but not PERFECTLY good, and therefore, are "liable to corruption." for augustine, evil is simply a lack of good. another problem that augustine addresses is the fact that god allows us to choose evil, while he can prevent us from doing so, given that he's all-powerful. augustine then makes a claim that even evil is used to fulfil god's will; he argues that since god is omnipotent, if he desires evil to cease, it will, but since evil exists, then it must exist because god wills it, in a "way unspeakably strange and wonderful." another problem of evil is with regard to divine foreknowledge, which claims that human has no free will since god already knows what is about to happen. this is also adressed by augustine by arguing that god knows what is going to happen, but god does NOT cause it to happen. human beings have free will, and god knows what would happen if they make choices using their wills, but this is different than when god CAUSES an event to occur, for the former means human beings possess free will, while the latter not.

having addressed all the problems of evil, augustine continues on to discuss his ethical theory, again based on "the love of god." following his first claim evil is simply the absence of good, and that people who are evil simply fail to choose good, he divides people into two categories. the ones who choose good live in the city of god, and the ones who choose evil live in the city of man. he claims that the ones living in the city of god live "after the spirit" and the ones in the city of man live "after the flesh." augustine also points out by saying that "life eternal is the supreme good, death eternal the supreme evil," the claim that these supreme good and evil do not belong in the momentary world we live in currently; they belong in the afterlife. the essential point of augustine's theory is his idea on faith being the most fundamental of all, since with faith one is able to look beyond rationality for reasons and explanations on why things happen. augustine claims that god's wisdom is beyond our understanding, and sometimes it makes no sense since there is often such a case where "this good man is poor and that bad man rich." however, this is where faith comes into play; by having faith, one is able to accept these seemingly injustice, because in the eyes of god, it is divine justice. another thing that augustine considers fundamental is love, and love is the foundation of peace. in his example using the city of god and city of man, augustine claims that citizens of both city desire peace, but citizens in the city of man never achieve it since they are using war, not love, as a method to achieving peace.

aquinas' ethical theory stems from his belief that everything has an end and one's action towards this end is initiated by an agent. aquinas argues that all things must have an end, otherwise "action would tend to infinity." aquinas then defines what a "proper end" is, by using a somewhat aristotelian concept; he argues that all action and movement is aims for a good, and therefore, seeks "some perfection," and there is only one supreme good that is perfect, and that is god himself. thus, "all things are directed to the highest good, namely god, as their end." aquinas then claims that one needs guidance if one were to aim one's actions toward the highest good, which is god, and for this reason, god creates laws which are eternal and human beings are given rationality to use this law as a guidance toward their end. aquinas also engages in the discussion about bad and good and claims that "good and evil pertain essentially to the will." he argues that "the act of the will is not always good, but sometimes evil," implying that the goodness or badness of something must be sought in the will of the action, because only actions that is willed to be evil can be evil. this leads to his eventual conclusion that the consequences of an action DO NOT determine whether an action is evil or good. this is because the consequences "are not foreseen" and therefore one can only distinguish the good and the evil solely from the will of the action.

the theory of aquinas and augustine both have many similarities, among which is that both admit to god as a supreme being that everyone must conform to. however, as in other comparisons we have done, the basis of their theory is quite different. while both admit to god, augustine highly regards faith, while aquinas highly regards human reasonings. augustine uses the idea of faith to counter the problem of evil, eventually concluding that wisdom of god is beyond human reasonings and in order for one to be able to justify events, one needs to have faith. aquinas on the other hand, seems to be a bit aristotelian by claiming that everything is directed toward an end. the end not being specific pleasure or happiness, but to god, which is the supreme good. aquinas also regards highly of the law of god, that he considers as being "eternal law," and from here concludes that the end (the supreme good) can only be achieved if one uses reasonings (that ar given by god) to use the laws as their guidance.

POST 3: EXISTENTIALISM

2004-07-13T01:15:00.000-07:00

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:34:05

existentialism is a philosophical concept in which the nature of every human being is formed by the choices they make, not because it has been pre-determined by a divine being.

sartre's existentialism stems from his belief that existence precedes essence; what he means by this is that "man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself." before a human being lives his life by making choices, he is nothing; only after he lives his life and makes choices, he becomes something, for according to sartre and his existentialism, what shapes a human is the choices he makes. sartre also denies the existence of god in his discussion for if existentialism is held to be true, then whether there is god or not no longer matters. the fact is that human beings have free will, and this concludes two things: first is that if god exists, then free will is given by god, second is that if god does not exist, then human beings are free without any divine supervision. in either conclusion, the fact that human beings have free will cannot be changed, so the existence of god matters not, because human beings are still free regardless. this analysis then leads to sartre's conclusion that god does not exist, and that human beings are "responsible for everything he does." sartre also denies the notion that human beings possess "essential nature," which then leads again to existentialism, since in existentialism human beings are nothing until they make choices that shape their lives.

kierkegaard's existentialism is essentially the same as other existentialists; he believes highly in the power of will, in the freedom to choose. kierkegaard acknowledges three different way of living, all three of which depend on ability to make choices: aesthetic, ethical, and religious way of living. the first one, aesthetic way of living, is based on pleasure. choices still shapes a person, for a person has free will, but his choices are geared toward pleasure. this way of living, according to kierkegaard, is considered only momentary, for he said that people living this way of live "build their lives upon something simple," not "fragmented as is the life-view of thsoe who build upon something intrinsically multiple." the second one, ethical way of living, is based on duty that one has, but according to kierkegaard, it is more than just duty; one has to involve personality into it, as kierkegaard said: "if the ethical did not have a much deeper connection with the personality it would always be very difficult to champion it against the aesthetic." the third one, religious way of living, is based on faith. kierkegaard does not openly admitted the existence of god, but he makes claim that faith is a necessary feat. using the example about abraham, kierkegaard proves a point that existentialism is subjective, for abraham "transgressed the ethical" but his act was "totally unrelated to the universal," and was considered "a purely private endeavor." from here kierkegaard continues to conlude that christianity is needed, for "christianity is spirit, spirit is inwardness, inwardness is subjectivity, subjectivity is essentially passion, and in its maximum an infinite, personal, passionate interest in one's eternal happiness."

while holding the same philosophical concept, kierkegaard and sartre can be very different in understanding. both claims that subjectivity is superior in existentialism, but the way these two philosophers view subjectivity is completely different. what makes the difference so big is their different views on god; sartre rejects the existence of god while kierkegaard accepts it. due to this, sartre based his subjectivity on human beings; that they are on their own, as he claims them as being "condemned to be free." kierkegaard, on the other hand, based his subjectivity on faith, using the example about abraham to prove the subjectivity in faith. these are the most essential difference in their understanding of existentialism.

Re: POST 1: ON HAPPINESS

2004-07-13T01:13:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:35:10

=)

thanks for the comment.

the way i see it, everything in the world hangs in balance. chinese people have the yin-yang stuff, buddhists believe in karma (it IS buddhists, right? apology if i'm wrong. i'm uncertain on that), scientists (and even old days alchemists) believe in laws of conservations. there are a lot of things in this world that's sorta give us a hint that this world is a place of balance. same thing with the irrational-rational part of our mind. aristotle thinks that happiness can be found by rationally controlling the irrational part of ourselves, but if we can have full control of our irrational part, how does that make us any different than a robot? if it weren't for our irrational part, EVERY SINGLE ACTIONS WE'RE ABOUT TO TAKE ARE EASILY PREDICTED. future is predictable. what's the happiness in such a monotonous world?

life has its ups and downs, and many times people give up when they're at the downpoint. but if life is all ups and no downs, the ups will no longer have meaning. how are you happy if you never experience sadness? how do you know sweet if you never taste bitter? i think it was epicurus who said that pain exists to further pleasure. or was it epictetus? they all sound greek to me. well, for sure it's one of them. i don't agree completely with his philosophy on happiness, but it's true, without pain, pleasure means nothing. albert einstein was right. everything in this world is relative.

one thing i've been believing all this time, is that life is balanced. so when you're down, don't give up. if your life is at the downs, or at the bottom of downs, keep moving on, it's all ups from there. like a sinusoidal curve. =) the drawback is that if you're at the ups, don't take it for granted, you might be going downhill after. it's only natural that your life is in balance. but happiness is fully at your control. if you're at the ups, be happy because your life is good. if you're at the downs, be happy because soon it will be ups again. =)

optimism rules.

Re: Very Important!!

2004-07-13T01:12:00.000-07:00

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 21:19:40

blogger.com is really good. i've been using it for 4 months now to host my rants and artworks.

be sure to go to "settings" section and change the archiving method though. i don't remember what is the default, but mine is set to archive every week. being archived basically means that whatever posts you have, wont show up anymore when you type in the address username.blogspot.com; you'll have to go through the "archive" section to look for it. it won't be gone, it just wont show up on the first page.

Re: discussion, rather? -- please read

2004-07-13T01:11:00.000-07:00

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:33:02

woohoo, a reply. =)

true, maybe there are some virtue that i can't comprehend behind what i consider as happiness. it's just that i don't see how it fits aristotle's definition of what a virtue is.
speaking of religious influence, of course there is, since i am a catholic. but then again, what my religion considers virtuous is still not what aristotle considers virtuous. i think my objection is his definition of what a virtue is. the definition of virtue is unclear, even socrates himself finds it hard to define virtue. in a discussion with meno, socrates in the end concludes that "whoever has virtue gets it by divine dispensation, but we shall not understang the truth of the matter until... we try to discover what virtue is in and by itself." this is a quote from "protagoras and meno" by plato. ISBN 0140440682 if anyone is interested in reading. i would recommend this book, socrates' discussion of virtue with both meno and protagoras are awesome. with meno, socrates clearly shows his superiority and outclasses meno in every way possible, but his argument with protagoras is more evenly matched. my humanities teacher in ucsd, dr. michael caldwell, claims that the argument with protagoras is known to be socrates' most embarassing moment, since he basically got completely defeated because he made a logical contradiction, but managed to pull something out of his a** and outwitted protagoras in the end. ha ha.

on the notion of happiness, i was NOT saying that money is happiness. i agree completely that money is just a means to acheiving happiness. but what i'm trying to say is that happiness is unique to every individual. so if one person wants to define money as happiness, we have no right to say that he is wrong. he DIFFERS in the idea of happiness with us, but what determines that ours is right and his is wrong? i guess what i'm trying to defend is this: anything that one believes, as long as he has a reason for it, is TRUE FOR HIMSELF, and not anyone else. therefore we don't have a right to say "oh, defining money as happiness is wrong," since while it brings no happiness to some people, maybe to one person it does. i took a metaphysics class in ucsd two quarters ago and we studied bits and parts of the mind and body problem. one thing i still remembers is that our mind is unique to ourself. you can be sitting in a classroom looking like you're paying attention, but at the same time you might be thinking about the angels game. now since happiness is a state of mind, or at least i define it to be so, won't happiness be unique, just like one's mind? and if happiness is unique, then there is no point in arguing about what is the greatest happiness, since the greatest and pefect happiness differs for every single individual.

money does not constitute happiness to me, to you, and to maybe most people, but if there is one person who finds happiness in money, then happiness it is for him. if you give a person all the money in the world, it will still have value, (and i bet that person will really find happiness in it =)) but if you give all the money in the world to EVERYONE in the world, THEN it won't have anymore value. but even so, if a person truly finds happiness in money, regardless of the value, he will still be happy.

POST 2: EPICURUS VS EPICTETUS

2004-07-13T01:09:00.001-07:00

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:52:07

epicurus' ethical theory stems from his belief that "nothing is created out of nothing." epicurus sees that fear of death is one thing that deprives one from happiness, but he has a solution to this: epicurus believes that death is merely a "deprivation of sensation." he believes that what people consider painful is actually not death itself, but the anticipation of it. but since death "gives no trouble when it comes," then it is nothing "but an empty pain in anticipation." for epicurus, death itself is nothing to be feared since it "does not concern either the living or the dead;" for the living, death has yet to come, and therefore is non-existent; while being dead simply implies non-existence, thus for the dead, death is "no more."

epicurus' conception of pain and pleasure is quite a unique one; he thinks that both pain and pleasure must coexist, with pain existing in order for one to enjoy greater pleasure. but this could also work the other way around, for if many pleasures result in "greater discomfort," we tend to avoid the pleasure. this is similar to not going to a party to completely get yourself wasted because you want to avoid a four-day hangover. then, in order for one to understand which pleasures to choose and which to avoid, one should understand the nature of one's desires, which he goes into detailed discussion in section six. an ethical person is then, according to epicurus, one who understands his desires such that he can rationally choose his actions so they will result in more pleasure than pain.

epictetus' view on ethics is quite different from that of epicurus. while epicurus thinks the gods do not "interfere in the events of nature" and that one must first acquire an understanding of his desires so he can choose proper actions that maximize his pleasures and minimize his pains, epictetus seems to think that human beings live in the "universal city of god" and they each have their own functions and duties toward others. epictetus practices stoicism in his ethical theory, and uses it as a foundation for his theory. for epictetus, human beings have the faculty to control his desires; will. this is essential in achieving happiness. he considers will as a faculty given by god, a faculty that is "superior to them all, which uses them, proves them, estimates the value of each." for epictetus, will is the most superior of all faculties, for he claims it to be "nothing beyond itself, only its own perversion."

the idea of will in epictetus' ethical theory is then significant, since he considers events to be of two different kinds; the first one being events that are within our power and the other one being those beyond our power. this stems from epictetus' belief that everyone has duties and functions toward others since god plays a significant role in life. there are some events that god lets us decide by ourself which course of action to take, but there are also events that are inevitable, and since they have been pre-arranged by god, there is nothing we can do to change the course of these events. an ethical person is then, according to epictetus, one with a disciplined mind (possibly practicing stoicism) that he is able to differentiate which events he has control of and which he has no control of, and is able to fully control the ones within his power, and able to act indifferent to the ones beyond his power.

while epicurus seems to be expressing the idea that happiness can be achieved if one is able to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, epictetus sees that happiness can only be achieved by a disciplined mind that can act indifferent to events that are beyond one's power. epictetus's ethical theory seems more influenced by his belief in god and his stoicism, while epicurus, though not denying divine existence, leaves out divine intervention out from his theory. for epictetus, as long as one understands god, no event can result in pain, so there is no need to minimize pain like what epicurus proposes in his theory.

discussion, rather? -- please read

2004-07-13T01:09:00.000-07:00

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 04:26:59

hi everyone,

i couldn't help but noticing that since monday the emails i've been getting from this yahoogroup are either someone's essay or someone asking for help. so i thought i should propose this.

can't we use this to informally discuss the readings? rather than simply sending essays that answer prof. diem's questions. maybe it's just me, but what is the point of posting something publicly, open to everyone for reading, if most of the content seems like oriented only for grading? on post 1, where prof. diem asked everyone to describe what makes them happy, the answers are great, like sharing, almost. but on the critique and analysis it seems like most of the answers are only for grading. no offense to anyone. i myself find it hard to make informal posts that is not prof.diem oriented since the posts are simply meant to answer an existing questions. but can we talk about the readings informally instead? like saying things such as "aristotle is overcomplicating things and in the end it doesn't make sense anyway." after all, a philosophy class should be discussion based, not just answering essay questions.

since i'm the one proposing, i'll start:

in four words:

i don't get aristotle.

okay, so it makes sense a little bit that happiness should be from something virtuous, and to know what is virtuous, one must use reasoning, and therefore, happiness should be reasoned. but why can't happiness come from something that can NOT be reasoned? like me, i'm happy if someone close to me is happy. it's that simple and it does not require reasons or definition of virtue. now is aristotle saying that i'm actually NOT happy?

in the intro section of chapter 3, page 21, bottom line, it says that virtue refers to the excellence of things. like virtuous knife cuts really well. i'm really good at drawing, but i choose to be a physics major because i like physics more than art, even though i'm not really that good in physics. now according to aristotle's definition of virtue, that means what i'm doing is not virtuous, because i'm not doing something i excel at. but i'm happy. i'm fully content (truth, i swear) at being a physics major. friends are great, faculties are awesome, i couldn't ask for more. i'm in a state of complete happiness. at this moment of life, i'm fully content with my life despite the lack of fullfillment of my desires. is that not happiness? i can't reason why i'm happy, and i can't find anything virtuous in things from which i extract my happiness, like a smile, if you read my post #1. but i'm happy. i think i have obtained happiness. will aristotle rise from his grave, fly all the way down to glendora and yell in front of my face that i'm actually not happy?

here's what * I * think about happiness. happiness is a state of mind. whether you're happy or not, it's all up to you. the choice is yours. you don't need to seek virtuous things like aristotle said. i agree that the final good in happiness, that everyone seeks happiness. who wouldnt? but how do you find happiness? well, the easiest way is to accept your current situation and wash away your wants. not needs, WANTS. if you have what you need at the very least, you should be happy. that is the fastest way to achieve happiness, to NOT want things. there's an old saying that goes "what i want is what i've got," truly i say to you, if that old saying is true for you, you are in a state of perfect happiness. no need for anything virtuous or fancy like what aristotle said.

another thing i'd like to say about aristotle's take on happiness is when he said "to examine all the opinions that have been held were perhaps somewhat fruitless," in regards to different people having different definition of happiness. why fruitless? why is it not right if people want their own happiness? i hold firmly to my belief that every individual is unique. they have complete control over their actions, their destiny, their choices, their definition of things, namely happiness. if one wants to define happiness as money, why can't he? as long as he lives up to it and puts effort to obtain his happiness, i see nothing wrong. i do not see the necessity to generalize a definition of happiness that is true for everyone, since even if we DO have a general definition of happiness that is consistent and EVERY SINGLE LIVING BEING on this earth agrees with, i still think they will all be living their own way of life. one who defines happiness as money will keep chasing money. one who defines happiness as career success will continue being a workaholic. one who defines happiness as being with the children will continue to be with the children. one who defines happiness as seeing his friends and family happy will still strive to help them to be happy. the general definition will then be something extremely vague and cannot be protested. like astrology. "you will have a financially rewarding opportunity." who can argue with that? anything from one extreme to the other can be considered as "financially rewarding."

i think a general definition of happiness that applies to everyone is not needed. as long as one understands the reason why he defines happiness the way he defines it, nothing could be wrong.

follow ups? flames? i hope that's controversial enough to start a long discussion. =P

POST 1: ON HAPPINESS

2004-07-13T00:21:00.000-07:00

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 03:42:28

what makes me happy?

a smile.

that may sound really naive and if one were to call that an over-idealization, maybe it is. but from my perspective on life, this real world is as real as it can get; so why not add a little dream and imagination to it? after all, one's happiness is unique; it's only "happiness" to that one specific person. one person might consider money as being happiness, that having an overabundant amount of money makes one happy. another person might consider love as being happines, that being loved is enough to make one happy. whatever your definition of happiness is, i believe that there's one thing that is certain: your happiness is unique, and it is only true for yourself.

so why a smile?

when you're happy, what do you do? you smile. as much as some people take pleasure over someone else's pain, i take pleasure over someone else's happiness. i used to be superficial; i thought having the most sophisticated computer would make me happy, it didn't. i thought having numerous friends would make me happy, it didn't. i thought a cool, expensive car would make me happy, it didn't. i thought having a girlfriend would make me happy, it didn't. not that being superficial is wrong; if you find happiness in superficial things, then good for you. but i didn't. i've looked, but i couldn't. something was still lacking, so i looked again.

then i realized, that without a smile, nothing is worth it. what's the point of having plenty of money but never seeing a smile on my family's face? what's the point of getting good grades if it only causes your friends to envy you? what's the point of success if you're smiling alone? a smile on the face of the people close to me is what i define as happiness. i don't mind having to sacrifice something of my own, as long as i can see some smiles. i would not mind sacrificing what i have, to keep the smile on the faces of the people close to me. and these are no mere words, i speak based on personal experience. a smile gives me enough reason for me to go on with life. a smile alleviates my anxiety and allows me to be content with what i have. a smile defines my happiness.

aristotle's ethical theory is rather complicated. his investigation begins with the analysis of what kind of good that people desire and defines that whatever the good is, it has to be final, that is "never for the sake of something else," (p.24, 5) and self-sufficient, that is "when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing." (p.25, 5) from these, he concludes that happiness is the final good that everyone desires. aristotle then proceeds to define the nature of happiness; to do this, he starts by examining the function of man, and from there concludes that it has to be an "activity of soul in accordance with virtue." (p.25, 6) but what is virtue, really? aristotle's discussion on the nature of virtue then leads to a conclusion on two different types of virtue: moral and intellectual. moral virtue, according to aristotle, is concerned with making a choice where "there is no excess or deficiency." (p.29, 10) then in his discussion on intellectual virtue, aristotle claims that in making a choice, one needs both reason and intellect. essentially, reasons are needed for one to achieve happiness. without reasoning, one cannot make the best choice that will lead to the greatest virtue. since happiness has to be "in accordance with virtue," reasoning is required, and thus, happiness can only be achieved through a "contemplative" life; carefully using reasoning to make a decision to achive the highest virtue.

happiness as an "activity of the soul in accordance with virtue," can somewhat be applied to my take on happiness. what makes me happy, is a smile on someone else's face. a smile is an activity of the soul, for a soul is filled with emotions, and when one is overwhelmed by emotions, a smile can only be real, or non-existent at all. under normal conditions, it may be easy for one to fake a smile, but when emotions take over, one cannot fake a smile. let's say, that one beloved family member passed away. sadness and grief will take over, making it harder for one to smile. in this way, a smile can be seen as an acitvity of the soul.
now, is it in accordance with virtue? perhaps not. what aristotle implies when he said "in accordance with virtue" is the use of reasoning to make correct decisions that will lead to the greatest virtue, because activities that accords with the greatest virtue, bring the most pleasure, and thus happiness. a smile as a source of happiness is already hard to explain with reasoning, let alone being the highest of virtues. if aristotle's take on happiness is one that uses reasoning as a foundation, then from aristotle's view, my happiness is not happiness.

aristotle agrees earlier in his "nichomachean ethics" that what everyone desires the most is happiness, and says that "but with regard to what happiness is they differ." (p.24, 4) here it seems that aristotle readily admits that happiness is unique to everyone, that one's definition of happiness differs from another, and yet he goes on to generalize the definition of happiness so that it finally applies to everyone. while it is true that, in order to establish a theory, it has to be applicable in general, aristotle should have just stopped at the conclusion that the good that everyone desires, the good that is final and self-sufficient, is happiness. aristotle's argument that the use of reasoning to obtain the highest virtue and eventually the perfect happiness, is just not valid to some. in his argument that pleasantness of an activity is "a function of their goodness, and not vice versa," aristotle fails to consider that there are some people who excel at some things, yet loathe doing it. since to aristotle, virtue refers to "the excellence of a thing and hence the disposition to perform effectively its function," (p.21-2, intro) a person who excels in his functions is considered "virtuous." however, consider a carpenter who excels in carpentry, and has been doing carpentry for the past twenty years. now this carpenter enjoys painting more, although he is not good at it. will it be happiness to this carpenter if he keeps being a carpenter? will it not be more pleasant for the carpenter himself if he paints? if it is more pleasant, will it not bring more happiness? aristotle mistakenly assumes that when one excels at something, then one enjoys what one is doing. while this is mostly true in people, there are some exceptions to which aristotle's reasoning does not apply.

like how a smile gives me happiness.

smile is definitely not the highest virtue, and there is no need to excel in smile. but a smile brings me happiness, believe it or not. seeing a smile on people's face tells me that they are content, that they are satisfied, that they have no desires or wants unfulfilled, and all that makes gives me happiness, simply because they, too, are happy.