week of October 20: After having heard about Kant's moral philosophy, think carefully about what you believe makes something morally right or good. Do you believe it is one's motives? The consequences of what one does? The hardship involved? Explain and justify your view.
I believe that right and wrong should be judged by looking at both motive and circumstance. I do not agree with Kant that right and wrong can be universalizable, Like last week's blog about having to make a decision in order to serve the greater good, I believe that sometimes it is necessary to make choices that might conflict with with one's moral compass. Without looking at the circumstances it is impossible to judge actions as right or wrong. Motive plays a huge role as well, if somebody is doing "good" things purely out of personal gain then those acts should not be held in the same regard as acts that are purely selfless regardless of the outcome. However, people need to realize that before they can help others sometimes they need to help themselves. A man that has gained a large amount of wealth would be able to make more of a difference in the lives of other's than somebody who can barely support themselves.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Kant either. It seems with his right and wrong philosophy, it is to cut and dry to work. Nothing ever is that easy, especially with many different minds and culture at work. If this were the case then there would only be one God or one way to get a job done. We would never try to improve upon ourselves and essentially be treading water with no goals in fear of not following the rules.
DeleteI don't think everyone will ever agree on morally right or wrong because we all think way too different. I'm really not sure why Kant believed in the thought of universal agreement on right and wrong. Even on drugs and abortion, people have different opinions and I really believe that we will always have different opinions. People also look at things in different ways and from different views. One person may see something as a negative turning into a positive or some people are just full on negative.
ReplyDeleteI do also think that is extremely hard to come to an agreement when talking about everyone coming to a consensus. We were all raised differently and have been through different life experiences, making us all think differently about certain things. I may not care one way or another about women having abortions (not saying I don't, just using an example), but a woman who has been through an abortion and has firsthand experience on the matter may lean strongly against it because of the tremendous amount of guilt she felt about it afterwards. She may not have cared about the matter before her abortion either, but since she had one then she experienced what it's like on the other side and realized she is against them. I think everyone has basic morals, but sometimes they get altered and tweaked a little bit at a time. Sometimes there's nothing wrong with that; Others not so much.
DeleteI also believe that we as a society will ever agree on what's right and what's wrong, which devastates me greatly! Of course you could say, we have made a lot of progress in our lives and the lives of others, but there is still more boundaries we need to overcome in today's world. I also feel that everyone has their own definition of right and wrong, because it is relative to every culture and every nation, as we had discussed in our last blog of CR. Issues like drugs and abortion will always exist because of everyones opinion differ from one person to the next. Some would agree that abortion is wrong because they are pro-life, while others would argue that abortion is ok if it spares the mother's life.
DeletePeople will always their own opinions/views. Motive does play an important role in this. If someone is doing something good to better themselves or doing acts of good just to do them. Circumstance also plays a role because sometimes you get put in a bad circumstance and have to make choices to act on the circumstance. Right or wrong is going to vary on who the person is because everybody views this different. I also believe that there are many options to solve a problem, not just a couple. Consequences are always there because choices are involved. Every choice use make will end with consequences good or bad.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about what is right or morally good I think of the 10 commandments. I feel that the most consequence comes from how you feel after the fact that you realized you did something wrong. From personal experience I don't think it is ones motives that drive a person to do what they do, but rather, how a person was raised. I was raised in a very Christian home and was always taught that what is right depends on what is right according to the bible and 10 commandments.
ReplyDeleteComing from a Christian standpoint, then yes, I do think that the 10 commandments are a perfect example for those that believe to follow. I do also think that a huge part of it comes from how a person was raised. I do think that non-Christians can have wonderful families too though--That's where basic morals come in. Even though not everyone is religious, they still know in their hearts and minds what is right and what is wrong. They know what they should do and what they should not do. On the other side of the spectrum, I've seen people in church that really don't belong there. I went to a Lutheran school and a few of those kids turned out worse than the kids that went to the public school. A parent can do everything they can and to the best of their ability to raise a child right, but if they don't want to listen and they get to the age where they do what THEY want to do, they won't listen and they will make their own rules. Mistakes will be made, and lessons will be learned. I wish everyone could learn their lesson and stop making the mistakes after the first time, but sadly, this is not how it always happens. They have no fear of consequences and keep getting into trouble.
Deletebeing non religious i do agre that the 10 commandments are some good rules to follow if you would like to be morally correct from the christian standpoint. But dont you have to think of other religions and what they believe. Those cannibals in africa and other parts of the world are doing what from their religion is moraly correct yet doesnt match christian faith. Remember during class how something that is morally right should be considered right through time and place.
DeleteSo what you're saying isnt necessarily that it's about the 10 commandments, but how you are raised to be? Because say someone was raised to be good without any Christian faith involved, or better yet they were just raised neutraly but grew up in good moral standing. If you were rased with good morals, be it any way imaginable, it is morally the same as being raised with good Christian values.
DeleteAfter having heard about Kant's moral philosophy, think carefully about what you believe makes something morally right or good. Do you believe it is one's motives? The consequences of what one does? The hardship involved? Explain and justify your view.
ReplyDeleteBeing morally right is some what hard to explain. Every culture has different morals. No lying, No killing, Don't be lazy, Preserve life. These were the examples that Kant provided us. As we learned, these maxims conflict with one another.
According to Kant if one commits one of these maxims then they are considered " morally corrupt" I tend to disagree with this. In war, the soldiers help others by protecting their homeland. If a girl is raped and a baby is the result of the raping, then I think she should have to the right to keep the baby, or go through the abortion process, without being judged.
Being morally right is someone that has right motives ( Helping others, preserving life,). Conflicts might occur, but if the motives are "right" then the overall result should be morally right. I think consequences should matter to an extent, but accidents do happen and if someone has good intentions, then that should matter the most.
I agree with your thoughts here. I also think that motives play the biggest part in determining what is morally right. I also like the way that you brought up accidents and that they do happen. Someone can have the best of intentions but screw something up horribly due to a mistake. Does this make them a bad person? No, it makes them human because we call make mistakes.
DeleteI believe what makes someone morally right is a combination or motives and the consequences involved. One has to have good motives and not have selfish reasons for wanting to help someone. If a person did have selfish motives than that goes against being morally good. If you were to gain something other than a good feeling from helping someone than you not basing that decision just or morals alone. Also the consequences some decisions you make to help people do not always benefit you in your life it could set your whole day off but if you push aside those possible consequences you are doing it for the benefit of the other person and not yourself.
ReplyDeleteYou make some very good points. I agree with you on every one of them in fact. No one person can make someone else help another person. If there were to be a helpful person on every street corner just waiting for someone to come along that needs help, the world would be a much better place.
Deletei also agree that motives play a very important role in deciding whether or not someone is morally right. Consequences do play a role in good intentions. Consequences and accidents must not happen all the time or the good motives could go for nothing
DeleteI think that there are a lot of components that go into making something morally right or good. I think intentions are a huge part of it. If you have a malicious intent but do something that would normally appear good, the intent causes that action to not be morally right or good. An example of this would be giving someone advice that would appear to be help when in reality the advice was poor because it was your intention to make the person look bad. Conversely an act the is typically morally wrong could possibly be justified by the intent ( in rare cases where the intent is completely pure). One of the very few examples of this would be if someone where to kill another person that was attempting to kill someone they loved; murder in self-defense of a loved one. If the only options are kill or be killed and you are acting to save someone then the moral severity of your act, I believe, would be slightly lessened. I think that consequences can play some factor in deciding whether an act is morally right but I tend to agree with Clifford's view that morality of an act lays heavily in the intent. Hardship can also play a small factor. If someone who has very little gives to others what little they can spare, I feel like that act is morally better than someone who gives more because they have more. Since the first person's sacrifice was greater then their contribution means more morally. However, that's not to say the other person's contribution means nothing at all. I think there are varying degrees of what is morally good and right and as a result there are many things that cause these gradations. Intent, to me, is still the major factor however.
ReplyDeleteA lot goes into judging whether something's morally right/good, but I think it's ones intent that plays the biggest role. If someone where to do what seemed like a good deed, but only wanted a reward or recognition, I don't think that would (or should) be deemed morally right. Though a person did a good thing, they were only being selfish and wanted something in return. I think someone who is morally right/good does good things without wanting something in return. This brings me to the discussion we had in class about whether a morally right person does good things out of duty and not because they want to. According to Kant, someone who does good deeds because they like to isn't commendable. This is one of the things that I disagree with. I think that someone who does something morally right/good because they want to and aren't being selfish is commendable. I'd much rather have someone help me who wants to help than have a grumpy person help because they have to.
ReplyDeleteAside from looking at intent, you have to look at the consequences of an action to be able to effectively judge the action. If someone did something good with the right intention, but the action had a negative consequence that was an accident, I think that the accident could be forgiven and that person would still have done something morally right. However, if the reverse happened and the negative consequence was intentional, then that cancels out the good deed and the person wouldn't have done anything morally right. It's just like the example we used in class.
I also think that looking at the hardship involved plays a part in judging something to be morally right/good, though not as big as someone's motives or the consequences. I think that someone who gives more than what they have is more commendable than someone who has the means to give more because they have more, though both of their actions/motives are good. The reason I say this is because one person has sacrificed so much more than the other but still chooses to go out of their way to help.
I do think that people have basic morals that they live and abide by. Even if the golden rule didn't exist, I think that we'd still have that basic concept in our heads and would treat others how we would want to be treated. I say this about people in general, but not necessarily every person individually is going to behave in this manner. There are bad people everywhere and I do also think that some people are corrupted and behave differently than what is expected of them, or go against those basic morals. For the most part, we all have basic motives and needs. But like I said, there are some that stray from that and decide to take a path of their own and have their own motives apart from everyone elses. I do think consequences are a huge part of people making mistakes and doing things that would be considered wrong. If I could slap someone that I absolutely did not like and could get away with it, I might. I probably wouldn't though because 1. I'm not a aggressive when it comes to fighting someone physically (never have and never will) and 2. I would be afraid of consequences. I also think a huge part of someone's morals is how they were brought up and raised. This isn't necessarily always true though, because a child could be brought up in a Christian home but end up the most self-centered, brat in school (I went to a Lutheran school and saw this happen). Sometimes things get forced onto a person so much that they end up turning the completely opposite way and going against everything that they were taught.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people have basic morals they live/abide by, and some of those people would still live by them if that golden rule wasn't around, but I think that most people would go around doing whatever they wanted and not care about what happens to other people. I agree that there are bad and corrupt people everywhere; you see it every day. I see a lot of people who could help others but don't, instead choosing to brush them off. However, I also see people who go out of their way to help others and not want any type of recognition whatsoever. Those people I think are doing what is morally right, whether they do it without knowing it or choose to do it because they want to.
DeleteI think that when something is morally right or good it directly impacts something in our life or someone else's positively. I think that people do things to make themselves feel better about their day without even consciously thinking about it. For instance, I may hold the door extra long just to make the person behind me believe that I am a gentleman. I make plenty of moves like this everyday without realizing what I'm actually doing. Not everyone has the same motives, as we are all different in our chemical makeup, so it does depend on the situation. Like I said in my example, the consequences of holding a door open is that person believes that you are a gentlemen and that is a good consequence. Well in my example, there isn't much hardship unless you are late for your job or class. Luckily, even though you may be a few seconds late you may have helped that person holding all those books behind you and made them get to class faster. There are plenty of morally good things we can do that causes more hardship than my example but I just used one that was minuscule compared to other deeds that are morally right.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think you are on to something: a morally right or immorally wrong deed impacts the lives of everyone, but if someone acted out based on good duty to make themselves feel better, than everybody would act upon that, but they don't. What kind of world would we live in if everyone acted on their desires. It is ok to say we should act on our desires, if they benefit everyone. We would live in a society where good deeds would be voluntary: everyone would feel good for something they did for another person because it makes themselves feel good...but is this the true reason to do good in life or should we act as if to make the other person feel better?
DeleteI like the way you highlighted that for something to be morally right is has to have a positive impact in our life or someone else's. I had not considered this fact myself but I definitely agree with it.
DeleteI agree with what you said about holding doors and just doing things on a whim. I think that those little things we do for others on a daily basis for others that we don't even think about, are some of the most morally good things we can do. Sure you can donate tons or time or money or do something exceptionally nice but that is something someone would definitely have to think about and decided to do. What does everyone else think? What is better to do, a random act of kindness or something thought out? Explain.
DeleteI believe that people have good intentions and they also act on them. People do what they desire, but they also do what they are inclined to do. To decide what is right or wrong we must look at its consequences. We do things to make others feel good, but also to make ourselves feel good as well. We sometimes do the right thing even before thinking, setting all desires aside because it is dutiful. Whether the act good or bad, impacts our lives greatly. Depending on the situation we govern our behavior and we act upon what we feel is right at that very moment. Duty is of good will, so if we act on our duties with good intentions we hope there will be a positive outcome. Is self-altruism a bad thing? Obviously if you do good deeds only to make yourself happy, you have abolished the whole meaning of a good act! Like Kant states in the categorical imperative, "if an action would be good merely as a means to something else the imperative is hypothetical," which he obviously didn't acquire to-he believed in the categorical imperative which meant, "if the action is represented as in itself good, hence as necessary in a will itself conforming to reason, as its principle, then it is categorical." Kant obviously believed in "do x" not "do x, if y will happen." According to his universal law of nature, there are four maxims. These are similar to the Ten Commandments as God handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai: they all represent something in particular, such as maxim 1: do not murder (self-suicide) 2: Do not steal (covent) 3: make yourself productive (the seven deadly sins, sloth) and 4 which is: do not be jealous of anyone (greed and envy, yet another two of the seven deadly sins!) And finally, what Kant believed was we should treat others merely as a means, not an end.
ReplyDeleteI like the way you highlighted that a good act done to make ourselves feel good negates the meaning of the good act. I also like the way you spoke of doing things for others as a duty sometimes; something that we almost unconsciously do at times. If a good act is done unconsciously done then it is truly a good act and not done, like you, to achieve end 'y'.
DeleteI like how you go with duty on this, meaning you do something because you should and not for self gain. I think a lot of people have in recent years been lazy when it comes to do things that are morally right. So people who help someone out in order to make themselves arent really doing a good dead because it is selfish where as someone helping another out because they should is a good act.
DeleteFor me, something that is morally good is when you do something has a positive affect on either you or another person. I believe that people act one their desires, as well as do things that just come naturally to them. For example when I hold doors open for others it is something I didn't plan or think about it, it just happens. On the other hand there are times where I know my mom needs help around the house so I do things like vacuum or the dishes to help her. Both examples are good deeds but one was thought out while the other was just a random act. As for the consequences or hardships of these morally good actions they can have quite the range, from costing you something as little as a few seconds of your time, to say your life or the life of others, all depending on the situation.
ReplyDeleteFor some people it just comes as a second nature to help others. I grew up in a family that would do anything to help a neighbor or a stranger. Now that I am older I live by the same morals and obligations. So I guess you could say that I could be used as an example for your statements above.
DeleteI, too, believe that something is morally good when it has a positive effect on another person, and maybe even me, so long as it benefits the other person much more. I could care less if I get recognition; I just want to help other people as much as I can. I agree that people act on their desires as well as do things that come naturally. I hold doors open for people all the time, and I go out of my way to help older people or people who are over-encumbered as well. I do these things because it makes me feel good to help someone and it's just something that comes naturally to me.
DeleteI agree, I am always holding doors open for people and helping another person in any way I can. I just feel it is the right thing to do and it has a positive impact on another person/people and myself. I believe it really does make a difference in the world.
DeleteThat definition of morally good is pretty lacking. What about things that have no effect on anyone else? Does that mean it's morally good? Also what about the person's intentions? Let's say that you holding the door open for someone gives them just enough time to catch someone and hurt them? Is that morally good? Obviously in Kant's ideal world it would be...Do you think the person holding the door would still feel good?
DeleteI think that whats morally right for one person is not always concidered morrally right to another person. I do believe that your morals change as you get older, but eventually you should get to a place where you know what your doing is either right or wrong. I dont think the consiqences, or hardship should change your moral beliefs, or can but sometimes you dont have a choice but to break them. If someone were to break into my house and I had to shoot and kill them it doesnt mean that I think killing isnt morally wrong. I would have been stopping something someone else is doing thats morally wrong, and to me thats ok.
ReplyDeleteYou have a good point. It is definitely a thin line between morally right and wrong. And even with your example, people may read it and think that your decision to shoot a person who broke into your house would be morally wrong. It all depends on the person. So how can we judge others decisions as if ours are the only right ones because everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
DeleteI think that some people have misjudge things that are morally right and wrong. Things that people may assume that others think the same way that they do. If everyone thought the same way, we would never have any differences or opinions. The only way to distinguish between morally right and wrong is to have differences and changes. Even if you are wrong I do not believe that the consequences could or should change your moral beliefs between right and wrong. Say someone is holding you hostage and you have two choices, kill the kidnapper or die, what would you do?
ReplyDeleteI think that you have hit a huge misunderstanding that lot of people dont realize. When you walk up to someone you expect them to be like you because you don't know any different. As soon as they are different from you, you judge what they are different on and then people act in a certain way. Everyone does it, and probably on a daily basis if you are social.
DeleteI don't think it's morally wrong to kill someone to save your own life. I think whether something is morally right or wrong is fairly definable in most situations. For example, if someone needed help, then it would be morally right to help them. Helping someone in need is the right thing to do because you would want someone to help you in a similar situation. There are, of course, some grey areas, but I think right and wrong are fairly universal in many cases.
DeleteSome people jump in head first without thinking of themselves or others while some stop and think about what they are doing and try to rationalize it before acting on something. To me there is no right or wrong way or even a singular way of doing things because everyone is different and with that fact they will think differently and come to their own idea of what’s right and wrong. I personally if given the choice to save someone’s life, I would willing give mine to save theirs, even though Kant says that is wrong. That person’s life that I save may be the one who cures cancer or contributes something wonderful to changes the lives of those around them or even the world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you people do jump head first in things without even considering the consequences. Everyone does have different views and opinions, but I do believe that we can come to somewhat of an compromise of what is right and wrong at an universal view. Like Kants 4 maxims.
DeleteI agree with your statement about risking your life for another. One will never know the impact that a person can have on the world.
DeleteLike I've mentioned in previous posts, I think that morals are determined by each individual and that they differ between situations. I think motives have some part to play in being a good person but I feel that its up to each person to decide whether or not they're doing the right thing for themselves. I don't think consequences or hardships necessarily have a large part in this. A lot of the time people go out of their way to show someone something like how good they might be when they could have just accomplished the same thing with less time and effort and let no one know it was them. It makes sense to me to just get something done with and not worry about what others might think of you. Consequences are similar in the aspect that you shouldn't care too much about what others think. There are certain things that will put you behind bars but not everything deemed illegal or immoral is going to be something you agree with.
ReplyDeleteI think you have a good point. Not everything that is illegal seems like a bad moral decision. An example is someone selling marijuana. It is illegal to sell it, but that person might not think it is wrong because they don't seem the harm in it. So they go on selling it. But the law deems it unacceptable so that person will be arrested and put in jail. Not everything that is morally wrong to one person is morally wrong to another.
DeleteI agree. It is an individuals moral choice, and there is no cut and dried general moral answer. Even if youre brought up thinking one thing is right, you could think of it slightly varied from the people who brought you up to believe it.
DeleteI don't necessarily agree. I don't think anything that causes another person to suffer can be considered morally good. Not really in relation to a person's morals but whether something is morally right or wrong I think most people tend to agree on what is truly right or wrong. The only things can truly be decided on either way don't really matter when it comes to morally right or wrong.
DeleteMorals have to do with the individual. I think they are determined by how the person is raised. A person doing something i find bad could be something that they find to be correct. Also certain cultures do things that others dont approve of yet in there place it is just fine. For example cannibalism, most cultures dont think its ok to eat any human let alone kill a human. Yet there it is perfectly normal and acceptable. I think consequences are the biggest reason why people do or dont do things. Honestly i believe that if killing were to be completely legal that everyone would be killing each other. All it would take to start the killings would be one person killing another then someone would kill him for killing the other guy and so on in an almost similar pattern. Morals are decided by the individual, how they are raised, culture, and the situation they are in.
ReplyDeleteConsequences are a big factor in what people do. And it may even go the other way- you may not do good because maybe people will expect more of you, or people will laugh at you because you are a pushover, maybe people will take advantage of you. Consequences whether you are doing something good or bad have a huge effect on what choices we make.
DeleteI like how you pointed out that how a person was raised affects their understanding of moral rights and wrongs. When I wrote my post I didn't include that or even think about it but now that I read this I really agree. I think that how parents raised their children and what morals and values they instill in them. My parents were big on fairness, showing respect, and treating others well in hopes they return the acts.So for me I always hold doors for others or help someone who has dropped something because as a kid, I saw my parents do those things and to me those were morally good things to do.
DeleteI don't agree with this 100% because I was raised in a religious family who had some pretty strict morals while they lacked on some others. I found myself to be a lot more lax towards some of the things they were very against. I honestly think that it depends on the individual to take from their experiences and determine what morals they stand by.
DeleteI feel like we will never be able to truly know what our motives are behind what we do -- evil or good. I feel like the what people do have to deal with within themselves (in their conscience). I also don't really feel like I have the right to tell someone who is morally good or morally bad. Someone may try to tell me that sex before marriage is bad and push their morals on me and i'm not going to think about it at all because my morally good doesn't really care if i have sex before marriage or not. It really depends on the person and unless they aren't harming others then i couldn't care less.
ReplyDeleteI think that Kant’s philosophy on moral and what someone believes to be right is not a correct way of thinking about why people do good in the world. A motive is a hidden reason for doing something and is done for yourself and not for others, which I believe there are other people out there who do right in the world because they want to not because they have to. Another thing is what one person thinks is right and wrong could be totally different from what someone else believes is right or wrong. Although I also feel like people have about the same morals because something that would hurt someone else would be wrong and a person not knowing that it would be a bad decision to hurt them is wrong for thinking so. It all depends on opinion thought on what is morally right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteMorals. I can't even begin to answering if what's right is in ones intention or consequences of ones actions. What i believe is just that, it's what i believe. I have a unique moral system birthed from both nature and nurture that's shaped me into i am today. When i hear about people like Kant who are trying to create or discover an answer that speaks to a general populace i think thats admirable, but ultimately flawed. Everyone has a different answer or variation. Its like a game of telephone spanning generations of changing moral value.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, action is good if it is based on good intentions. I think only good intentions is the center. "In this world nothing can be called good without recompense except goodwill. Example, intelligence and courage, is usually good, but can also be used to develop crime. Happiness can be obtained with low road. Someone may contribute but their intention to seek names or because they do not dare to deny the request. Good intentions, just intentions based on responsibility, the only act on the basis of respect for the principle of responsibility. If someone is acting out of intentions, good action. We did not look into the results or consequences. So if the motive is led by reason and not just to the will, it will be absolute and functional, this means that it is the responsibility to follow, and there is no exception in this regard.
ReplyDeleteI think something can only be judged as morally right or wrong by motive. If a person acts with good intentions but the ultimate consequence was negative it doesn't change whether the action is morally right or wrong. For example, if someone risks their life to try to save another persons life but somehow their actions cause more people to die, it doesn't make the decision to save the first person's life a morally wrong one.
ReplyDeleteI think that both motive and consequences determine what is morally right or wrong. However, its not always possible to know the consequences of an action ahead of time, so it will be judged afterwards. Peoples motives can change depending on the situation, so it wont always be clear what their motives are.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about motive and consequences playing a role in what is morally right or wrong. Because thinking deeper into the motive side of it, what if some one with very good intentions and motives but made or terrible mistake or a horrible accident occurred. That person still had good motives and intentions therefore it was still morally right, it was not morally wrong because one did not intend for the mistake to be made or accident to happen. This blog question could be looked at and dissected into many different scenarios. :)
DeleteExtra Credit blog for test!: I find the problem of evil: the atheist argument to be problematic. It states that, there is no evidence or argument to prove the existence of God, but for me, the evidence is everywhere; God is all around us and is always there even though we can't see Him, but we can feel His presence within the miracles He creates that we endure. Why would the lack of evidence prove that God does not exist? Maybe there is no proof; maybe our daily lives could contribute evolution. But who created evolution? To me, it all stems to God; God created everything...and it was good! Of course we don't live in a perfect world! But life is a test, a gift from God. If everything was perfect there would be no reason to live, for there would be no lessons to learn. God is a perfect being, but everything happens for a reason, I believe! But how can good coexist with evil? Based on experience, people who I've encountered always believe there is hell, but not heaven. Why are people around me so pescimistic? People often dismiss the idea of God, by saying that if the world we live in is imperfect, then so is God. But God is the greatest conceivable being that is perfect and infinite, because we are finite! So to deny the presence of God most people dismiss the idea that a) deny J-C exists b) deny conflict or c)deny evil. Good and evil exists with eachother thus can not be measured. It is like comparing something small and big, we cant define it! This why we have free-will. With God, anything is possible, but we are not in total control, yet we have some control. We can choose to do the right thing or the wrong thing with fw. Even before we were born, God had a plan for us. This is a part of judgement day. He must judge us based on experience, what we did in this decision or what we did in a certain situation. And if we act right, it will come back to us ten-fold. Is evil necessary for fw? In my opinion, no. We can act on our desires just as easily as a duty such as a good deed. This is the ultimate test; if we choose the right decision and we ace life we go to heaven. But here is something that doesn't quite agree with me: if we were born sinners how can we be perfect? We are obviously imperfect, so how can we past the test if we are bound to fail and make mistakes?
ReplyDeleteExtra Credit blog for test!: So here we have Pascal's Wager that states we cannot prove whether God exists is advocating the athiest argument right off the bat! A wager is like a coin toss and in this case, God does not reward either bet. Basically what I think Pascal was trying to say here was that the rational choice is to believe in God, because if we do, we would gain a whole lot more than if we were to deny His existence. Belief in God comes with many good things like: heaven, infinite, and a positive outcome. There would be not much to lose if we believe rather than not believe. The rational choice here would be theism! Yet there is a 50/50 chance that God exists or not. We have heard of miracles but I feel the only ultimate way of knowing is through passing to the other side. Until then, we may never know, yet we shall rise again like Jesus, if this is a true belief...which for me, it is. This means we must act on faith if we can not see Him rather than on evidence; which for me, there is plenty of! In philosophy class we discussed what cultural relativism is. We all have basic moral rules or values so it is hard to measure what is right or wrong from one place or time from another. Universally, some basic values stem from more than one culture; such as murder (you can not kill willy nilly in any country you step foot in). I think that Kant would adopt this way of thinking because he believed in universal moral values that everyone can obey universally and internationally. It is wrong to judge your own culture unless if you are prepared to critcize your own; and we do! In class we discussed FGM and female body obsession. Both are bad in there own right; there is no absolute good choice here. We know that FGM is involuntary and dangerous, whereas, body dismorphic disorder is voluntary and less dangerous and reversable. Americans have a choice, whereas, those innocent African girls don't. But something mental can have a large impact, whereas physical pain can go away. I feel that we should go into countries that promote FGM and educate them that it is dangerous and tramatic for young women and girls alike, because to me, innaction is just as wrong as committing the wrongful action to begin with.
ReplyDeleteKant stated that an act is good depending on consequences, that we must look at the motive to decide whether the act is good or bad. There were four maxims he proposed, and stated that one should act based on his or her knowledge of what is right could be made into a universal basic moral rule. But this is imeasurable, for who decided what is right or wrong, who set the mark? we must look therefore, at the consequences. Under HU, Mill proposed that we must also look at the consequences, but maximize net happiness for everyone equally, arcording to egalitarianism. Is it possible to live as a utilitarianism. Yes...if you are Peter Singer! Mill stated that we are like pleasure seeking pigs that act on our lower pleasures such as sex or consumating, whereas our higher pleasures bring more joy and fulfillment to our lives ultimately, which some may argue as unfair. It takes a lot of planning, but not too much because that would take away time to do something useful, like volunteering, but then we would be taking away time to go to school...so it calls for a perfect balance of utilization of the tools set in front of you....it is a very difficult subject.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that something morally right or wrong comes from one's motives, the consequences, the outcome, and how one was raised. However mainly I believe that aside from being morally right or wrong one's opinions and actions are based upon or comes from their motives, the consequences, the possible outcome, and how one was raised. I deeply hope that one day society can come to a sort of mutual agreement on at least some topics. However, unfortunately I don't see it happening. My high school history teacher always used to say "think rationally, or be realistic, or that's not rational thinking". Everyone agreeing on everything made me think of him because when it comes down to whether mutual agreement could exist or not, it's just not realistic or rational thinking! :) haha! So basically my answer to the blogging question is everything is a factor in the role of deciding whether something is morally right or wrong.
ReplyDelete