ROK3

Sunday is recycling day in my hall. One of the hardest things about recycling, especially in GK, is the crazy amount of stuff that the EC's have to go around and pick up. The other day, I noticed as I came back that some one's bag broke and spilled garbage everywhere. Thus, I stopped and helped them pick up the trash for about 15 minutes until it was all done.

Mill and Social Situations

What struck me about this chapter was how much emphasis Mill puts on Social things in general. Social duties, social obligations, social utility, etc. My point is he puts a lot thought into the idea of humanity as a social collection of beings, so to speak. Now this really drives Mill's entire philosophy. This is evident from his conception of justice. For Mill, I believe, one of the main arguments against Utilitarianism is the idea of justice and injustice. How can, if society is driven by the idea of the greater good, injustice laws arise? Mill's view, again, on Justice is that it is a set of moral requirements that promote social utility, thus making it of the most important degree. This explains, for Mill, how the idea or conception of Justice changes from time to time and society to society - because man, being a social creature, must adapt his responses to moral situations depending on the level of utility involved. He uses the example of Hammurabi's code to illustrate this, and how, even if said code isn't used any more, most people feel a twinge of yearning for that kind of justice still. This is, for Mill, a natural, rather than a social, response.

Utility and such

My understanding of Utilitarianism is thus: That a decision is moral if the outcome of that decision creates a greater amount of good than it does evil. This can be applied to small as well as large scale situations. What I am still a bit confused about is too whether or not Mill believes that this is something that rational people will just naturally do, or if it is the course of action we should, rather than always do, take. For example, if we always put the idea of the "Greater Happiness" theory to work, everyone would a vegan. Mill, and most contemporary Utilitarians I know of, were animal rights activists.

To Mill, it matters very little whether from an epistemological standpoint a person is an emphirist or a rationalist, believes in a priori principles or learning through experience. The fact of the matter is, according Mill, is that ALL ethical theories have one thing in common - the ultimate goal is happiness. Thus, he doesn't feel that he needs to provide a much further proof, than that all other theories revolve around the notion of happiness. He has simply forged from that a more comprehensive, sensible, from his perspective, theory. He believes that certain things are simply desirable - if one desires money, he will work within the context of the socio-economic structure to earn that money. Likewise, if one desires to create happiness, he will work within the context of an ethical system (Utilitarianism) that creates the most happiness.

Mill Prep

It would certainly seem that the act of causing pain would be considered immoral, and that causing happiness would be considered moral. There are critics of this idea however, Kierkegaard said something along the lines of, "The pursuit of Pleasure or Pain? Is not that what motivates a slug?" So while innately acting in a manner that produces pleasure can be viewed as good, and a manner that decreases pain is also good, I don't see a fundamental argument that can be made from a metaphysical perspective (like Kant) in favor of this form of ethics. If one is to argue that the action that has the most positive consequences is best, I would have to ask, best for whom? Aren't consequences nearly always subjective (or at least how one views consquences)?

O'Neill's Ethics

O'Neill agrees with Kant insofar as she believes that we ought to avoid contradicting ourselves from a moral and metaphysical sense. Where she differs however, is over the issue of children's rights. Children who are abused, mentally, physically, or sexually, are more apt to develop psychological problems in their older years that will impair them from making the kind of rational decisions they need in order to be morally justified. So we don't have the right to disobey this duty; we must do it. Unlike the Kantian outlook, these things must be upheld for the future of the human race. This being said, I found it rather hard to pin down what O'Neill was saying, but I think that I nailed down the general idea.

ROK2

Tonight, despite my fever, I did my laundry. After using the dryer, I cleaned off the lint vent. After that, I decided to clean all of the dryer lint from all the dryers. A lot of people don't do that when they finish drying. At any rate, I figured that was a good act of kindness, since I hate forgetting to do that and then having my laundry ruined.

"The Metaphysics of Morals"

Doctrine of Right

Here Kant discusses objects and how one comes into possession of Objects. My understanding from the reading is that anything that is a physical enentity (a book, a plot of land, even another person) can be considered an object. First, the relationship between the person and the object in question is important. The person who ha first "dibs", so to speak, on the object is the person who should be recognized as the owner (this is a natural right for Kant). The problem arises when one is away from the object in question. For example, should I set down my book or travel away from my land, what is there to stop someone else from coming alone and claiming that he found the object in question first? Kant's way of rectifying this situation is through a civil constitution, which, while protecting natural rights (lest it be invalid), is a form of common agreement, whereby my objects are recognized as mine, insofar as I concede to recognize the objects of others as theirs.

I'm still a bit confused about Kant's exact definition of a "natural right" as opposed to, I suppose, an unnatural or synthetic right. Is it in any way simple to the way Hume distinguishes between artificial and natural virtues?

Kant goes on to argue that Land is the first thing that people can lay a claim to. All men, according to Kant, begin with a plot of land, in order to nurture themselves, etc. In the Hobbesian state of nature, one can own land, but it is doomed to change hands by force. So for Kant, again, the Civil constitution is necessary to protect rights. My question for Kant would be: Why is there such a need, and even a right to ownership of land? Surely it is NOT natural that a person can own a piece of the earth? It is true that animals will mark their territory, but so far as I have seen they do not assume the right to do what so ever they please with this territory. I am apprehensive as to what Kant would say to Marx, and the ideal that things like property and ownership of land are unnecessary and infringe, rather than enhance, human interaction. Again, I understand that Kant is not so much concerned with consequences, which is why I question the origins and justification for his thoughts. I accept the premise that if everyone adhered to a civil constitution and claimed ownership of land that they first claimed or inherited, this does not created a contradiction. However, it does seem to be a contradiction of nature to simply say "I own this LAND (if by land we mean "this piece of the planet upon which I live, from this point on the surface unto the core of the Earth, or at least as far as I can find things with which to live a fulfilling life)."

Moving on, it is apparent that for Kant, all rights and relations center around property, or ownership of objects. Marriage = contract to share objects. Children and parents = no contract necessary, once they can support themselves physically, they are gone. Neither party is in debt to each other.

Kant goes on to discuss a number of things kind of related to property. Money is a simple representation of goods, all and any goods. A book is writing (which is conceptual), that is conceived by an author, who gives permission to a publisher to "speak" for the author via the distribution of a book. Thereby, the author's mandate must be given to the publisher, lest it be an infringement of right. This all seems perfectly logical.

Kant's main point, without summarizing the every detail of the rest of the book is basically this: That human society, in order to function properly needs to adhere to the categorical imperative. In order that this may be the case, we must enter into contracts to ensure that this Categorical Imperative is, in fact upheld. All rights need to be protected, rights are a priori and stem from non-contradiction.

Introdcing Kant

So my basic understanding of what Kant is trying to do is thus:


Metaphysics can be considered a system. Insofar as there is a system to science, a system to writing, a system to education, there is also a system to the universe and things beyond physics. From here, we get a rather precise (as opposed to a more Platonic-ish) view of the nature of the metaphysical. Where Kant is in line with Plato is that Metaphysics are a priori, they exist, and can be known, before we come into being. In this regard, Kant considers morals metaphysical, because they are timeless and universal, and it is our duty to discover and adhere to these metaphysical morals. Again, Kant uses things like Pure Reason, Freedom, Rationalism, and a slew of other terms and definitions which all fit into his modernist enlightenment philosophy. In part because there are so many terms, and in part because I don't remember or know the way in which he is using them, I am not posting them here. However, I do know that he takes the idea of freedom very seriously, as well as the notion it is a function of the purely rational mind. Duty, to Kant, is something to which we are bound - to Kant, we are bound to Morality because of its metaphysicallity, and from here he gets his categorical imperative.

Now, once Kant gets into the specific introductions of each book, he loses me. In other words, I can read what is on the page, but I fail to see how it relates to his previous statements. I look forward to discussing this in class.

Crazy Kant and Nothingness in Non-Contradiction

I am going to be honest here. I know Kant's basic moral "Categorical Imperative" and I hate it. My summary would be this: Act only in accordance with a maxim that you believe should become a universal law. Thus, if I believe the maxim "Thief is wrong." Then I should never steal, because that indicates that I believe that this should be a universal law. This is where I have problems. I am not a Kant scholar, and I am sure that he addresses this, but there is nothing, given Kant's obsession with not contradicting himself, that would pass as morally acceptable then. Another example - suppose a jobless single Mother has no choice but to steal to feed her children? Should she, in the pursuit of some abstract ideal (non-contradiction) simply let her children starve? To a Kantian, who believes thief is either always wrong or always right, the answer is yes. That is the problem with the notion that contradiction is never appropriate. Circumstances change - Kant (to the best of my knowledge, hopefully he proves me wrong) takes no account of this - everything is black and white. Thus, any and all approaches to ethics that I will come up with will not be based SOLELY on the notion of non-contradiction. I would argue that a better version of this theory than Kant's would be to not hold any values in regard what so ever, since it is only human to have to break them. As a matter of fact, I would argue (again, keeping in mind the follies of contradiction) that the only thing one can put a value on is one's own life (and possible the life of family members or very close friends) since that is the only thing people will actively pursue to protect. When the life is threatened universal laws and categorical imperatives disappear. To clarify, I am not arguing for a Nihilistic outlook, if anything the opposite - it is the notion that some how by protecting our lives and the lives of those close to us is to be frowned upon when weighed against acting the same way in different situations (even if this is not the RATIONAL thing to do) is the ideal that is truly foolish and lacking meaning.

Principles of Morals, 1

I argee with the majority of Hume scholars out there - "A Treatise Concerning Human Nature" is a much better book in terms of Philosophy. This text simply doesn't provide the same kind of detailed, scientific approach as the other one. Hume uses lots of examples, but there is little detailed explaination of his points. In fact, I wouldn't understand them as well if I hadn't read the other book first. Nonetheless, I garner that Hume is arguing in this book that morals are not dependant on reason, in fact he criticizes the ancient philosophers who thought that they were based on pure reason. He argues that everyone should take up philosophy and learn this moral code, because according to Hume, understanding morality enables us to understand our duty, in relation to other people and society at large. He also pushes the notion of benevolence again, insisting that by doing good, man receives the benefits of good coming his way. I was surprised that he didn't mention sympathy here. Hume goes on to argue (as he did before) that justice is an invention of mankind and that there are circumstances where it would not exist, for example in Eden or if there were no other people. Justice arose and arises at the demand of people, in order to maintain control, after property has been established. Allegiance, as well, is an issue of personal security - by lending one's allegiance, it strengthens society and the preservation of peace. These issues are obviously very big and ones that affect people's lives. The sense of duty regarding ethics, the ideas of Justice and Allegiance, this things have a great impact on our lives, and so are certainly worth studying and reading about.