Using the first article, explain what is evolutionary psychology and how does it apply to the field of ethics?
Evolutionary ethics is the argument that “natural selection has instilled human beings with a moral sense, a disposition to be good.” That is to say that humankind’s morality is not a product of God or reason. If anything at all, our morality is the byproduct of evolution and human beings ability to adapt.
Charles Darwin posited that man and apes have common ancestry. Because of this, Darwin argued that man’s morality “lies in the social instincts.” According to Darwin, man’s propensity to be a social creature harkens back to the earliest days of our “evolutionary history,” stemming from birds. This sociability helped “distinguish between ‘them’ and ‘us’ and aim aggression towards individuals that did not belong to one’s group.” Also, man became reflective, in turn, surmised the golden rule. Darwin’s position was that of “hedonistic utilitarianism” in that he accepted the “greatest-happiness principle as a standard of right and wrong.”
Herbert Spencer posited that man should gain pleasure by avoiding pain. In doing so, man is gratifying his impulses. Therefore, if all man acted to satisfy his impulses, man will be forced to cooperate with other human beings if he wants to continue feeling this way and at the same time, meet others like him. This helps man become cooperative and altruistic. Thus, those who were able to prolong satisfaction moved on in life and those who could not or did not, fell by the wayside. Spencer’s position was that of “hedonistic utilitarianism.”
Next, explain in depth the thesis of the second article and the support offered for it.
Philosopher/Neuroscience Joshua Greene uses an MRI to scan and measure how we come to making our moral judgments. Greene has concluded that “the crux of the matter…lay not in the logic of moral judgments but in the role our emotions play in forming them.” He thinks that “evolutionary origins of morality are easy to imagine in a social species.” In turn, human beings are special in that only “humans turn out to have special neural networks that give them what many cognitive neuroscientists call ‘social intelligence.” The entire study pointed out that their “personal moral decisions tended to simulate certain parts of the brain more than impersonal moral decisions.”
Finally, offer your response to what you read.
I’ve always considered the biography of God, in that, as man evolved, so did God. As man was barely learning to walk on two feet and use tools he depended on the Gods but as he learned to rationalize, he depended on God. The same can be said of ethics. As man evolved, so did his ethical viewpoints.
Showing posts with label yahoo post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label yahoo post. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Post #11: Cloning
Discuss the science of cloning, its uses, and the ethical and religious considerations of it as presented in the articles assigned.
The Process
Cloning became an issue that the world would have to debate with the introduction of “Dolly,’ the first fully grown mammal to be cloned.” “Dolly” became the agent in which human cloning would be thought possible. “Her birth shocked the scientific community and spurred discussion about the possibility of human clones.” On one side of the debate scientists were excited about the possibility of cloning humans. They are optimistic about cloning because human cloning “would enable doctors to determine the cause of spontaneous abortions, give oncologists an understanding of the rapid cell growth of cancer, allow the use of stem cells to regenerate tissues, and advance work on aging, genetics, and medicines.” On the other side of the debate scientists were adamant against the possibility of cloning. They are fearful about human cloning because it “would result in a high number of miscarriages and deaths among newborns” and a successful human clone “could change family dynamics in profound and unpredictable ways.” Also, scientists were worried that there would be “a black market for embryos” and “infertile couples” would turn to these black markets for help.
“Dolly” was cloned using “the cloning technique somatic cell nuclear transfer.” This would be the technique used if scientists were to clone a human. The technique would entail that “a cell is taken from a donor woman” and “an unfertilized egg is taken from a second woman.” Next, scientists would then remove the “DNA from the cell” of the donor woman and transfer it to the egg to the second woman. Then “the egg is implanted into a surrogate mother.” Finally, the surrogate mother would give birth to a baby that “is genetically identical to the original donor.” The clone would actually be “a time-delayed identical twin” of the original donor that is much younger than the original donor. General concerns about such a procedure are that if “it took more than 227 attempts before ‘Dolly’ was created as a health viable lamb,” the fear is that it would take much more attempts to clone a human.
The Religious Debate
Roman Catholic: The Church believes that all of humankind was created in the image of God and that humanity was given dominion over the world by God. Human cloning is contrary to the “creation story,” thereby, making human cloning “intrinsically evil’ and could never be justified.” The Church believes that human cloning violates the “sanctity of life.” They view human cloning as “immoral means” to unjustifiable “just ends.”
Judaism:
Due to the genetic predisposition Jews have towards Tay Sachs, Judaism thinks “cloning humans could conceivably be justified in some circumstances, however few they may be.” Although Judaism “emphasizes that man is in partnership with God,” they “do not believe that potential violations of human dignity are reason enough to prohibit human cloning.” To the Jews, there are more pros than cons in human cloning. Their main concern is that cloning “might harm the family by changing the roles and relationships between family members.”
Protestantism: Protestants view themselves as “co-creators who have a responsibility to ‘participate with God in shaping a better future,” therefore, “man should not allow human cloning because it violates God’s intentions by allow man to reproduce with a sexual partner.
Islam: Islam is split into two camps, those who think human cloning should be allowed because “there should be ‘no limits on research because knowledge is bestowed on us by God” and those who think human cloning should not be allowed because it “could affect kinship, which is the key concept of Islamic law.” This would, in turn, create “children who lack either a mother or a father. This would be inimical to Islamic society.”
The Ethical Debate
“Possibility of Physical Harm to the Embryo”: Those opposed to human cloning say that the technology currently available is not considered to be safe for human cloning. Those for human cloning say that with a considerable amount of experimentation on mammals, room for error can be reduced to the equivalency of “miscarriage or infant death.”
“Possible Psychological Harms to the Child”: Those opposed to human cloning say that a cloned human child would “suffer from a diminished sense of individuality and personal autonomy” and be fearful of his future because of “the life path of their gene donor.” Those for human cloning say that the cloned human child will benefit from knowing their strengths and weaknesses.
“Possible Degradation of the Quality of Parenting and Family Life”: Those opposed to human cloning say that “cloning encourages parents to value their children according to how well they meet expectations instead of loving them for their own sake.” Those for human cloning say that cloning will benefit infertile couples who are unable to have children naturally and that said children will be “loved unconditionally” by their parents.
“Possible Objectification of Children”: Those opposed to human cloning say that make children objects of possession rather than a gift from God. Those for human cloning say that the law would prevent any such action.
“Possible Social Harms”: Those opposed to human cloning say that this will be the beginning of designer babies. Those for human cloning say that the “potential benefits to society of cloning people such as scientists and intellectuals would outweigh potential harms.”
“The Use of Scarce Resources”: Those opposed to human cloning say that the cells of humans are to be considered “scarce resources.” Those for human cloning say that the “research into cloning might provide medical insight that could benefit larger society.”
The Process
Cloning became an issue that the world would have to debate with the introduction of “Dolly,’ the first fully grown mammal to be cloned.” “Dolly” became the agent in which human cloning would be thought possible. “Her birth shocked the scientific community and spurred discussion about the possibility of human clones.” On one side of the debate scientists were excited about the possibility of cloning humans. They are optimistic about cloning because human cloning “would enable doctors to determine the cause of spontaneous abortions, give oncologists an understanding of the rapid cell growth of cancer, allow the use of stem cells to regenerate tissues, and advance work on aging, genetics, and medicines.” On the other side of the debate scientists were adamant against the possibility of cloning. They are fearful about human cloning because it “would result in a high number of miscarriages and deaths among newborns” and a successful human clone “could change family dynamics in profound and unpredictable ways.” Also, scientists were worried that there would be “a black market for embryos” and “infertile couples” would turn to these black markets for help.
“Dolly” was cloned using “the cloning technique somatic cell nuclear transfer.” This would be the technique used if scientists were to clone a human. The technique would entail that “a cell is taken from a donor woman” and “an unfertilized egg is taken from a second woman.” Next, scientists would then remove the “DNA from the cell” of the donor woman and transfer it to the egg to the second woman. Then “the egg is implanted into a surrogate mother.” Finally, the surrogate mother would give birth to a baby that “is genetically identical to the original donor.” The clone would actually be “a time-delayed identical twin” of the original donor that is much younger than the original donor. General concerns about such a procedure are that if “it took more than 227 attempts before ‘Dolly’ was created as a health viable lamb,” the fear is that it would take much more attempts to clone a human.
The Religious Debate
Roman Catholic: The Church believes that all of humankind was created in the image of God and that humanity was given dominion over the world by God. Human cloning is contrary to the “creation story,” thereby, making human cloning “intrinsically evil’ and could never be justified.” The Church believes that human cloning violates the “sanctity of life.” They view human cloning as “immoral means” to unjustifiable “just ends.”
Judaism:
Due to the genetic predisposition Jews have towards Tay Sachs, Judaism thinks “cloning humans could conceivably be justified in some circumstances, however few they may be.” Although Judaism “emphasizes that man is in partnership with God,” they “do not believe that potential violations of human dignity are reason enough to prohibit human cloning.” To the Jews, there are more pros than cons in human cloning. Their main concern is that cloning “might harm the family by changing the roles and relationships between family members.”
Protestantism: Protestants view themselves as “co-creators who have a responsibility to ‘participate with God in shaping a better future,” therefore, “man should not allow human cloning because it violates God’s intentions by allow man to reproduce with a sexual partner.
Islam: Islam is split into two camps, those who think human cloning should be allowed because “there should be ‘no limits on research because knowledge is bestowed on us by God” and those who think human cloning should not be allowed because it “could affect kinship, which is the key concept of Islamic law.” This would, in turn, create “children who lack either a mother or a father. This would be inimical to Islamic society.”
The Ethical Debate
“Possibility of Physical Harm to the Embryo”: Those opposed to human cloning say that the technology currently available is not considered to be safe for human cloning. Those for human cloning say that with a considerable amount of experimentation on mammals, room for error can be reduced to the equivalency of “miscarriage or infant death.”
“Possible Psychological Harms to the Child”: Those opposed to human cloning say that a cloned human child would “suffer from a diminished sense of individuality and personal autonomy” and be fearful of his future because of “the life path of their gene donor.” Those for human cloning say that the cloned human child will benefit from knowing their strengths and weaknesses.
“Possible Degradation of the Quality of Parenting and Family Life”: Those opposed to human cloning say that “cloning encourages parents to value their children according to how well they meet expectations instead of loving them for their own sake.” Those for human cloning say that cloning will benefit infertile couples who are unable to have children naturally and that said children will be “loved unconditionally” by their parents.
“Possible Objectification of Children”: Those opposed to human cloning say that make children objects of possession rather than a gift from God. Those for human cloning say that the law would prevent any such action.
“Possible Social Harms”: Those opposed to human cloning say that this will be the beginning of designer babies. Those for human cloning say that the “potential benefits to society of cloning people such as scientists and intellectuals would outweigh potential harms.”
“The Use of Scarce Resources”: Those opposed to human cloning say that the cells of humans are to be considered “scarce resources.” Those for human cloning say that the “research into cloning might provide medical insight that could benefit larger society.”
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Post #10: Springer Pt.2
What is Singer’s stance on abortion, euthanasia, and the issue of poverty?
Abortion
In regards to abortion, Singer thinks that it is a woman’s right to choose whether or not she carries a child. He says “to force anyone to endure an avoidable hardship of that kind is contrary to our general belief in promoting individual choice and freedom.” Singer thinks that as long as an abortion is carried out within the firs “20 weeks of gestation,” no murder is committed. Although he does not deny that an embryo is human and alive, he does deny whether or not it can be considered a person in that it experiences pain and suffering and is aware of its existence. Therefore, killing a fetus that is less than 20 weeks developed is no more different and/or the equivalent to killing “the animals that we routinely kill and eat for dinner.” It isn’t until after the 20th week that “the fetus first becomes a being of moral significance when it develops the capacity to feel pain.”
Poverty
Singer’s position on poverty is considered unethical because it tends to go against traditional morality. For starters, he thinks the issue of poverty to be an issue of pro-life and that pro-life advocates should stop focusing on the viability of the fetus and starting focusing on the lives that already exist here on Earth and are in need of genuine help. His position, ultimately, is considered too demanding for most.
In the article, Singer focuses on America’s role in the fight against poverty. He points out that Americans spend a third of their income on things that can be considered unnecessary. To illustrate his point, he comments on how money spent on unnecessary things is money that “could mean the difference between life and death for children in need.” Springer thinks it to be unconscionable that Americans spend so frivolously. Springer suggests that Americans can afford the paltry $200 he thinks anyone and everyone should donate but goes further by suggesting that Americans need no more than $30,000 to live and anything more than that should be donated.
Euthanasia
As defined by www.dictionary.com, euthanasia is “Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition,” or as Singer adds that it is also “used to refer to the killing of those who are incurably ill and in great pain or distress, for the sake of those killed, and in order to spare them further suffering or distress.” Singer points out that there are three types of euthanasia: “voluntary euthanasia,” “involuntary euthanasia,” and “non-voluntary euthanasia.”
“Voluntary euthanasia” is the one form of euthanasia that is carried out at behest of the patient. Sometimes it is referred to as “assisted suicide.” The request for “voluntary euthanasia” can also be “voluntary even if a person is unable…to indicate the wish to die.” That is, if the person is unable to consent to euthanasia due to being incapacitated by illness or accident or is unfit mentally, at the moment assistance is needed most, a written request, written prior to said affliction while said person was of sound mind, can and will be honored. In cases such as these, Springer points out that “euthanasia involves the killing of a person, a rational and self-conscious being” and this is a much more serious matter than any other form of euthanasia because “they can know that they exist over time and will, unless they die, continue to exist” but “when the foreseeable continued existence is dreaded rather than desired however, the desire to die may take the place of the normal desire to live, reversing the reasons against killing based on the desire to live.”
“Involuntary euthanasia” is “involuntary when the person killed is capable of consenting to her own death, but does not do so, either because she is not asked, or because she is asked and chooses to go on living.” Springer points out that there is a “difference between killing someone who chooses to go on living and killing someone who has not consented to being killed, but if asked, would have consented.” This would entail killing someone for their own sake in that they were killed only “to prevent unbearable suffering on the part of the person killed.” This form of euthanasia is “very rare.” In cases such as these, Springer points out that “euthanasia is only justifiable if those killed either…lack the ability to consent to death” or “have the capacity to choose between their own continued life or death and to make an informed, voluntary, and settled decision to die.”
“Non-voluntary euthanasia” is defined as “If a human being is not capable of understanding the choice between life and death” and “ when the subject is now but once was capable of making the crucial choice, and did not then express any preference relevant to her present condition.” This would usually “include incurably ill or severely disable infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved, without having previously requested or rejected euthanasia in these circumstances.” In cases such as these, Springer equates the recipient of “non-voluntary euthanasia” to that of “disabled infants,” in that, although conscious, “they are not self-conscious, rational, or autonomous.” Therefore, any claims that are made on their behalf for the “right to life or autonomy” are not warranted. In short, up until the point that “non-voluntary euthanasia” is considered, “their lives have no intrinsic value,” insomuch that they have not been living a life to begin with. In this instance, “death is a benefit for the one killed.”
Abortion
In regards to abortion, Singer thinks that it is a woman’s right to choose whether or not she carries a child. He says “to force anyone to endure an avoidable hardship of that kind is contrary to our general belief in promoting individual choice and freedom.” Singer thinks that as long as an abortion is carried out within the firs “20 weeks of gestation,” no murder is committed. Although he does not deny that an embryo is human and alive, he does deny whether or not it can be considered a person in that it experiences pain and suffering and is aware of its existence. Therefore, killing a fetus that is less than 20 weeks developed is no more different and/or the equivalent to killing “the animals that we routinely kill and eat for dinner.” It isn’t until after the 20th week that “the fetus first becomes a being of moral significance when it develops the capacity to feel pain.”
Poverty
Singer’s position on poverty is considered unethical because it tends to go against traditional morality. For starters, he thinks the issue of poverty to be an issue of pro-life and that pro-life advocates should stop focusing on the viability of the fetus and starting focusing on the lives that already exist here on Earth and are in need of genuine help. His position, ultimately, is considered too demanding for most.
In the article, Singer focuses on America’s role in the fight against poverty. He points out that Americans spend a third of their income on things that can be considered unnecessary. To illustrate his point, he comments on how money spent on unnecessary things is money that “could mean the difference between life and death for children in need.” Springer thinks it to be unconscionable that Americans spend so frivolously. Springer suggests that Americans can afford the paltry $200 he thinks anyone and everyone should donate but goes further by suggesting that Americans need no more than $30,000 to live and anything more than that should be donated.
Euthanasia
As defined by www.dictionary.com, euthanasia is “Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition,” or as Singer adds that it is also “used to refer to the killing of those who are incurably ill and in great pain or distress, for the sake of those killed, and in order to spare them further suffering or distress.” Singer points out that there are three types of euthanasia: “voluntary euthanasia,” “involuntary euthanasia,” and “non-voluntary euthanasia.”
“Voluntary euthanasia” is the one form of euthanasia that is carried out at behest of the patient. Sometimes it is referred to as “assisted suicide.” The request for “voluntary euthanasia” can also be “voluntary even if a person is unable…to indicate the wish to die.” That is, if the person is unable to consent to euthanasia due to being incapacitated by illness or accident or is unfit mentally, at the moment assistance is needed most, a written request, written prior to said affliction while said person was of sound mind, can and will be honored. In cases such as these, Springer points out that “euthanasia involves the killing of a person, a rational and self-conscious being” and this is a much more serious matter than any other form of euthanasia because “they can know that they exist over time and will, unless they die, continue to exist” but “when the foreseeable continued existence is dreaded rather than desired however, the desire to die may take the place of the normal desire to live, reversing the reasons against killing based on the desire to live.”
“Involuntary euthanasia” is “involuntary when the person killed is capable of consenting to her own death, but does not do so, either because she is not asked, or because she is asked and chooses to go on living.” Springer points out that there is a “difference between killing someone who chooses to go on living and killing someone who has not consented to being killed, but if asked, would have consented.” This would entail killing someone for their own sake in that they were killed only “to prevent unbearable suffering on the part of the person killed.” This form of euthanasia is “very rare.” In cases such as these, Springer points out that “euthanasia is only justifiable if those killed either…lack the ability to consent to death” or “have the capacity to choose between their own continued life or death and to make an informed, voluntary, and settled decision to die.”
“Non-voluntary euthanasia” is defined as “If a human being is not capable of understanding the choice between life and death” and “ when the subject is now but once was capable of making the crucial choice, and did not then express any preference relevant to her present condition.” This would usually “include incurably ill or severely disable infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved, without having previously requested or rejected euthanasia in these circumstances.” In cases such as these, Springer equates the recipient of “non-voluntary euthanasia” to that of “disabled infants,” in that, although conscious, “they are not self-conscious, rational, or autonomous.” Therefore, any claims that are made on their behalf for the “right to life or autonomy” are not warranted. In short, up until the point that “non-voluntary euthanasia” is considered, “their lives have no intrinsic value,” insomuch that they have not been living a life to begin with. In this instance, “death is a benefit for the one killed.”
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Post #9: Springer
How does Singer define ethics and how does he apply this definition to the area of animal rights? Make sure to discuss key ideas such as utilitarianism, speciesism, etc. Articulate his main points.
Singer defines ethics as one that allows an individual to react to his reality from a moral standpoint in which said reaction least affects the other directly/indirectly. Said differently, Singer’s ethical viewpoint states that “the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being.” With Singer being a utilitarian, the best possible solution for all parties involved would entail that the solution satisfy “the most preferences, weighted on accordance with the strength of the preferences.”
In regards to animal rights and the movement against speciesism, Springer equates the movement to that of any other movement of the oppressed, such as racism and sexism. Springer’s ethical viewpoint would place humans and animals on equal footing in regards to consideration, one which states that “we should not give their interests any less consideration that we give to the similar interests of members of our own species.” In other words, we should move to eliminate speciesism because such a move would end our treating a “whole class of beings as something to use” and put an end to the unnecessary pain and suffering of another species. Ultimately, if one is to accept Springer’s position on ethics and how it relates to animals, one would alter his lifestyle completely in that he would change every aspect of his human/animal relations to include “diet, our economy, and our relations with the natural environment.”
Singer defines ethics as one that allows an individual to react to his reality from a moral standpoint in which said reaction least affects the other directly/indirectly. Said differently, Singer’s ethical viewpoint states that “the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being.” With Singer being a utilitarian, the best possible solution for all parties involved would entail that the solution satisfy “the most preferences, weighted on accordance with the strength of the preferences.”
In regards to animal rights and the movement against speciesism, Springer equates the movement to that of any other movement of the oppressed, such as racism and sexism. Springer’s ethical viewpoint would place humans and animals on equal footing in regards to consideration, one which states that “we should not give their interests any less consideration that we give to the similar interests of members of our own species.” In other words, we should move to eliminate speciesism because such a move would end our treating a “whole class of beings as something to use” and put an end to the unnecessary pain and suffering of another species. Ultimately, if one is to accept Springer’s position on ethics and how it relates to animals, one would alter his lifestyle completely in that he would change every aspect of his human/animal relations to include “diet, our economy, and our relations with the natural environment.”
Monday, March 30, 2009
Post #8: Seven Religions
Briefly outline the ethics of the above seven religions.
Taoism
Taoism is a philosophical thought originating to an ancient Chinese philosopher by the name of Lao Tzu. Lao Tzu believed that all of humankind was genuinely good. Taoism’s values are that it is reflective in nature and thus self-empowering for the practitioner. In regards to Philosophical Taoism, its main philosophical ideas pertain to matters of knowledge. Philosophical Taoism believes knowledge is power. They believe that when one has knowledge or wisdom, one will be better prepared to live a conservative life. A life that is not rife with drama or conflict. No drama in one’s personal life and no conflict with one’s reality. Philosophical Taoism prescribes wu wei as the way to live one’s life. This, in essence, is to live peacefully.
Taoism focuses more on the “becoming” than the “doing.” It espouses “harmony with all things and people.” If action is required and one is forced to disturb the “natural order of things,” one should “do what is required by the events and their context,” but never go beyond the call of duty. The reason for such a limited display of impulsivity “is that such intervention is destructive to all involved.” In other words, Taoist refrain from acting on impulse, irregardless of intent, because the consequences have an impact on our reality beyond our knowledge. That is why Taoist “wait for events to make action necessary.” In general, Taoism does not approve of “killing, stealing, lying and promiscuity, and promotes altruistic, helpful and kindly behaviour.” In all, Taoism promotes a better world by bettering you.
Buddhism
Buddha taught that the way to enlightenment first starts with knowing The Four Noble Truths. First there is dukkha. Dukkha is the belief that suffering is the cause of all life’s troubles. The cause of suffering is our need for attachment, an attachment to life, health, youth, love, and material possessions. Next, there is tanha. Tanha is the seeking of pleasure for one’s own self. Simply stated, Tanha is selfishness. Tanha is, therefore, responsible for dukkha because it is our selfishness that causes our suffering. The third Noble Truth posits that once we understand our role in our suffering, i.e. selfishness, we will be relieved of the suffering our selfishness creates. Finally, the Fourth Noble Truth is The Eightfold Path. Buddhism prescribes The Eightfold Path as Noble Truth Four as a guide to end suffering. The Eightfold Path begins with right knowledge. This step begins where The Four Noble Truths end. Right knowledge is the fourth noble truth. Next is right aspiration. Right aspiration is simply what we truly want from this life. It’s a decision that needs to be made by the one seeking enlightenment as to whether or not they want to pursue this for all the right reasons. Then there is right speech. Simply, be mindful of your words. Be careful of the things you say because they may come true. Once conscious of our words, then concentrate on speaking truthfully. Next is right behavior. Right behavior is also known as the Five Precepts of Buddhism. The Five Precepts are do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not be unchaste, and do not partake in drugs and alcohol. In Buddhism, the aforementioned are the equivalent to the Ten Commandments. Next, is right livelihood. Right livelihood is either being a monk or finding work that contributes to all of society. Next is right effort. Right effort is exactly what is implies, doing what is morally right. Then there is right mindfulness. Right mindfulness is to be aware of one’s thoughts and one’s actions, to understand that our emotions and moods are not real and have no real baring on our reality. Right mindfulness implies that one is in tune with all there is, starting with one’s own self and how that self interacts with its reality. Finally, there is right absorption. Right absorption is how one contemplates on the aforementioned on a daily basis. It is the reminder as to why one has chosen to travel down this path.
Abortion: Buddhists are divided on the issue of abortion. Traditional thinking “rejects abortion because it involves destroying a life” and interferes with the karma of the unborn fetus by depriving the fetus “of the opportunities than earthly existence would have been given to earn good karma.” Although Buddhists unconditionally agree that life begins at the moment of conception, modern Buddhists remain divided on the issue.
For an act such as abortion to be considered an act of murder, Buddha afforded that there be five conditions: “the thing killed must be a living being; you, the killer, must know or be aware that it is a living being; you must have the intention to kill it; there must be an effort to kill; the being must be killed as the result.” If all of Buddha’s conditions are present during the act of abortion, then a violation of Right Behavior, or “First Precept of Buddhism,” has occurred.
Animals: Buddhists try to always exhibit little to no harm towards animals, act in “loving-kindness,” adhere to the teaching of Right Livelihood, follow the “doctrine of Karma,” and treat all living beings with “equal respect.” For this reason, Buddhists think it to be “wrong to hurt or kill animals.” On the contrary, Buddhists think that because of the doctrine of Karma, Buddhists think that animals are inhabited by the souls of those who had conducted “misdeeds” in their prior life.
Capital Punishment: Due to the various schools of thought in regards to Buddhism, “there is no unified Buddhist policy on capital punishment.” Due to the Buddhist belief that murder violates the “First Precept of Buddhism,” would not agree with Buddhist tenets. Also, capital punishment will have dire consequences “on the souls of both offender and the punisher in future incarnations.”
Contraception: The Buddhists believe that the only acceptable contraception is that which “prevents contraception” but unacceptable if it prevents an egg from developing. An example of such contraception would be the “IUD.” The “IUD” acts “by killing the fertilized egg and preventing implantation” and thus harms “the consciousness which has already become embodied.”
Euthanasia/Suicide: There is no clear position on euthanasia in Buddhism. The Buddhists stress the importance of one’s state of mind. If one’s mind is considered to be in a negative state, then it is assumed that this is the reason one would wish for a voluntary death. Also, anyone who assists in euthanasia will experience the residue effects of the one who has chosen voluntary death. This, in turn, has an impact on the person’s karma in that it “interferes with the working out of karma, and alters the karmic balance resulting from the shortened life.”
Organ Donation: Buddhists main tenet is to end all suffering. In regards to organ donation, such an act may be considered “an act of charity.” Ultimately, organ donation is an individual choice. Also, due to the importance stressed on the “death process,” the “consciousness of the dead person” should be taken into consideration in that whatever the dead person was feeling, thinking, experiencing might transfer into the recipient’s consciousness.
War: Buddhists do not believe in violence. Although self-defense is permitted, Buddhists are forbidden from committing an act of murder irregardless of circumstances.
Hinduism
Hindus view the universe as that which functions according to law of karma. Although the introduction of the soul is unknown, its function is to integrate itself back into God’s presence. This is done through the process of reincarnation. As a soul works its way up the spiritual evolutionary ladder it draws itself closer to God. Each new lifetime is different from the previous because of the accomplishments or failures of the previous lifetime. Therefore, life in the universe is strictly that of personal responsibility. In the karmic cycle, or life in the universe, there are no victims. Moksha is the only way to escape the karmic cycle. The Hindus view of life is determined by karma.
Abortion: Hindus adhere to the principles of Ahimsa, or “non-violence.” Ahimsa transfer over to Abortion in that Hindus “choose the action that will do least harm to all involved: the mother and father, the foetus and society.” When taken into context, Hindus do not advocate the practice of abortion, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. Also, an act of abortion is considered contrary to Hindu traditions. According to Hindu traditions, it is considered a “duty to produce children in order to continue the family and produce new members of society.”
Animal Ethics: “The doctrine of ahimsa leads Hindus to treat animals well,” although it does not prevent “animal sacrifice.”
Capital Punishment: The practice of ahimsa prevents Hindus from exacting retribution stemmed from “killing, violence and revenge.” More than likely, Hinduism will mirror the Buddhists perspective on capital punishment.
Contraception: Since the Hindus consider it a duty to have a “family and produce new members of society,” contraception, although permitted, is more than likely not to be common practice.
Euthanasia/Suicide: Because the Hindus focus “on the consequences of our actions” rather than ideas, Hindus have a variety of things to consider such as karma, the principle of ahimsa, or whether such an act can be merited as dharma, or a “good deed,” when contemplating euthanasia/suicide. In regards to euthanasia/suicide, both are considered to be equivalent to murder. The act of intentionally ending a life interferes with a “soul’s progress towards liberation.” Concerning euthanasia, the Hindus have two positions: you are either fulfilling dharma or you are interrupting “the timing of the cycle of death and rebirth.” Concerning the act of suicide, Hindus believe that the act of “Prayopavesa, or fasting to death,” to be the only acceptable means of suicide.
Organ Donation: There is nothing of note in Hindu tradition that prevents Hindus “from donating their organs and tissues.” Hindus consider the body and all it encompasses to be nothing more than a vessel that houses the soul, thereby, given no real importance.
War: Hinduism both promotes and condemns the act of war. The principles of ahimsa and karma condemn any act of violence and the teachings of “Kshatriyas” promote violence. Hindus do advocate war and violence as a “use of force in self-defence” and as a moral obligation.
Sikhism
The religion of Sikhism was founded by Guru Nanak, a philosopher grounded in the Sant tradition, during the 16th century. Guru Nanak was the first of Ten Sikh Gurus prior to the splintering of the religion due to the disapproval of individuals who were appointed as Gurus and the various turns to militancy in attempts to stave off oppression. The first ten Gurus are acknowledged by traditional Sikhs. The Sikhs believe in one God. They practice meditation as a form or prayer and repeat God’s name during meditation. They believe in the concept of reincarnation and that one must work towards moksha to escape the cycle of life and death. The Sikhs do not believe in any form of stratification, thus, rebuking a caste system and gender roles. Orthodox Sikhs adhere to the Khalsa.
Abortion: Although there is no “code of conduct” that deal with abortion specifically, Sikhism does not allow abortions because “it interferes in the creative work of God – who created everything and is present in every being.”
Contraception: “Sikhs have no objection to birth control.”
Euthanasia/Suicide: Life, according to Sikhism, is the “creative work of God” and is considered a “gift from God.” Euthanasia is not condoned because the “timing of birth and death should be left in God’s hands” and suicide is frowned upon because it is considered an “interference in God’s plan.” Sikhs believe that “we have a duty to use life in a responsible way,” therefore, any premature end to life by the hands of man is not an option.
Organ Donation: Sikhism does not put forth any objections concerning the donating and/or receiving of organs. Although it isn’t clear whether organ donation is condoned during life, it is acceptable after death.
Dharam Yudh – Just War: Sikhism believes in the concept of the Just War, or “Dharma Yudh.” Sikhs believe in the Just War when fought in “defence of righteousness.” The rules of such a war are as followed: “the war must be the last resort,” “the motive must not be revenge or enmity,” “ the army must not include mercenaries,” “the army must be disciplined,” “ only the minimum force needed for success should be used,” “civilians must not be harmed,” “there must be no looting, territory must not be annexed, property taken must be returned,” and “it should be undertaken even if it cannot be won.” The last condition is a reflection of Sikh history, as they have became more and more militant as a result of “oppression and attempts to suppress the faith.”
Judaism
Judaism is a religion that sought meaning and whilst on that search they ultimately found meaning in God, creation, human existence, history, morality, justice, and suffering. Judaism found meaning in God in that the Hebrews understood God to be the "Supreme Being." Judaism found meaning in creation in that where others thought life to be a curse, the Jews believed it to be a blessing. The Jews accepted all of life’s obstacles, all of life’s trials and tribulations because they believed it to be part of God’s will and if God willed it, then it couldn’t be bad. Judaism found meaning in human existence in that they never lost sight of man’s capabilities. They were well aware of the eternal struggle man would endure. The potential for moral weakness and transgression was always there but the potential for moral strength and affirmation was always there, as well. Judaism found meaning in history in that it gave meaning to their life as people. They saw the importance of taking meaning from one’s life. Judaism found meaning in morality in that it determined how one should interact with others. Considering that man is a social animal in that he needs others to be human, he also acts out like an animal while around others. Morality bridges this divide. Judaism found meaning in justice in that their prophets understood that responsibility was not just on the individual but more so on society and that society will be judged "on the justice of its social order." Judaism found meaning in suffering in that they came to understand their predicament as God having high expectations of them. This required a high degree of belief. They never stopped believing in their God, they never stopped believing that everything happened for a reason, and most importantly, they never stopped believing that they were God’s chosen people. This allowed for them to never give up in the face of crisis and to continuously move forward in spite of overwhelming odds. Whatever they had to endure, God intended it to be. Each lesson learned in the face of trial and tribulation was an experience to later be of value to the world.
Abortion: Judaism does not ban the practice of abortion but it also does not promote it, either. In practice, “abortion is only permitted for serious reasons.” Unless the pregnancy directly puts the mother’s life in danger, abortion would be permitted within the “first forty days of pregnancy” of the fetus’ life cycle because the fetus is considered to be “mere fluid.”
Animals: Judaism advocates the treating of animals with respect because “God himself makes a covenant with the animals, just as he does with humanity.” It is only permitted to bring harm to an animal if it is “an essential human need” such as, food and clothing.
Capital Punishment: Judaism does not practice or condone capital punishment.
Circumcision: Circumcision is a tradition that has lasted for over 3000 years. The rite of circumcision is adhered to because it is considered to be part of the covenant with God as commanded by God. Failure to be circumcised could be grounds for expulsion from the “community of God.” Granted, there is opposition to circumcision.
Contraception: Birth control is permitted in Judaism, as long as it does “not damage the sperm or stop it getting to its intended destination.”
Euthanasia/Suicide: Judaism forbids “active euthanasia” and suicide because “The Jewish tradition regards the preservation of human life as one of its supreme moral values and forbids doing anything that might shorten life.” On the other hand, a doctor may remove an “impediment to the natural process of death.”
Genetic Engineering: On the surface, one would think that Judaism would frown upon genetic engineering but because their population is prone to the genetic disorder, Tay Sachs, genetic screening and genetic manipulation is practiced. Otherwise, there is no doctrine that explicitly rules out genetic engineering.
Organ Donation: Organ donation is encouraged if it is to save a life or lives, otherwise, it would depend on circumstance. If needed immediately, it is encouraged and considered a honor, but if it were meant for an organ bank, it would “be looked on less favourably.”
War: Judaism permits war, only if there is an attempt for peace or war was avoided at all costs. Judaism believed there to be three kinds of war: “obligatory” or those commanded by God, “defensive” or those in self-defense, and “optional” or those considered Just.
Islam
The religion and word Islam have two meanings. The first meaning is that of "peace" and the second meaning is that of "surrender." It is the religion that brings peace to the practitioner’s life once he has surrendered it over to God. Islam is a religion that continues with the revelations of Moses and Jesus but ends with Muhammad, The Prophet. The main philosophical teachings of Islam focus on four things: "God, Creation, the Human Self, and the Day of Judgement." Concerning God, Islam stresses God’s awesome power. Concerning Creation, Islam stresses that God created the world and humankind deliberately. Concerning the Human Self, Islam stresses that humanity is innately good. If anything, humanity is guilty of forgetting its "divine origin. Finally, concerning the Day of the Judgement, Islam stresses a soul is either destined for "the Heavens or the Hells." The main practices of Islam are best captured in the Five Pillars of Islam. The Five Pillars teaches a Muslim to "walk the straight path." The first Pillar is the shahadah. The shahadah simply is a confession of faith in which a Muslim proclaims, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet." The second Pillars is the canonical prayer. Muslims are expected to pray 5x’s a day. The prayer is intended to put perspective back into everyday life and to express gratitude for that life. The third Pillar is the practice of charity. Those who are comfortable in life and well-off are expected to share the wealth with those that are in need. The fourth Pillar is that every Muslim is expected to observe the holy month of Ramadan. Ramadan is the month in which Muhammad started to receive his revelations from God and when he went on the hijra. During Ramadan, every Muslim is expected to fast from sun-up to sun-down. The fast is intended to teach "self-discipline. It reminds one of one’s frailty and dependence. And if fosters compassion, for only the hungry know what hunger means." Finally, the fifth Pillar is the pilgrimage to Mecca. At least once in their lifetime every Muslim is expected to visit Mecca. The pilgrimage is intended to "heighten the pilgrim’s commitment to God" and to remind the Muslim that all of humanity is a brotherhood. In regards to the social practices of Islam, Muslims refer to the Qu’ran, which discusses four areas of life: economics, the status of women, race relations, and the use of force. Concerning economics, the Qu’ran stresses against classism and injustices against those without means to defend themselves. Capitalism is encouraged so long as compassion overrides greed and Muslims do not forget the third Pillar of faith. Concerning the status of women, the Qu’ran "improved woman’s status incalculably. They forbade infanticide. They required that daughters be included in inheritance." Also, the Qu’ran "leaves open the possibility of woman’s full equality with man, an equality this is being approximated as the customs of Muslim nations become modernized." Most importantly, it was the idea of marriage that the Qu’ran contributed to the status of women. First, marriage is a done deal once the couple has intercourse. Second, women had a say as to whether or not they wanted to marry. Thirdly, the Qu’ran allows for divorce only as a last resort and they are allowed to keep the money provided to them by their husband before the marriage. Concerning race relations, Islam does not accept any racial injustice or bigotry whatsoever. Racial equality is a fundamental practice in Islam. Finally, concerning the use of force, Islam allows for the use of force if need be. "It must be either defensive or to right an horrendous wrong," yet, stresses that forgiveness is better.
Abortion: Islam considers abortion to be forbidden, although it is allowed in some instances. Islam will allow an abortion in order to save the mother’s life or to prevent the fetus from suffering as a child. If an abortion is permitted, it must be done within the first “120 days” of the life of the fetus.
Animals: Muslims believe that all animals “must be treated with kindness and compassion.” Although they believe that animals were placed on Earth for the “benefit of human beings,” animals killed must be killed according to “Sharia law.”
Capital Punishment: Although “forgiveness is preferable,” Islam “accepts capital punishment.”
Contraception: Islam does not promote contraception because it is “strongly pro-family and regards children as a gift from God.”
Euthanasia/Suicide: Euthanasia and suicide are not permitted in Islam as “all human life is sacred because it is given by Allah, and that Allah chooses how long each person will live.”
Circumcision: Islam promotes circumcision as a means of “purification” and as an “introduction to the Islamic faith and a sign of belonging.”
Stem Cell Research: Islam is split on stem cell research. Some Muslims think it is ethical to conduct stem cell research because “the embryo does not have a soul,” while other Muslims think it to be “immoral to destroy embryos at any stage to harvest stem cells.”
War: Islam permits the act of war and set out “clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and clear guidelines as to how such a war should be conducted.” War is allowed on when in “self-defence,” “when other nations have attacked an Islamic state,” and “if another state is oppressing its own Muslims.”
Jihad: Jihad literal translation is “struggle or effort,” for Islam, there are three kinds of Jihad: the struggle within to be a good Muslim, the effort of creating a “good Muslim society,” and “Holy War.”
Christianity
Christianity has 3 factions, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism. All three have a central focus, Jesus Christ. For the Roman Catholics, Christianity is based on the concepts of "Teaching Authority and Sacramental Agent." Teaching Authority to the Roman Catholics is the belief that Jesus was God incarnate and he came to earth to give life lessons that better prepare us for the afterlife. This, in turn, leads to the idea that the Pope is God’s voice on earth and because he is speaking on behalf of God concerning matters of the human soul, he is free of error. In regards to the Sacramental Agent, the Roman Catholic Church piggybacks Teaching Authority in that it acts as the Agent that helps us do what the Pope tells us is best for our soul and salvation. The Roman Catholic Church promotes the seven sacraments of life which are Baptism, Confirmed (confirmation), Holy Matrimony (marriage), Holy Orders, Sacrament of the Sick, Reconciliation (confession), and Mass. Also, the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Holy "Trinity dwells in every Christian soul" and only through prayer and confession can one possibly experience God’s grace. For Eastern Orthodoxy, although it shares quite a bit with Roman Catholicism, such as the Sacraments and "intent regarding the Teaching Authority", it differs in regards to interpreting scripture and how those interpretations come about. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the "developments’ of doctrine" conducted by the Roman Catholic Church are viewed as "additions" which are a necessity of faith. Also, since Eastern Orthodoxy does not have a Pope to lead their church, any decisions made, anything resembling a final word concerning the human soul, faith, and salvation is left to "the conscience of the Church" or the people of the church. The people are the conscience of the Church because, as Christians, they are a part of the God and Christ and, as a result, are a part of each other. Within Eastern Orthodoxy, salvation is a team effort; the Church and it parishioners are bound by faith. This extends beyond the pews into pulpit. The bound is so great within Eastern Orthodoxy that the parishioners elect church officials and have a voice in the dogmas it practices. Also, Eastern Orthodoxy encourages the active pursuit of God’s grace. For Protestantism, Christianity is based on the concepts of "Justification by Faith and the Protestant Principle." Justification by Faith is the believing with your entire being. It’s believing with your body, heart, and mind. The Protestants believe that nothing the church has to offer matters unless it moves you to the core. Unless one is touched body, heart, and mind by what is being preached, the teachings amount to "mere mouthings." Why must they be touched body, heart, and mind? Believing body, heart, and mind convinces one that they are experiencing "God’s love" and when one experiences "God’s love" they are compelled to act from the good with genuine volition.
Abortion: The Roman Catholic Church view abortion as a sin and “a grave moral wrong” which is equivalent to murder.
Animal Rights: Traditionally, animals were considered inferior to man and thus, had no rights, but today, “Modern Christians generally take a much more pro-animal line.” The Roman Catholic view recognizes “that animals have both an intrinsic value and a place in God’s kingdom” and would “avoid anything that brings unnecessary suffering or death to animals.”
Capital Punishment: There is some divisiveness in regards to the death penalty, yet, “For much of history, the Christian Churches accepted that capital punishment was a necessary part of the mechanisms of society.”
Circumcision: In Christianity, the only thing needed for circumcision is to be “circumcised of the heart.”
Contraception: Roman Catholics frown upon birth control. On the other hand, “Christian acceptance of contraception is relatively new.”
Euthanasia: Christians think euthanasia is wrong, while Roman Catholics view it as morally wrong.
Organ Donation: Organ donation is applauded in Christianity.
Same-Sex Marriage: Anglicans, Quakers, and Methodists “bless same-sex couples” or “same-sex unions.”
War: “The main Christian view of war ethics is contained in the doctrine of the Just War.” For the most part, “Christians have a long history of refusing to take part in war.”
Are their ethics different than your own religious view?
Since I do not partake of any organized religion, my views will vary from issue to issue.
Taoism
Taoism is a philosophical thought originating to an ancient Chinese philosopher by the name of Lao Tzu. Lao Tzu believed that all of humankind was genuinely good. Taoism’s values are that it is reflective in nature and thus self-empowering for the practitioner. In regards to Philosophical Taoism, its main philosophical ideas pertain to matters of knowledge. Philosophical Taoism believes knowledge is power. They believe that when one has knowledge or wisdom, one will be better prepared to live a conservative life. A life that is not rife with drama or conflict. No drama in one’s personal life and no conflict with one’s reality. Philosophical Taoism prescribes wu wei as the way to live one’s life. This, in essence, is to live peacefully.
Taoism focuses more on the “becoming” than the “doing.” It espouses “harmony with all things and people.” If action is required and one is forced to disturb the “natural order of things,” one should “do what is required by the events and their context,” but never go beyond the call of duty. The reason for such a limited display of impulsivity “is that such intervention is destructive to all involved.” In other words, Taoist refrain from acting on impulse, irregardless of intent, because the consequences have an impact on our reality beyond our knowledge. That is why Taoist “wait for events to make action necessary.” In general, Taoism does not approve of “killing, stealing, lying and promiscuity, and promotes altruistic, helpful and kindly behaviour.” In all, Taoism promotes a better world by bettering you.
Buddhism
Buddha taught that the way to enlightenment first starts with knowing The Four Noble Truths. First there is dukkha. Dukkha is the belief that suffering is the cause of all life’s troubles. The cause of suffering is our need for attachment, an attachment to life, health, youth, love, and material possessions. Next, there is tanha. Tanha is the seeking of pleasure for one’s own self. Simply stated, Tanha is selfishness. Tanha is, therefore, responsible for dukkha because it is our selfishness that causes our suffering. The third Noble Truth posits that once we understand our role in our suffering, i.e. selfishness, we will be relieved of the suffering our selfishness creates. Finally, the Fourth Noble Truth is The Eightfold Path. Buddhism prescribes The Eightfold Path as Noble Truth Four as a guide to end suffering. The Eightfold Path begins with right knowledge. This step begins where The Four Noble Truths end. Right knowledge is the fourth noble truth. Next is right aspiration. Right aspiration is simply what we truly want from this life. It’s a decision that needs to be made by the one seeking enlightenment as to whether or not they want to pursue this for all the right reasons. Then there is right speech. Simply, be mindful of your words. Be careful of the things you say because they may come true. Once conscious of our words, then concentrate on speaking truthfully. Next is right behavior. Right behavior is also known as the Five Precepts of Buddhism. The Five Precepts are do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not be unchaste, and do not partake in drugs and alcohol. In Buddhism, the aforementioned are the equivalent to the Ten Commandments. Next, is right livelihood. Right livelihood is either being a monk or finding work that contributes to all of society. Next is right effort. Right effort is exactly what is implies, doing what is morally right. Then there is right mindfulness. Right mindfulness is to be aware of one’s thoughts and one’s actions, to understand that our emotions and moods are not real and have no real baring on our reality. Right mindfulness implies that one is in tune with all there is, starting with one’s own self and how that self interacts with its reality. Finally, there is right absorption. Right absorption is how one contemplates on the aforementioned on a daily basis. It is the reminder as to why one has chosen to travel down this path.
Abortion: Buddhists are divided on the issue of abortion. Traditional thinking “rejects abortion because it involves destroying a life” and interferes with the karma of the unborn fetus by depriving the fetus “of the opportunities than earthly existence would have been given to earn good karma.” Although Buddhists unconditionally agree that life begins at the moment of conception, modern Buddhists remain divided on the issue.
For an act such as abortion to be considered an act of murder, Buddha afforded that there be five conditions: “the thing killed must be a living being; you, the killer, must know or be aware that it is a living being; you must have the intention to kill it; there must be an effort to kill; the being must be killed as the result.” If all of Buddha’s conditions are present during the act of abortion, then a violation of Right Behavior, or “First Precept of Buddhism,” has occurred.
Animals: Buddhists try to always exhibit little to no harm towards animals, act in “loving-kindness,” adhere to the teaching of Right Livelihood, follow the “doctrine of Karma,” and treat all living beings with “equal respect.” For this reason, Buddhists think it to be “wrong to hurt or kill animals.” On the contrary, Buddhists think that because of the doctrine of Karma, Buddhists think that animals are inhabited by the souls of those who had conducted “misdeeds” in their prior life.
Capital Punishment: Due to the various schools of thought in regards to Buddhism, “there is no unified Buddhist policy on capital punishment.” Due to the Buddhist belief that murder violates the “First Precept of Buddhism,” would not agree with Buddhist tenets. Also, capital punishment will have dire consequences “on the souls of both offender and the punisher in future incarnations.”
Contraception: The Buddhists believe that the only acceptable contraception is that which “prevents contraception” but unacceptable if it prevents an egg from developing. An example of such contraception would be the “IUD.” The “IUD” acts “by killing the fertilized egg and preventing implantation” and thus harms “the consciousness which has already become embodied.”
Euthanasia/Suicide: There is no clear position on euthanasia in Buddhism. The Buddhists stress the importance of one’s state of mind. If one’s mind is considered to be in a negative state, then it is assumed that this is the reason one would wish for a voluntary death. Also, anyone who assists in euthanasia will experience the residue effects of the one who has chosen voluntary death. This, in turn, has an impact on the person’s karma in that it “interferes with the working out of karma, and alters the karmic balance resulting from the shortened life.”
Organ Donation: Buddhists main tenet is to end all suffering. In regards to organ donation, such an act may be considered “an act of charity.” Ultimately, organ donation is an individual choice. Also, due to the importance stressed on the “death process,” the “consciousness of the dead person” should be taken into consideration in that whatever the dead person was feeling, thinking, experiencing might transfer into the recipient’s consciousness.
War: Buddhists do not believe in violence. Although self-defense is permitted, Buddhists are forbidden from committing an act of murder irregardless of circumstances.
Hinduism
Hindus view the universe as that which functions according to law of karma. Although the introduction of the soul is unknown, its function is to integrate itself back into God’s presence. This is done through the process of reincarnation. As a soul works its way up the spiritual evolutionary ladder it draws itself closer to God. Each new lifetime is different from the previous because of the accomplishments or failures of the previous lifetime. Therefore, life in the universe is strictly that of personal responsibility. In the karmic cycle, or life in the universe, there are no victims. Moksha is the only way to escape the karmic cycle. The Hindus view of life is determined by karma.
Abortion: Hindus adhere to the principles of Ahimsa, or “non-violence.” Ahimsa transfer over to Abortion in that Hindus “choose the action that will do least harm to all involved: the mother and father, the foetus and society.” When taken into context, Hindus do not advocate the practice of abortion, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. Also, an act of abortion is considered contrary to Hindu traditions. According to Hindu traditions, it is considered a “duty to produce children in order to continue the family and produce new members of society.”
Animal Ethics: “The doctrine of ahimsa leads Hindus to treat animals well,” although it does not prevent “animal sacrifice.”
Capital Punishment: The practice of ahimsa prevents Hindus from exacting retribution stemmed from “killing, violence and revenge.” More than likely, Hinduism will mirror the Buddhists perspective on capital punishment.
Contraception: Since the Hindus consider it a duty to have a “family and produce new members of society,” contraception, although permitted, is more than likely not to be common practice.
Euthanasia/Suicide: Because the Hindus focus “on the consequences of our actions” rather than ideas, Hindus have a variety of things to consider such as karma, the principle of ahimsa, or whether such an act can be merited as dharma, or a “good deed,” when contemplating euthanasia/suicide. In regards to euthanasia/suicide, both are considered to be equivalent to murder. The act of intentionally ending a life interferes with a “soul’s progress towards liberation.” Concerning euthanasia, the Hindus have two positions: you are either fulfilling dharma or you are interrupting “the timing of the cycle of death and rebirth.” Concerning the act of suicide, Hindus believe that the act of “Prayopavesa, or fasting to death,” to be the only acceptable means of suicide.
Organ Donation: There is nothing of note in Hindu tradition that prevents Hindus “from donating their organs and tissues.” Hindus consider the body and all it encompasses to be nothing more than a vessel that houses the soul, thereby, given no real importance.
War: Hinduism both promotes and condemns the act of war. The principles of ahimsa and karma condemn any act of violence and the teachings of “Kshatriyas” promote violence. Hindus do advocate war and violence as a “use of force in self-defence” and as a moral obligation.
Sikhism
The religion of Sikhism was founded by Guru Nanak, a philosopher grounded in the Sant tradition, during the 16th century. Guru Nanak was the first of Ten Sikh Gurus prior to the splintering of the religion due to the disapproval of individuals who were appointed as Gurus and the various turns to militancy in attempts to stave off oppression. The first ten Gurus are acknowledged by traditional Sikhs. The Sikhs believe in one God. They practice meditation as a form or prayer and repeat God’s name during meditation. They believe in the concept of reincarnation and that one must work towards moksha to escape the cycle of life and death. The Sikhs do not believe in any form of stratification, thus, rebuking a caste system and gender roles. Orthodox Sikhs adhere to the Khalsa.
Abortion: Although there is no “code of conduct” that deal with abortion specifically, Sikhism does not allow abortions because “it interferes in the creative work of God – who created everything and is present in every being.”
Contraception: “Sikhs have no objection to birth control.”
Euthanasia/Suicide: Life, according to Sikhism, is the “creative work of God” and is considered a “gift from God.” Euthanasia is not condoned because the “timing of birth and death should be left in God’s hands” and suicide is frowned upon because it is considered an “interference in God’s plan.” Sikhs believe that “we have a duty to use life in a responsible way,” therefore, any premature end to life by the hands of man is not an option.
Organ Donation: Sikhism does not put forth any objections concerning the donating and/or receiving of organs. Although it isn’t clear whether organ donation is condoned during life, it is acceptable after death.
Dharam Yudh – Just War: Sikhism believes in the concept of the Just War, or “Dharma Yudh.” Sikhs believe in the Just War when fought in “defence of righteousness.” The rules of such a war are as followed: “the war must be the last resort,” “the motive must not be revenge or enmity,” “ the army must not include mercenaries,” “the army must be disciplined,” “ only the minimum force needed for success should be used,” “civilians must not be harmed,” “there must be no looting, territory must not be annexed, property taken must be returned,” and “it should be undertaken even if it cannot be won.” The last condition is a reflection of Sikh history, as they have became more and more militant as a result of “oppression and attempts to suppress the faith.”
Judaism
Judaism is a religion that sought meaning and whilst on that search they ultimately found meaning in God, creation, human existence, history, morality, justice, and suffering. Judaism found meaning in God in that the Hebrews understood God to be the "Supreme Being." Judaism found meaning in creation in that where others thought life to be a curse, the Jews believed it to be a blessing. The Jews accepted all of life’s obstacles, all of life’s trials and tribulations because they believed it to be part of God’s will and if God willed it, then it couldn’t be bad. Judaism found meaning in human existence in that they never lost sight of man’s capabilities. They were well aware of the eternal struggle man would endure. The potential for moral weakness and transgression was always there but the potential for moral strength and affirmation was always there, as well. Judaism found meaning in history in that it gave meaning to their life as people. They saw the importance of taking meaning from one’s life. Judaism found meaning in morality in that it determined how one should interact with others. Considering that man is a social animal in that he needs others to be human, he also acts out like an animal while around others. Morality bridges this divide. Judaism found meaning in justice in that their prophets understood that responsibility was not just on the individual but more so on society and that society will be judged "on the justice of its social order." Judaism found meaning in suffering in that they came to understand their predicament as God having high expectations of them. This required a high degree of belief. They never stopped believing in their God, they never stopped believing that everything happened for a reason, and most importantly, they never stopped believing that they were God’s chosen people. This allowed for them to never give up in the face of crisis and to continuously move forward in spite of overwhelming odds. Whatever they had to endure, God intended it to be. Each lesson learned in the face of trial and tribulation was an experience to later be of value to the world.
Abortion: Judaism does not ban the practice of abortion but it also does not promote it, either. In practice, “abortion is only permitted for serious reasons.” Unless the pregnancy directly puts the mother’s life in danger, abortion would be permitted within the “first forty days of pregnancy” of the fetus’ life cycle because the fetus is considered to be “mere fluid.”
Animals: Judaism advocates the treating of animals with respect because “God himself makes a covenant with the animals, just as he does with humanity.” It is only permitted to bring harm to an animal if it is “an essential human need” such as, food and clothing.
Capital Punishment: Judaism does not practice or condone capital punishment.
Circumcision: Circumcision is a tradition that has lasted for over 3000 years. The rite of circumcision is adhered to because it is considered to be part of the covenant with God as commanded by God. Failure to be circumcised could be grounds for expulsion from the “community of God.” Granted, there is opposition to circumcision.
Contraception: Birth control is permitted in Judaism, as long as it does “not damage the sperm or stop it getting to its intended destination.”
Euthanasia/Suicide: Judaism forbids “active euthanasia” and suicide because “The Jewish tradition regards the preservation of human life as one of its supreme moral values and forbids doing anything that might shorten life.” On the other hand, a doctor may remove an “impediment to the natural process of death.”
Genetic Engineering: On the surface, one would think that Judaism would frown upon genetic engineering but because their population is prone to the genetic disorder, Tay Sachs, genetic screening and genetic manipulation is practiced. Otherwise, there is no doctrine that explicitly rules out genetic engineering.
Organ Donation: Organ donation is encouraged if it is to save a life or lives, otherwise, it would depend on circumstance. If needed immediately, it is encouraged and considered a honor, but if it were meant for an organ bank, it would “be looked on less favourably.”
War: Judaism permits war, only if there is an attempt for peace or war was avoided at all costs. Judaism believed there to be three kinds of war: “obligatory” or those commanded by God, “defensive” or those in self-defense, and “optional” or those considered Just.
Islam
The religion and word Islam have two meanings. The first meaning is that of "peace" and the second meaning is that of "surrender." It is the religion that brings peace to the practitioner’s life once he has surrendered it over to God. Islam is a religion that continues with the revelations of Moses and Jesus but ends with Muhammad, The Prophet. The main philosophical teachings of Islam focus on four things: "God, Creation, the Human Self, and the Day of Judgement." Concerning God, Islam stresses God’s awesome power. Concerning Creation, Islam stresses that God created the world and humankind deliberately. Concerning the Human Self, Islam stresses that humanity is innately good. If anything, humanity is guilty of forgetting its "divine origin. Finally, concerning the Day of the Judgement, Islam stresses a soul is either destined for "the Heavens or the Hells." The main practices of Islam are best captured in the Five Pillars of Islam. The Five Pillars teaches a Muslim to "walk the straight path." The first Pillar is the shahadah. The shahadah simply is a confession of faith in which a Muslim proclaims, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet." The second Pillars is the canonical prayer. Muslims are expected to pray 5x’s a day. The prayer is intended to put perspective back into everyday life and to express gratitude for that life. The third Pillar is the practice of charity. Those who are comfortable in life and well-off are expected to share the wealth with those that are in need. The fourth Pillar is that every Muslim is expected to observe the holy month of Ramadan. Ramadan is the month in which Muhammad started to receive his revelations from God and when he went on the hijra. During Ramadan, every Muslim is expected to fast from sun-up to sun-down. The fast is intended to teach "self-discipline. It reminds one of one’s frailty and dependence. And if fosters compassion, for only the hungry know what hunger means." Finally, the fifth Pillar is the pilgrimage to Mecca. At least once in their lifetime every Muslim is expected to visit Mecca. The pilgrimage is intended to "heighten the pilgrim’s commitment to God" and to remind the Muslim that all of humanity is a brotherhood. In regards to the social practices of Islam, Muslims refer to the Qu’ran, which discusses four areas of life: economics, the status of women, race relations, and the use of force. Concerning economics, the Qu’ran stresses against classism and injustices against those without means to defend themselves. Capitalism is encouraged so long as compassion overrides greed and Muslims do not forget the third Pillar of faith. Concerning the status of women, the Qu’ran "improved woman’s status incalculably. They forbade infanticide. They required that daughters be included in inheritance." Also, the Qu’ran "leaves open the possibility of woman’s full equality with man, an equality this is being approximated as the customs of Muslim nations become modernized." Most importantly, it was the idea of marriage that the Qu’ran contributed to the status of women. First, marriage is a done deal once the couple has intercourse. Second, women had a say as to whether or not they wanted to marry. Thirdly, the Qu’ran allows for divorce only as a last resort and they are allowed to keep the money provided to them by their husband before the marriage. Concerning race relations, Islam does not accept any racial injustice or bigotry whatsoever. Racial equality is a fundamental practice in Islam. Finally, concerning the use of force, Islam allows for the use of force if need be. "It must be either defensive or to right an horrendous wrong," yet, stresses that forgiveness is better.
Abortion: Islam considers abortion to be forbidden, although it is allowed in some instances. Islam will allow an abortion in order to save the mother’s life or to prevent the fetus from suffering as a child. If an abortion is permitted, it must be done within the first “120 days” of the life of the fetus.
Animals: Muslims believe that all animals “must be treated with kindness and compassion.” Although they believe that animals were placed on Earth for the “benefit of human beings,” animals killed must be killed according to “Sharia law.”
Capital Punishment: Although “forgiveness is preferable,” Islam “accepts capital punishment.”
Contraception: Islam does not promote contraception because it is “strongly pro-family and regards children as a gift from God.”
Euthanasia/Suicide: Euthanasia and suicide are not permitted in Islam as “all human life is sacred because it is given by Allah, and that Allah chooses how long each person will live.”
Circumcision: Islam promotes circumcision as a means of “purification” and as an “introduction to the Islamic faith and a sign of belonging.”
Stem Cell Research: Islam is split on stem cell research. Some Muslims think it is ethical to conduct stem cell research because “the embryo does not have a soul,” while other Muslims think it to be “immoral to destroy embryos at any stage to harvest stem cells.”
War: Islam permits the act of war and set out “clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and clear guidelines as to how such a war should be conducted.” War is allowed on when in “self-defence,” “when other nations have attacked an Islamic state,” and “if another state is oppressing its own Muslims.”
Jihad: Jihad literal translation is “struggle or effort,” for Islam, there are three kinds of Jihad: the struggle within to be a good Muslim, the effort of creating a “good Muslim society,” and “Holy War.”
Christianity
Christianity has 3 factions, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism. All three have a central focus, Jesus Christ. For the Roman Catholics, Christianity is based on the concepts of "Teaching Authority and Sacramental Agent." Teaching Authority to the Roman Catholics is the belief that Jesus was God incarnate and he came to earth to give life lessons that better prepare us for the afterlife. This, in turn, leads to the idea that the Pope is God’s voice on earth and because he is speaking on behalf of God concerning matters of the human soul, he is free of error. In regards to the Sacramental Agent, the Roman Catholic Church piggybacks Teaching Authority in that it acts as the Agent that helps us do what the Pope tells us is best for our soul and salvation. The Roman Catholic Church promotes the seven sacraments of life which are Baptism, Confirmed (confirmation), Holy Matrimony (marriage), Holy Orders, Sacrament of the Sick, Reconciliation (confession), and Mass. Also, the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Holy "Trinity dwells in every Christian soul" and only through prayer and confession can one possibly experience God’s grace. For Eastern Orthodoxy, although it shares quite a bit with Roman Catholicism, such as the Sacraments and "intent regarding the Teaching Authority", it differs in regards to interpreting scripture and how those interpretations come about. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the "developments’ of doctrine" conducted by the Roman Catholic Church are viewed as "additions" which are a necessity of faith. Also, since Eastern Orthodoxy does not have a Pope to lead their church, any decisions made, anything resembling a final word concerning the human soul, faith, and salvation is left to "the conscience of the Church" or the people of the church. The people are the conscience of the Church because, as Christians, they are a part of the God and Christ and, as a result, are a part of each other. Within Eastern Orthodoxy, salvation is a team effort; the Church and it parishioners are bound by faith. This extends beyond the pews into pulpit. The bound is so great within Eastern Orthodoxy that the parishioners elect church officials and have a voice in the dogmas it practices. Also, Eastern Orthodoxy encourages the active pursuit of God’s grace. For Protestantism, Christianity is based on the concepts of "Justification by Faith and the Protestant Principle." Justification by Faith is the believing with your entire being. It’s believing with your body, heart, and mind. The Protestants believe that nothing the church has to offer matters unless it moves you to the core. Unless one is touched body, heart, and mind by what is being preached, the teachings amount to "mere mouthings." Why must they be touched body, heart, and mind? Believing body, heart, and mind convinces one that they are experiencing "God’s love" and when one experiences "God’s love" they are compelled to act from the good with genuine volition.
Abortion: The Roman Catholic Church view abortion as a sin and “a grave moral wrong” which is equivalent to murder.
Animal Rights: Traditionally, animals were considered inferior to man and thus, had no rights, but today, “Modern Christians generally take a much more pro-animal line.” The Roman Catholic view recognizes “that animals have both an intrinsic value and a place in God’s kingdom” and would “avoid anything that brings unnecessary suffering or death to animals.”
Capital Punishment: There is some divisiveness in regards to the death penalty, yet, “For much of history, the Christian Churches accepted that capital punishment was a necessary part of the mechanisms of society.”
Circumcision: In Christianity, the only thing needed for circumcision is to be “circumcised of the heart.”
Contraception: Roman Catholics frown upon birth control. On the other hand, “Christian acceptance of contraception is relatively new.”
Euthanasia: Christians think euthanasia is wrong, while Roman Catholics view it as morally wrong.
Organ Donation: Organ donation is applauded in Christianity.
Same-Sex Marriage: Anglicans, Quakers, and Methodists “bless same-sex couples” or “same-sex unions.”
War: “The main Christian view of war ethics is contained in the doctrine of the Just War.” For the most part, “Christians have a long history of refusing to take part in war.”
Are their ethics different than your own religious view?
Since I do not partake of any organized religion, my views will vary from issue to issue.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Post #7: Nietzsche
Write up an analysis on the selected passages: label the passage and give a brief summary and analysis (interpretation) of it.
Death of God
Nietzsche questions whether people realize they have killed God. With the breakthroughs in science and advancements of reason, God has lost his appeal to man. Or was there no longer any need? What now, what are they to do? The figure of God had been a guiding light for all of humanity since time memorial. God has been the unifying figure and the provider of morality. Now that he is dead, who is to lead? His killers, of course.
Truth
Knowledge is a tool of deceit. In nature it has no use; in civilization it has no real use as well. Mankind has misused the gift it was given. What mankind has done to knowledge is use it as means of self-deception. It is a prop for man’s vanity. It is no wonder that when that rare individual comes out and speaks the truth we call him a liar. Even in his dream state does man continue the charade, continues the lies of self-deception. With all this knowledge that man possesses he still chooses to be ignorant.
Morality as Anti-Nature
There are passions and then there is “stupidity in passions.” It is unfortunate that “stupidity in passions” has decided that passions are no longer needed. The war on passion can be traced to Christianity. The church is incapable of intelligently ridding the world of passion because it does not adhere to intelligence. Instead, it will make passion appear ugly so that it could weed it out of the church and out of our lives. Has anyone noticed that the passions the church wishes to weed out are those that natural to our life?
The church was us to be contrary to our nature. It wants all of humanity to follow the lead of a small group of men who turned to God to help them control their passions. Moderation is for the strong willed. Passion will always be the devil if you are too weak to control it.
Jesus
The Gospels are different. There is no “guilt and punishment,” no “sin,” and no “reward.” “God and man” have united. Eternal bliss is now a reality. The Christian was different because he lived differently. He did not fight, he was accepting, he would not anger, he hated no one, he wasn’t litigious yet he was disobedient, and he would never leave a loved one. This is how he lived, this how he died. He was closer to God by doing away with the formula. The Christian taught us what salvation was by living it. “A new way of life, not a new faith.” “Glass tiding,” indeed.
He lived not to save but to teach. His life was the lesson bestowed unto man. Not once did his demeanor change, not even in the face of adversity. He did not struggle, he invited. He was compassionate, humble, and loving.
Paul
The Jesus of faith is a lie invented to destroy the life of the historical Jesus. What Jesus had done away with has now returned. The unity of God and man no longer exists. “Glass tidings” no more. His living example corrupted. A life with God traded for an afterlife with God. Immortality is now the reward, rather than unity with God. Paul is responsible for spreading the word.
Only now can one see what died when Jesus was put to death. The example was real. Look no further than to Paul for the turn. Where Jesus was a man of love, Paul is man of hate. Paul needed the death to distort the life. Paul corrupted history. Paul traded the life of Jesus for the death of Jesus. Paul used Jesus’ death for his own means and ends. He traded the life of Jesus for power. This was Paul’s gift to the world.
Myth of Eternal Recurrence
Remorse is for the stupid. Although life is “indestructibly powerful and pleasurable,” it never changes. It is always the same. Would you live your life over? Exactly as it is? With no change whatsoever? How well prepared are you for that possibility? Are you accepting of yourself and the life you live? This is your eternity over an infinite period of time. I want to share with you my thoughts. I have a great idea I want to share. Eternity is recurring and eternal. There is no escape. Ever. If you are accepting of this idea, you are free. Gone are a lot of the old traps. You are free. You are strong. In you, we shall create the superman.
Free Spirit
The notion that “God is Dead” is just now starting to spread. There remain those who can’t believe, won’t believe that “God is Dead.” For them, the news has not arrived or the do not understand. It requires them to lose faith. There those of us who have waited for this day. Why is it that we have no fear? Why is it that we have no worry? Could it be because we understand the implications? Freedom has arrived. Gone are the restraints of the “old god.” The possibilities are endless. Life is now full of potential. The rule of ignorance has lost its hold on us. Enter a new reign of knowledge. Let us embark our journey through the “open sea.”
Death of God
Nietzsche questions whether people realize they have killed God. With the breakthroughs in science and advancements of reason, God has lost his appeal to man. Or was there no longer any need? What now, what are they to do? The figure of God had been a guiding light for all of humanity since time memorial. God has been the unifying figure and the provider of morality. Now that he is dead, who is to lead? His killers, of course.
Truth
Knowledge is a tool of deceit. In nature it has no use; in civilization it has no real use as well. Mankind has misused the gift it was given. What mankind has done to knowledge is use it as means of self-deception. It is a prop for man’s vanity. It is no wonder that when that rare individual comes out and speaks the truth we call him a liar. Even in his dream state does man continue the charade, continues the lies of self-deception. With all this knowledge that man possesses he still chooses to be ignorant.
Morality as Anti-Nature
There are passions and then there is “stupidity in passions.” It is unfortunate that “stupidity in passions” has decided that passions are no longer needed. The war on passion can be traced to Christianity. The church is incapable of intelligently ridding the world of passion because it does not adhere to intelligence. Instead, it will make passion appear ugly so that it could weed it out of the church and out of our lives. Has anyone noticed that the passions the church wishes to weed out are those that natural to our life?
The church was us to be contrary to our nature. It wants all of humanity to follow the lead of a small group of men who turned to God to help them control their passions. Moderation is for the strong willed. Passion will always be the devil if you are too weak to control it.
Jesus
The Gospels are different. There is no “guilt and punishment,” no “sin,” and no “reward.” “God and man” have united. Eternal bliss is now a reality. The Christian was different because he lived differently. He did not fight, he was accepting, he would not anger, he hated no one, he wasn’t litigious yet he was disobedient, and he would never leave a loved one. This is how he lived, this how he died. He was closer to God by doing away with the formula. The Christian taught us what salvation was by living it. “A new way of life, not a new faith.” “Glass tiding,” indeed.
He lived not to save but to teach. His life was the lesson bestowed unto man. Not once did his demeanor change, not even in the face of adversity. He did not struggle, he invited. He was compassionate, humble, and loving.
Paul
The Jesus of faith is a lie invented to destroy the life of the historical Jesus. What Jesus had done away with has now returned. The unity of God and man no longer exists. “Glass tidings” no more. His living example corrupted. A life with God traded for an afterlife with God. Immortality is now the reward, rather than unity with God. Paul is responsible for spreading the word.
Only now can one see what died when Jesus was put to death. The example was real. Look no further than to Paul for the turn. Where Jesus was a man of love, Paul is man of hate. Paul needed the death to distort the life. Paul corrupted history. Paul traded the life of Jesus for the death of Jesus. Paul used Jesus’ death for his own means and ends. He traded the life of Jesus for power. This was Paul’s gift to the world.
Myth of Eternal Recurrence
Remorse is for the stupid. Although life is “indestructibly powerful and pleasurable,” it never changes. It is always the same. Would you live your life over? Exactly as it is? With no change whatsoever? How well prepared are you for that possibility? Are you accepting of yourself and the life you live? This is your eternity over an infinite period of time. I want to share with you my thoughts. I have a great idea I want to share. Eternity is recurring and eternal. There is no escape. Ever. If you are accepting of this idea, you are free. Gone are a lot of the old traps. You are free. You are strong. In you, we shall create the superman.
Free Spirit
The notion that “God is Dead” is just now starting to spread. There remain those who can’t believe, won’t believe that “God is Dead.” For them, the news has not arrived or the do not understand. It requires them to lose faith. There those of us who have waited for this day. Why is it that we have no fear? Why is it that we have no worry? Could it be because we understand the implications? Freedom has arrived. Gone are the restraints of the “old god.” The possibilities are endless. Life is now full of potential. The rule of ignorance has lost its hold on us. Enter a new reign of knowledge. Let us embark our journey through the “open sea.”
Friday, March 20, 2009
Post #6: Marx
Explain why Marx thinks capitalism is immoral. What does he envision as a moral society?
Marx posits that the history of the world is that of “class struggles.” In all societies throughout history, there have been the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie possessed the means and thus dictated life for the proletariat. Yet, capitalism was different. Marx thinks capitalism is immoral because “for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.” Marx continues that capitalism turned everyone into a “paid wage laborers.” Gone were the artisans and craftsmen and professionals, reduced to wage earners barely scraping out an existence in a world were “work increases” and “wage decreases.” In a capitalistic world, the wage earner is destined to become “a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth.” Also, capitalism was responsible for reducing the “family relation into a mere money relation.” The proletariat family is unable to own property in a capitalistic world and most times, children were exploited while forced into labor for monetary gain. Finally, capitalism sets up a society that insures one doesn’t move beyond his class. “The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class.” In summation, capitalism is immoral because it “impedes human flourishing.”
According to Marx, “Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor.” Marx continues that property, more than anything, is “a social STATUS in production.” In other words, “it is social power.” For this reason, Marx’s vision of a moral society is a society where there is no such thing as private property. Marx thinks that the removal of the idea of private property is the first step in the general direction of the removal of class struggle in society. Eliminating private property would change the character of the society because it would change the character of ownership. Private property, thus, becomes “common property.” Another point of contention from Marx on what would contribute to a moral society is that of “wage labor.” Marx thinks the concept of minimum wage is implemented for no reason but to keep the labor alive in order to continue the increase of capital. Marx contends that continuing implementation of minimum wage makes the laborer more and more dependent upon the bourgeoisie and robs him of his existence, his individuality, and his freedom. The elimination of the minimum wage is to guarantee a better existence for the laborer. Marx thinks that the proletariat will not be forced into labor, he will, instead, contribute to society based on his experience and ability and, in turn, instead of being paid a paltry earning, he will receive what he needs to live a comfortable existence. This change in appropriation will impact familial relations and stop the exploitation of children both in the labor market and in the classroom. Marx further continues that with the removal of private property into “common property” and the undoing of a “living labor” via the elimination of minimum wage, culture as whole will change.
Marx posits that the history of the world is that of “class struggles.” In all societies throughout history, there have been the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie possessed the means and thus dictated life for the proletariat. Yet, capitalism was different. Marx thinks capitalism is immoral because “for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.” Marx continues that capitalism turned everyone into a “paid wage laborers.” Gone were the artisans and craftsmen and professionals, reduced to wage earners barely scraping out an existence in a world were “work increases” and “wage decreases.” In a capitalistic world, the wage earner is destined to become “a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth.” Also, capitalism was responsible for reducing the “family relation into a mere money relation.” The proletariat family is unable to own property in a capitalistic world and most times, children were exploited while forced into labor for monetary gain. Finally, capitalism sets up a society that insures one doesn’t move beyond his class. “The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class.” In summation, capitalism is immoral because it “impedes human flourishing.”
According to Marx, “Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor.” Marx continues that property, more than anything, is “a social STATUS in production.” In other words, “it is social power.” For this reason, Marx’s vision of a moral society is a society where there is no such thing as private property. Marx thinks that the removal of the idea of private property is the first step in the general direction of the removal of class struggle in society. Eliminating private property would change the character of the society because it would change the character of ownership. Private property, thus, becomes “common property.” Another point of contention from Marx on what would contribute to a moral society is that of “wage labor.” Marx thinks the concept of minimum wage is implemented for no reason but to keep the labor alive in order to continue the increase of capital. Marx contends that continuing implementation of minimum wage makes the laborer more and more dependent upon the bourgeoisie and robs him of his existence, his individuality, and his freedom. The elimination of the minimum wage is to guarantee a better existence for the laborer. Marx thinks that the proletariat will not be forced into labor, he will, instead, contribute to society based on his experience and ability and, in turn, instead of being paid a paltry earning, he will receive what he needs to live a comfortable existence. This change in appropriation will impact familial relations and stop the exploitation of children both in the labor market and in the classroom. Marx further continues that with the removal of private property into “common property” and the undoing of a “living labor” via the elimination of minimum wage, culture as whole will change.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Post #5: Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard is considered the father of existentialism. What is it? Explain Kierkegaard’s existentialist ethics as presented in the readings and in his actual writing. How does his understanding of ethics relate to Christianity?
Existentialism is the position that looks at man in the world. It posits that man is alone in the world. There is no God that subjects you to trials and tribulations and sets ups obstacles for you to overcome. There is no savior to change your life miraculously. Man alone is responsible his choices, actions, and the life he lives.
Kierkegaard’s ethics concerned itself with “customary mores,” or social mores, and “teleological suspension of the ethical,” or religious mores. Kierkegaard’s “customary mores” were the laws that guided man in society. His “teleological suspension of the ethical” was a call to ignore the social mores for a higher calling. It was a calling to trust in faith and God over man’s laws. Kierkegaard’s was claiming that although the social mores are indeed ethical, “ultimately God’s definition of the distinction between good and evil outranks any human society’s definition.”
“Christian faith” was important to Kierkegaard but not in “a matter of regurgitating church dogma.” Living in faith was a choice, a “commitment” to God. Kierkegaard posits that to live according to faith, one is adhering a higher calling and has a better chance “to become a true self.” Kierkegaard continues that when one commits himself to God, he is taking on a “burden of responsibility.” It is a burden because when one makes choices, his is a choice that will echo in all eternity in that every choice will determine whether he is damned or saved. This is what Kierkegaard referred to as “Anxiety or dread.” The anxiety is knowing that whatever you decide, it resonates in eternity juxtaposed with the freedom to make that decision. This brings man closer to God in that man must constantly renew his vow of faith as a reminder to him that God is the charge of his life. “This repetition of faith is the way the self relates itself to itself and to the power which constituted it, i.e. the repetition of faith is the self.” What is ultimately required when living in faith is suspension of reason “in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact, we must believe by virtue of the absurd.”
Existentialism is the position that looks at man in the world. It posits that man is alone in the world. There is no God that subjects you to trials and tribulations and sets ups obstacles for you to overcome. There is no savior to change your life miraculously. Man alone is responsible his choices, actions, and the life he lives.
Kierkegaard’s ethics concerned itself with “customary mores,” or social mores, and “teleological suspension of the ethical,” or religious mores. Kierkegaard’s “customary mores” were the laws that guided man in society. His “teleological suspension of the ethical” was a call to ignore the social mores for a higher calling. It was a calling to trust in faith and God over man’s laws. Kierkegaard’s was claiming that although the social mores are indeed ethical, “ultimately God’s definition of the distinction between good and evil outranks any human society’s definition.”
“Christian faith” was important to Kierkegaard but not in “a matter of regurgitating church dogma.” Living in faith was a choice, a “commitment” to God. Kierkegaard posits that to live according to faith, one is adhering a higher calling and has a better chance “to become a true self.” Kierkegaard continues that when one commits himself to God, he is taking on a “burden of responsibility.” It is a burden because when one makes choices, his is a choice that will echo in all eternity in that every choice will determine whether he is damned or saved. This is what Kierkegaard referred to as “Anxiety or dread.” The anxiety is knowing that whatever you decide, it resonates in eternity juxtaposed with the freedom to make that decision. This brings man closer to God in that man must constantly renew his vow of faith as a reminder to him that God is the charge of his life. “This repetition of faith is the way the self relates itself to itself and to the power which constituted it, i.e. the repetition of faith is the self.” What is ultimately required when living in faith is suspension of reason “in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact, we must believe by virtue of the absurd.”
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Post #4: Kant and Mill
Explain in depth Kant’s ethical theory, Mill’s ethical theory, and, most importantly, compare and contrast them.
Kant
Kant’s ethical theory is not based on empirical evidence. Kant’s intent is to approach ethics with the concepts that we formulate in our minds, or “a priori,” rather than the concepts that have been formulated as a result of experience, or “a posteriori.” Kant reasons that by ridding ethics of “a posteriori” concepts he can eliminate consequential ethics and illuminate “deontological ethics.” Kant claims that “a priori” concepts originate from a place of “good will,” or a place where to be good without qualification is to be good no matter what. It is from this place of “good will” that we are able to understand “deontological ethics.” The concept of the “good will” allows Kant to make a clear distinction between the “good will” and the human will. This distinction allows Kant to claim that “a priori” concepts conform to moral law. Thus, Kant presupposes that prior to individual experience, man shares a common link into the concept of the “good will.” It is from this link that all of humanity aims to seek out the highest moral law. Kant’s focus on the “good will” allows him to stress the importance of having and acting from “good will.” There are no requirements, no penalties; there are no winners or losers when acting from the “good will.” The bottom line is anything that comes from a “good will” is good in itself no matter what the circumstances are. Simply stated, a “good will” acts because it has to be unconditionally good.
Kant continues by placing an emphasis on practical reason in relation to a “good will.” Kant claims the function of reason separates the rational being from man. He states that reason helps the rational being recognize that there are two separate causalities: nature and freedom. According to Kant, the rational being operates from freedom and man operates from nature. This is important because the rational being wants something more than mere existence. Kant posits that the rational being understands he has a choice and is not a victim of circumstance. The rational being chooses to go beyond circumstance and self. Without reason, there are no moral grounds; with reason, we are given the tools to set moral grounds. A “good will” is practical reason that has duly imposed duty upon itself. This duty, “good will,” practical reason places upon itself is the unconditional end, the “deontological ethics” Kant wanted to illuminate.
According to Kant, duty is an obligation of a “good will.” In respect to duty, we ought to act from duty because we can. Which brings us to “two kinds of laws produced by reason:” “hypothetical imperative” and the “categorical imperative.” According to Kant, when one is acting on the “hypothetical imperative,” one is acting on behalf of morality because it is a “rule of action for achieving that end.” When one is acting on the “categorical imperative,” one is acting for nothing more than the end in itself; because it is the rule for “moral action.” Kant clarifies that man adheres to the “hypothetical imperative,” and the rational being adheres to the “categorical imperative.” The rational being follows the “categorical imperative” because it is the one law that states, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The “categorical imperative” is based on nothing more than the end in itself.
Mill
Mill claims consequences of action influences whether or not people find moral worth in their actions. He presents the question: as a result of action, does one want to experience pleasure or pain? Mill posits that every human being chooses pleasure over pain because “it is morally demanded of us.” It is morally demanded of us because human beings “must seek pleasure.” Mill continues that a “maximization of pleasure” insures that man will be at his best because his desires will be satiated. Yet, he continues, one must be discerning in which pleasures he pursues because not all pleasures are worthy of pursuit. According to Mill, because man must seek out pleasure, he should understand that “Some experiences are qualitatively better than others, and in determining which line of action is better, this has to be part of the calculation.” That is when one is capable of determining which pleasure truly add to his living well in all facets of his life, he will move beyond simple pleasures and “self-interest.” Mill thinks man will see that pleasure of the “qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends.” Mill concludes that since every man is satisfied and happy, “the overall effect will be to maximize the pleasure for all.”
Compare/Contrast
Kant and Mill diverge in that Kant thought that one must act on duty, whereas, Mill thought that one should act in the pursuit of pleasure. Kant’s “deontological ethics” is called the “categorical imperative.” Mill’s “maximization of pleasure” is called Utilitarianism. Kant thinks one should act from a “good will” and never use a person as an end to a means. In fact, Kant continues that any action performed should be performed for the end in itself and nothing more. Mill, on the other hand, thinks “ends are either pleasure or parts of pleasure.”
Kant
Kant’s ethical theory is not based on empirical evidence. Kant’s intent is to approach ethics with the concepts that we formulate in our minds, or “a priori,” rather than the concepts that have been formulated as a result of experience, or “a posteriori.” Kant reasons that by ridding ethics of “a posteriori” concepts he can eliminate consequential ethics and illuminate “deontological ethics.” Kant claims that “a priori” concepts originate from a place of “good will,” or a place where to be good without qualification is to be good no matter what. It is from this place of “good will” that we are able to understand “deontological ethics.” The concept of the “good will” allows Kant to make a clear distinction between the “good will” and the human will. This distinction allows Kant to claim that “a priori” concepts conform to moral law. Thus, Kant presupposes that prior to individual experience, man shares a common link into the concept of the “good will.” It is from this link that all of humanity aims to seek out the highest moral law. Kant’s focus on the “good will” allows him to stress the importance of having and acting from “good will.” There are no requirements, no penalties; there are no winners or losers when acting from the “good will.” The bottom line is anything that comes from a “good will” is good in itself no matter what the circumstances are. Simply stated, a “good will” acts because it has to be unconditionally good.
Kant continues by placing an emphasis on practical reason in relation to a “good will.” Kant claims the function of reason separates the rational being from man. He states that reason helps the rational being recognize that there are two separate causalities: nature and freedom. According to Kant, the rational being operates from freedom and man operates from nature. This is important because the rational being wants something more than mere existence. Kant posits that the rational being understands he has a choice and is not a victim of circumstance. The rational being chooses to go beyond circumstance and self. Without reason, there are no moral grounds; with reason, we are given the tools to set moral grounds. A “good will” is practical reason that has duly imposed duty upon itself. This duty, “good will,” practical reason places upon itself is the unconditional end, the “deontological ethics” Kant wanted to illuminate.
According to Kant, duty is an obligation of a “good will.” In respect to duty, we ought to act from duty because we can. Which brings us to “two kinds of laws produced by reason:” “hypothetical imperative” and the “categorical imperative.” According to Kant, when one is acting on the “hypothetical imperative,” one is acting on behalf of morality because it is a “rule of action for achieving that end.” When one is acting on the “categorical imperative,” one is acting for nothing more than the end in itself; because it is the rule for “moral action.” Kant clarifies that man adheres to the “hypothetical imperative,” and the rational being adheres to the “categorical imperative.” The rational being follows the “categorical imperative” because it is the one law that states, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The “categorical imperative” is based on nothing more than the end in itself.
Mill
Mill claims consequences of action influences whether or not people find moral worth in their actions. He presents the question: as a result of action, does one want to experience pleasure or pain? Mill posits that every human being chooses pleasure over pain because “it is morally demanded of us.” It is morally demanded of us because human beings “must seek pleasure.” Mill continues that a “maximization of pleasure” insures that man will be at his best because his desires will be satiated. Yet, he continues, one must be discerning in which pleasures he pursues because not all pleasures are worthy of pursuit. According to Mill, because man must seek out pleasure, he should understand that “Some experiences are qualitatively better than others, and in determining which line of action is better, this has to be part of the calculation.” That is when one is capable of determining which pleasure truly add to his living well in all facets of his life, he will move beyond simple pleasures and “self-interest.” Mill thinks man will see that pleasure of the “qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends.” Mill concludes that since every man is satisfied and happy, “the overall effect will be to maximize the pleasure for all.”
Compare/Contrast
Kant and Mill diverge in that Kant thought that one must act on duty, whereas, Mill thought that one should act in the pursuit of pleasure. Kant’s “deontological ethics” is called the “categorical imperative.” Mill’s “maximization of pleasure” is called Utilitarianism. Kant thinks one should act from a “good will” and never use a person as an end to a means. In fact, Kant continues that any action performed should be performed for the end in itself and nothing more. Mill, on the other hand, thinks “ends are either pleasure or parts of pleasure.”
Post #3: Spinoza
Explain Spinoza’s pantheistic philosophy in depth and then explain how it relates to ethics. Now apply Spinoza’s understanding to the world today. How might his view impact how you live in the world?
Spinoza’s philosophy if grounded in reason. He begins by explaining his concept of God. He presents his argument through fourteen propositions. According to Spinoza, God existed prior to creation and existence. God was not created by something other than itself. Anything that exists does so because of God or else, it is a part of God. God acts out of necessity. In other words, Spinoza thinks that God is “infinite, necessary and uncaused, indivisible,” and most importantly, everything. Thus, if God is everything, anything that follows everything does so via “divine nature.” According to Spinoza, this “divine nature” is twofold. There is a “naturing Nature” and there is the “natured Nature” Simply put, there is God and there is everything else created and sustained by God. Spinoza’s concept of God is not meant for reverence but more for understanding. Approached this way, one is able to “reveal Nature’s most important truths and shows how everything depends essentially and existentially on higher natural causes.”
With Nature spilling it secrets, Spinoza posits that knowledge is to be derived “from random experience,” “intuition,” and “Reason.” Knowledge acquired “from random experience” is knowledge that is “determined by causes.” It is the knowledge that one acquires via the senses; chance encounters and very little thought process. Knowledge acquired by “Reason” requires a deeper understanding. It’s the knowledge that “shows not just that is, but how and why it is.” Finally, knowledge acquired by “intuition,” is no more than the utilization of “Reason” at any given moment.
Spinoza thinks an understanding of how knowledge derived from God, or Nature, will help man conceptualize his role in the very same Nature. Spinoza claims man lives either through an affect of action or an affect of passion. An affect of action is any change that stems within self. An affect of passion is any change that is brought forth by an outside source. An understanding of such knowledge will allow man to persevere in the world and pursue those things that will add to his life and avoid those that are a detriment. Spinoza illustrates the importance of the application of “Reason” and the folly of falling victim to passion. Spinoza continues that man will reason that the only way to live is living virtuously and that entails an understanding of “things through the third kind of knowledge.” That is, one should look at things “situated in their relationship to God and his attributes.” This view allows man to see the necessity of his existence and his relation to all things. This, in turn, frees man from his attachments to the world and his fears of the unknown.
Spinoza’s philosophy relates to ethics in that it accounts for a practical task. Spinoza is suggesting that life need not be burdensome. Once one understands the interconnected-ness of all things, life becomes simple and meaningful. This, in turn, allows one to impact his family, community, and the world at large.
If applied today, I think Spinoza’s philosophy would thrive. I think the world is starting to look at the bigger picture due to globalization and global warming. In turn, I think that there is a greater appreciation for nature. Also, with the world being more accepting of secularization, Spinoza’s philosophy would make sense. I think it would have the kind of impact that would shrink the world. There wouldn’t be a need to consume resources or destroy habitats. The understanding that it’s all connected will wake man from his arrogant slumber.
Spinoza’s philosophy if grounded in reason. He begins by explaining his concept of God. He presents his argument through fourteen propositions. According to Spinoza, God existed prior to creation and existence. God was not created by something other than itself. Anything that exists does so because of God or else, it is a part of God. God acts out of necessity. In other words, Spinoza thinks that God is “infinite, necessary and uncaused, indivisible,” and most importantly, everything. Thus, if God is everything, anything that follows everything does so via “divine nature.” According to Spinoza, this “divine nature” is twofold. There is a “naturing Nature” and there is the “natured Nature” Simply put, there is God and there is everything else created and sustained by God. Spinoza’s concept of God is not meant for reverence but more for understanding. Approached this way, one is able to “reveal Nature’s most important truths and shows how everything depends essentially and existentially on higher natural causes.”
With Nature spilling it secrets, Spinoza posits that knowledge is to be derived “from random experience,” “intuition,” and “Reason.” Knowledge acquired “from random experience” is knowledge that is “determined by causes.” It is the knowledge that one acquires via the senses; chance encounters and very little thought process. Knowledge acquired by “Reason” requires a deeper understanding. It’s the knowledge that “shows not just that is, but how and why it is.” Finally, knowledge acquired by “intuition,” is no more than the utilization of “Reason” at any given moment.
Spinoza thinks an understanding of how knowledge derived from God, or Nature, will help man conceptualize his role in the very same Nature. Spinoza claims man lives either through an affect of action or an affect of passion. An affect of action is any change that stems within self. An affect of passion is any change that is brought forth by an outside source. An understanding of such knowledge will allow man to persevere in the world and pursue those things that will add to his life and avoid those that are a detriment. Spinoza illustrates the importance of the application of “Reason” and the folly of falling victim to passion. Spinoza continues that man will reason that the only way to live is living virtuously and that entails an understanding of “things through the third kind of knowledge.” That is, one should look at things “situated in their relationship to God and his attributes.” This view allows man to see the necessity of his existence and his relation to all things. This, in turn, frees man from his attachments to the world and his fears of the unknown.
Spinoza’s philosophy relates to ethics in that it accounts for a practical task. Spinoza is suggesting that life need not be burdensome. Once one understands the interconnected-ness of all things, life becomes simple and meaningful. This, in turn, allows one to impact his family, community, and the world at large.
If applied today, I think Spinoza’s philosophy would thrive. I think the world is starting to look at the bigger picture due to globalization and global warming. In turn, I think that there is a greater appreciation for nature. Also, with the world being more accepting of secularization, Spinoza’s philosophy would make sense. I think it would have the kind of impact that would shrink the world. There wouldn’t be a need to consume resources or destroy habitats. The understanding that it’s all connected will wake man from his arrogant slumber.
Post #2: Epicurus and Epictetus
How does Epicurus define an ethical person? Compare and contrast his moral theory with that of Epictetus’ understanding of ethics.
Epicurus
Epicurus thinks that an ethical person is one who pursues “the highest good….for its own sake.” The highest good for Epicurus is happiness coupled with pleasure. According to Epicurus, all of humanity chooses to avoid pain by pursuing pleasure. Yet, not all pleasure is worthy of choice and not all pain is worthy of avoidance. All choice of the matter should be with long-term effects in mind. Epicurus surmises that the ethical person should believe in a God that is “a living being immortal and happy,” should not fear death, should not be codependent upon another, and should have and understanding of the nature of one’s pleasures and desires.
Epicurus claims that the pleasure one seeks is directly tied into the desires one possesses. He states that there are two types of pleasure: “moving’ pleasures and ‘static’ pleasures.” “Moving” pleasure are those pleasures that one is moving towards and “static” pleasures are those pleasures that one has attained and satiated. He continues that there are three types of desire: “natural and necessary desires, natural but non-necessary, and ‘vain and empty desires.” “Natural and necessary desires” are those desires that are associated with the necessities of life and are “naturally limited.” These desires are always “moving” pleasures and easily “static” pleasures. “Natural but non-necessary desires” are those desires that are associated with extravagance and luxury and are not necessities of life. Finally, “vain and empty desires” are those desires that are never satiated and have “no natural limit.” These are false desires impressed upon man by society and ignorance.
Epictetus
Epictetus understood that the majority of humankind lives in a state of unhappiness. The trials and tribulations of daily life, the obstacles of everyday life compromise one’s happiness on a daily basis and confound the majority on what is truly important in life. Epictetus suggests that if one chooses to do so, he can change his fortune and live a life of happiness. This would entail that one understand “the true nature of one’s being and keeping one’s prohairesis (moral character) in the right condition.”
Epictetus suggests that life is lived either virtuously or decadently. What propels one towards one or the other is what Epictetus calls the “indifferent.” “Indifferent” things are either “preferred” or “dispreferred.” What is considered “preferred” are things that contribute to living well. What is considered “dispreferred” are things that do not contribute to living well. Epictetus thinks proper use of “preferred” things when they are available to be a virtuous act and virtuous action when they are not available to be a virtuous act as well. The point is one seizing control of the circumstance and acting on that moment.
Epictetus thoroughly believed that the life one lived was totally dependent upon that one person and no one else. He states that there are things within our control and things that are out of our control. Epictetus continues that one must learn to adapt and overcome any situation and to recognize that anything that is “dispreferred” does not have enough sway in one’s life to motivate action. The power of influence in one’s life is truly subjective.
Compare/Contrast
Epicurus and Epictetus approach happiness differently. Epicurus thinks humans should avoid pain by pursuing pleasure. Epictetus thinks humans have control as to how to react to circumstances. Both are similar in their perspective on wants. Epicurus thinks that there are wants that are “natural and necessary” and wants that are “vain and empty”. Epictetus thinks that there are wants that are “preferred” and “dispreferred.”
The “natural and necessary” wants and the “preferred” wants contribute to living well , whereas the “vain and empty” wants and “dispreferred” wants do not contribute to living well. They also differ in respect to the gods. Epicurus thought the gods had no time for us. The gods, according to Epicurus, were ideals for men to aspire towards but not something that men should fear. Epictetus thought God was responsible for everything. He believed that humanity should be thankful for what God has “given us.”
Epicurus
Epicurus thinks that an ethical person is one who pursues “the highest good….for its own sake.” The highest good for Epicurus is happiness coupled with pleasure. According to Epicurus, all of humanity chooses to avoid pain by pursuing pleasure. Yet, not all pleasure is worthy of choice and not all pain is worthy of avoidance. All choice of the matter should be with long-term effects in mind. Epicurus surmises that the ethical person should believe in a God that is “a living being immortal and happy,” should not fear death, should not be codependent upon another, and should have and understanding of the nature of one’s pleasures and desires.
Epicurus claims that the pleasure one seeks is directly tied into the desires one possesses. He states that there are two types of pleasure: “moving’ pleasures and ‘static’ pleasures.” “Moving” pleasure are those pleasures that one is moving towards and “static” pleasures are those pleasures that one has attained and satiated. He continues that there are three types of desire: “natural and necessary desires, natural but non-necessary, and ‘vain and empty desires.” “Natural and necessary desires” are those desires that are associated with the necessities of life and are “naturally limited.” These desires are always “moving” pleasures and easily “static” pleasures. “Natural but non-necessary desires” are those desires that are associated with extravagance and luxury and are not necessities of life. Finally, “vain and empty desires” are those desires that are never satiated and have “no natural limit.” These are false desires impressed upon man by society and ignorance.
Epictetus
Epictetus understood that the majority of humankind lives in a state of unhappiness. The trials and tribulations of daily life, the obstacles of everyday life compromise one’s happiness on a daily basis and confound the majority on what is truly important in life. Epictetus suggests that if one chooses to do so, he can change his fortune and live a life of happiness. This would entail that one understand “the true nature of one’s being and keeping one’s prohairesis (moral character) in the right condition.”
Epictetus suggests that life is lived either virtuously or decadently. What propels one towards one or the other is what Epictetus calls the “indifferent.” “Indifferent” things are either “preferred” or “dispreferred.” What is considered “preferred” are things that contribute to living well. What is considered “dispreferred” are things that do not contribute to living well. Epictetus thinks proper use of “preferred” things when they are available to be a virtuous act and virtuous action when they are not available to be a virtuous act as well. The point is one seizing control of the circumstance and acting on that moment.
Epictetus thoroughly believed that the life one lived was totally dependent upon that one person and no one else. He states that there are things within our control and things that are out of our control. Epictetus continues that one must learn to adapt and overcome any situation and to recognize that anything that is “dispreferred” does not have enough sway in one’s life to motivate action. The power of influence in one’s life is truly subjective.
Compare/Contrast
Epicurus and Epictetus approach happiness differently. Epicurus thinks humans should avoid pain by pursuing pleasure. Epictetus thinks humans have control as to how to react to circumstances. Both are similar in their perspective on wants. Epicurus thinks that there are wants that are “natural and necessary” and wants that are “vain and empty”. Epictetus thinks that there are wants that are “preferred” and “dispreferred.”
The “natural and necessary” wants and the “preferred” wants contribute to living well , whereas the “vain and empty” wants and “dispreferred” wants do not contribute to living well. They also differ in respect to the gods. Epicurus thought the gods had no time for us. The gods, according to Epicurus, were ideals for men to aspire towards but not something that men should fear. Epictetus thought God was responsible for everything. He believed that humanity should be thankful for what God has “given us.”
Post #1: Aristotle
Explain Aristotle’s theory of ethics as presented in the websites.
Aristotle’s theory of ethics sets out to discover what entails a life that is worth living and what one must do to attain such a life. His search for the “the good” leads him to declare that one who pursues “the highest good” should do so because “it is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for its sake.” Aristotle thinks the aim of all of humanity is happiness. Aristotle continues that one must apply reason coupled with virtuous acts to live well, to reach the aim of happiness. Also, one need be fortunate to be well rounded in other aspects of his/her life to include friends, family, opportunity, and so forth.
Aristotle thinks that one must have some exposure of virtuous behavior during childhood; Aristotle stresses the importance of a good and proper upbringing. This early exposure of virtue presupposes that one will display “good habits” at some stage in their life. Also, Aristotle assumes that this prior knowledge of virtue will generate a love for virtuous activity and virtuous activity will serve “as the goal for the sake of which lesser goods are to be pursued.”
According to Aristotle, there are two kinds of virtue: intellectual and ethical. Virtues of the intellect are those that pertain to the mind and are engaged in reason. Aristotle continues that there are two kinds of intellectual virtue: theoretical and practical. On the other hand, “virtues of character” are those that cannot engage in reason but follow reason. Aristotle continues that “ethical virtue is fully developed only when it is combined with practical wisdom.” The incorporation of practical wisdom into ethical virtue brings the prior knowledge of virtue exposed as a youth to fruition as a man of the world.
Aristotle continues by describing man possessing three very different kinds of deficiencies: the “continent” man, the “incontinent” man, and the evil man. The “continent” man is a better than average man of reason and does as a man of virtue does but only after some deliberation. The “incontinent” man is a below average man of reason, controlled by his passions, and does not do as a man of virtue does. Finally, the evil man could not be bothered to exhibit ethical behavior, let alone incorporate practical wisdom.
Again, to offset any of the aforesaid, Aristotle posits that a good and proper childhood will predispose one towards happiness due to the development of “good habits” and virtuous activity. Once practical wisdom is incorporated into everyday dealings, one is able to distinguish between “excess and deficiency.” That distinction is known as The Doctrine of the Mean. Aristotle posits that the mean is a way to find the middle ground between excess and vice in all situations when all things are considered.
What is his view on happiness and its relationship on ethics?
Aristotle thinks that happiness is an act of self-suffiency; it’s a choice that is always made with one’s own benefit in mind. He states that “we always choose for self and never for the sake of something else.” In regards to happiness and it relationship on ethics, Aristotle thinks that the virtuous activity one choose to engage in is no more than a means to an end and that end is happiness. Therefore, if one chooses happiness as the end in itself, then one must live in a constant state of virtuous activity.
Finally, what makes you happy in this life and what do you think Aristotle would say about that?
What makes me happy? Good question and one I haven’t thought of in quite some time. Then why is that? I’m not sure. I wake each morning grateful that I made it through the night and have a chance at a new day. I work two jobs and go to school, both of which I feel fortunate to have and do. I have my health. I have the love of a good man. All my family is still alive. I have surrounded myself with good friends. The truth is I don’t think about what makes me happy because I am happy. I live day to day. I understand that some days will be better than others and that most things are out of my control. The things I can control, I deal with when need be. All I do is try to be the best I can be and try to make sure I make no transgressions on others.
Aristotle would probably think that my life is consumed by excess and deficiency and not enough virtuous activity. He would probably tell me that I am a little to engross with my boyfriend. He would probably tell me that I’m overworking myself with the two jobs and maybe I should quit one. He would probably tell me that I don’t spend enough time with my family and it is important that I reestablish bonds with all parties involved. And maybe he would tell me that I don’t spend enough time with my friends and that I should start reconnecting with them on a regular basis.
Aristotle’s theory of ethics sets out to discover what entails a life that is worth living and what one must do to attain such a life. His search for the “the good” leads him to declare that one who pursues “the highest good” should do so because “it is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for its sake.” Aristotle thinks the aim of all of humanity is happiness. Aristotle continues that one must apply reason coupled with virtuous acts to live well, to reach the aim of happiness. Also, one need be fortunate to be well rounded in other aspects of his/her life to include friends, family, opportunity, and so forth.
Aristotle thinks that one must have some exposure of virtuous behavior during childhood; Aristotle stresses the importance of a good and proper upbringing. This early exposure of virtue presupposes that one will display “good habits” at some stage in their life. Also, Aristotle assumes that this prior knowledge of virtue will generate a love for virtuous activity and virtuous activity will serve “as the goal for the sake of which lesser goods are to be pursued.”
According to Aristotle, there are two kinds of virtue: intellectual and ethical. Virtues of the intellect are those that pertain to the mind and are engaged in reason. Aristotle continues that there are two kinds of intellectual virtue: theoretical and practical. On the other hand, “virtues of character” are those that cannot engage in reason but follow reason. Aristotle continues that “ethical virtue is fully developed only when it is combined with practical wisdom.” The incorporation of practical wisdom into ethical virtue brings the prior knowledge of virtue exposed as a youth to fruition as a man of the world.
Aristotle continues by describing man possessing three very different kinds of deficiencies: the “continent” man, the “incontinent” man, and the evil man. The “continent” man is a better than average man of reason and does as a man of virtue does but only after some deliberation. The “incontinent” man is a below average man of reason, controlled by his passions, and does not do as a man of virtue does. Finally, the evil man could not be bothered to exhibit ethical behavior, let alone incorporate practical wisdom.
Again, to offset any of the aforesaid, Aristotle posits that a good and proper childhood will predispose one towards happiness due to the development of “good habits” and virtuous activity. Once practical wisdom is incorporated into everyday dealings, one is able to distinguish between “excess and deficiency.” That distinction is known as The Doctrine of the Mean. Aristotle posits that the mean is a way to find the middle ground between excess and vice in all situations when all things are considered.
What is his view on happiness and its relationship on ethics?
Aristotle thinks that happiness is an act of self-suffiency; it’s a choice that is always made with one’s own benefit in mind. He states that “we always choose for self and never for the sake of something else.” In regards to happiness and it relationship on ethics, Aristotle thinks that the virtuous activity one choose to engage in is no more than a means to an end and that end is happiness. Therefore, if one chooses happiness as the end in itself, then one must live in a constant state of virtuous activity.
Finally, what makes you happy in this life and what do you think Aristotle would say about that?
What makes me happy? Good question and one I haven’t thought of in quite some time. Then why is that? I’m not sure. I wake each morning grateful that I made it through the night and have a chance at a new day. I work two jobs and go to school, both of which I feel fortunate to have and do. I have my health. I have the love of a good man. All my family is still alive. I have surrounded myself with good friends. The truth is I don’t think about what makes me happy because I am happy. I live day to day. I understand that some days will be better than others and that most things are out of my control. The things I can control, I deal with when need be. All I do is try to be the best I can be and try to make sure I make no transgressions on others.
Aristotle would probably think that my life is consumed by excess and deficiency and not enough virtuous activity. He would probably tell me that I am a little to engross with my boyfriend. He would probably tell me that I’m overworking myself with the two jobs and maybe I should quit one. He would probably tell me that I don’t spend enough time with my family and it is important that I reestablish bonds with all parties involved. And maybe he would tell me that I don’t spend enough time with my friends and that I should start reconnecting with them on a regular basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)