Preface
This is a series of my discussions posts from my Philosophy: Ethics Class. It includes my opinions on philosophical questions and theories.
As it contains different philosophers and different theories/stances. It may get a little bit clustered as I am compiling all the articles and discussions posts that I wrote throughout the duration of the class. This only includes the segments that I think relate to the title of the post.
Quick Context on my writing style : I like to take different stances on the same subject matter so that I can fully engulf myself in the teachings. While all of the words are written and opinionated by me , it does not mean that I only have that absolute opinion nor does it indicate I have any opinions on that matter. By the time you are reading this , my view on these matters could be changed or it could remain the same. I hope that all of my writings, whether in this segment or the next, provide you with different meanings every time you read them at different points in your life.
1. What makes an Action good?
In a spiritual book I once read, it beautifully stated that if you want to help someone ( do a good action for others) then do so without any expectations to get something in return. If you are helping someone/doing something good for the sake of receiving something in return e.g getting help in return or expecting that they owe you a favor, it will simply mean that you are doing a business transaction and not earning good deeds (karma).
Intentions behind our action can help us differentiate on what is good and bad but that is not always the case. We may have good intentions but our action might be bad for someone else. For example, we may try to help an elderly people out by offering them a hand when they are crossing a road or offering them wheelchair assistance if you are working but they might take offense to that and feel like you are helping out of pity. You can only help someone if they need and ask for help.
Actions like art and taste is subjective. It can be either good or bad or sometimes both. In the past, Diogenes’s actions were considered to be of a madman but now he is regarded as one of the most sophisticated and wise philosophers to ever exist. Time can also decide if an action is good or bad. One action that is good can be turned into something bad in the future. Human experimentation was considered good and noble, it was for the sake of innovation and science but soon regarded bad because of its cruel and unethical nature. What I can do assure is that this discussion post of mine is good.
2. G.E. Moore
Ethical relativism is similar to divine command theory. Divine command theory suggests what is morally good is if god approves the act of trait of it being god.
Subjective and cultural ethical relativism means an act is good if either an individual or a social group approve of it being good.
One reason why I think it is most convincing is because Moore’s argue that something cannot be deemed good just because an individual or a group believes it to be. Ik tribe laughed at a kid burning his face yet they helped the kid after a while, some groups might help the kid right away. Same for when Darius asked what price it would take for the Greeks to eat their father’s corpse, they simply answered back that there is no price where when asked a similar question to Callatiae, they revoked and cried back to how rude the question was. In both these cases, the outcome was similar. Both groups disagreed but had different responses. Their responses were different due to culturally and individually what they believed to be morally right or wrong but they had an objective standard of evaluation for moral judgements. If the matter has a meaningful purpose to be discussed and judged then ethical relativism can’t be true as it cannot always give definite answer to what is right or wrong all the time.
3. Abortion
Bentham is known as the founder of utilitarianism and believes that actions should be judged by the amount of happiness they produce for an individual and people around them.
A moral issue I would like to suggest is abortion. If aborting a baby can cause the individual to be free of stress that they might experience in the future from raising a child, does that mean by act utilitarianism that the action of abortion which leads to the happiness, in this case the stress of not having to care for a child financially and personally is the right choice ? or is the action wrong as rule utilitarianism says we ought to live by rules and focus on the greater good in terms of time aspect as well, a single loss of life impacts more negative displeasure than having stress for a few years. Is it worth saving the child from abortion only for them to be traumatized by their parent’s actions and generational trauma and the addictive genes ? ( I do believe in the fight of human perseverance so the child should have a chance to tackle the world. I, myself got this chance. The doctor recommend my mother to abort me due to her safety. It would have been a risky delivery with both me and my mom at risk of dying if the operation failed. That’s a story for another time. )
I am not debating whether abortion is right or wrong but in terms of the theory of utility, how should we tackle this moral issue ? Do other people have the right to judge if this action is morally good or bad based on how much happiness or pleasure it provides ? or is it only the mother that gets to decide on what they do with their body ? what about the person who fathered the baby, do they have a right. Is his happiness less important than the mother’s. If mothers are allowed to decide if they want to abort their babies or not , then why is it not legal to euthanize babies that are born with severe illness rendering them from living a normal life. Are babies only valuable if they are out of womb, as most people would think it is morally wrong and would provide immense displeasure if a child is euthanized just for being born with an illness. Even if we take rule utilitarianism approach, the standard rules do not derive from a source where there is a direct yes or no. This discussion post of mine does not have any statements but my thoughts as I firmly believe in the theory of rule utilitarianism but it is not concrete enough for some moral issues and it should remain this way as some cases can be morally right and wrong depending on the circumstance and intention.
4. Kant’s cants’
The idea in the notion of categorical imperative is to act only according to the maxim which should become a universal law without contradictions. The other formulation is to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a mere means.
Before Kant, we used to differentiate between what is right and wrong according to the words of Gods or by how society deemed things to be right or wrong. Kant suggests that humanity has a gift of being self-governed, that we can make our own decisions based on rational wills. This also means that we have a moral responsibility and worth that we should not manipulate others and not to be manipulated by others for our benefit.
If you think stealing is fine, then everyone should steal. Your maxim should be universal without contradictions.
We should always treat humanity as an end and never as a mere mean. If you want to get good grades , you need to study more. Getting good grades is your end ( goal ) and studying is the mean. If you want to make your professor happy, then you need to research more about the subject and be active in class. Making professor happy is your end and being active is your mean. This is morally good as your professor being happy is an end and not a mean. If you compliment and coerce your manager at work to get more hours and do less work then your end would be the benefit you receive, in this case, you are treating your manager as a medium (mean) to get what you want. You are manipulating him. Even if he is not harmed, you are still morally wrong and this act is considered bad by Kant’s philosophy.
It is imperative because it commands an action as a means to achieve an end. Categorical in this context mean to imply that it is universal and unconditional to all rational minds. This theory of Kant does not rely on Gods or societal views but our own conscientiousness and what we rationally think is right.
5. Aristotle’s happiness
According to Aristotle, happiness is the ultimate goal for human beings. He said that happiness does not lack anything and is self-sufficient. The happy life is thought to be virtuous and requires exertion and not amusement. A person can enjoy happiness no matter who and where they are so it is not in activities that generates happiness but our own mindset. Happiness lies in virtuous activities not occupations or mere activities that provide pleasure in short-term.
Pleasant amusement is the general definition of happiness by others where Aristotle believes that pleasant amusement provides harm for our body and property which would not provide happiness after all.
I think he has figured out the nature of true happiness as what he stated is right. If all of humans just look for pleasant amusement in search for happiness then we would be destroying our body and property without getting happiness in the end. A person who indulges themselves in gluttony, lust and laziness would just cause harm for themselves. If we just do these activities, we either get bored or it destroys us but if we virtuous acts of goods and maintain it for our lifetime, we become content with who we are and are ultimately happy. I also agree with his point that happiness is a life-long pursuit as we cannot be happy now from pleasure and expect it to last a lifetime. Happiness is a choice which means that anyone can attain happiness if they choose and are willing to be happy.
6. Racial Identity
I feel that racial identity is what you can identify yourself with and being a member of a racial group is inherit and you are born with its traits and physical appearance. Racial identity involves deeper personal and social understanding.
I was born in Myanmar (Burma), My father is Indian and his ancestry is from India and my mother is Nepalese and her ancestry is from Nepal. My physical appearance and racial group is Indian/Nepalese while my racial identity would be Burmese as most of my cultures, beliefs and way of life comes from it.
According to Haslanger’s framework, my racial group (classification) is based on my physical appearance which is Indian/Nepalese. My racial identity is Burmese as it reflects my cultures, beliefs and way of life which are primarily influenced by Burmese culture and environment where I was born and raised.
I am a Hindu when I am with my Nepalese peers. I am a Nepali ( Gurkha ) when I am with my Hindu peers. I am a “kalar” in Burma. I am an Indian when I am in America. I am a Burmese when I am with Indian people. ( Yes , you can guess so, i have had identity crisis in the past. I even have 2 official names in my passport. )