count it

Blog about Kant’s categorical imperative and how it underpins our duty not to tell lies.  How does the derivation of this duty work?  Is it convincing?

 Kant says that when he he thinks of a categorical imperative he knows at once what it means. I think that all of us know that it is wrong to lie but since the truth may not bring about the desired effect we lie so we get what we want. If Kant concerned himself with what not tellling the truth brought us like the guilt and the knowledge of the lie which is sometimes worse than the lie itself it would be convincing. When people lie rarely do they think of the long term the truth is the only thing that can assure us that. i think that not lieing is a categorical imperative.

John Stuart Mill is the man. he must have been the absolute nicest guy ever. He didnt care why you did the things you did as long as they helped people.I think that this is a theory that will never age. When we embark on this journey of life noone knows where its going to lead but if we can help people get to where they are going along the way why not. Sooner or later you are going to need some help as well. His theory doesnt pass judgement on people who do good things for the wrong reasons how could it the good deed has been done who cares why.

yum

 Then I gave an argument for why the excess and the deficiency don’t help us to “do our work”, as Aristotle puts it.  Thus that the excess and deficiency are vices in this case, leaving the mean, courageousness, as the virtue.  Using one of the examples that Aristotle offers, or one of your own invention, attempt to do a similar sort of derivation.

One passion that every human feels is Appetite no matter what age it plays a significant role in ones life. When a baby is born it solely relies on its parents to satisfy this passion. As the shild grows they begin to understand that when your stomach growls it is time to eat. How does one know how much is sufficeint, in some cultures it is offensive to leave food on the plate in others its offensive not to leave any. So if one eats until there is no more food left the vice would be overindulgence. If one did not eat enough then you will be guilty of depriving the body of what it needs. So the mean would be satisfaction eat the as much as the portion as you can but stop when the feelin of hunger has gone away.

Blog: Is Aristotle correct when he characterizes politics as “the master art”?  Is he right that the end of political science is the happiness or well-being of citizens?

i think that society has made politics the master art. the right type of government is concerned with the happiness of the people it governs although this is rarely seen. it should if the people in charge wish to stay in charge. the master art comes down to making money i think. in class when we were discussing the maker of the thing for horses ultimately he had to make money in order to eat and the government is the one who pays him.

Do you agree with Hobbes’s insistence that there is no morality before the establishment of a contract

i agree to a point about hobbes’s idea of no morality prior to the establishment of a contract because there is no standard for what is right. on the other hand however i disagree with it because some contracts do not need to be in writing somethings like not killing should just be a known behaivor. does his contract really take into consideration what right every single person in the world is willing to give up.

tarzan

log about Hobbes’s idea of the state of nature.  Are his assumptions about the general equal abilities of men and the relative scarcity of goods correct?  Is he right in assuming that men act only out of self-interest, like animals?  Do you agree that the state of nature is a state of war, and that the state of war is as terrible as he says it is?

Hobbe’s assumptions about the general equal abilities of men are correct in a sense some my have more strength and one may have more brain power. I believe however that it is the one with a fair amount of both that will be the one with the most bananas. scarcity is a reality we face that today and are in now way in a state of nature. The state of nature is definately a state of war, only the strong survive, fight to survive, survival of the fittest, all of these terms can be related to the way animals live but without order we to would only be animals. Prides of lions do not care if other lion prides survive as long as they get their fill. the state of war would be as terrible as he thinks even worse.

Write a blog entry about Kant’s third example of a duty derived from the categorical imperative, our duty to cultivate our talents.  Why, according to Kant, is it immoral to neglect your natural gifts?  What are the assumptions that Kant makes about human nature to get this argument to work?  Are you convinced?  Do this by Sunday at 9pm, so that you’ll have until Tuesday to read and comment on others’ entries

for kant it is immoral for us not to cultivate our natural talents do to our duty of self love. if we do not truly become the best at what we can do then we are depriving our lives of all the perks that come with our skill. if a person has a natural ability to throw the pig skin then they should work on that skill until it shows results to benefit their life. it is almost common sense though because most of the time people enjoy the things that they are good at some in order for them to enjoy life they should persue the things they excel in.

suicidal

in class we discussed the maxim about self love and how suicide would prevent the future hard ships were going to bring. the whole time in class i waited for someone to bring up a situation about taking the lives of others accidentally. recently a young kid was out to lunch with two friends, he crossed over a double yellow line and killed his two friends and the child in the other car. a friend of mine who knows this driver says that he is now on suicide watch. i dont think he wishes to kill himself out of selflove or guilt. i think his mindset is simple although blurred they didnt live so why should i. in order for him to decide if suicide is moral his maxim would be, in order to get what i deserve, i must kill myself.

dont lie

Blog about Kant’s categorical imperative and how it underpins our duty not to tell lies.  How does the derivation of this duty work?  Is it convincing?

Kants categorical imperative says act in such a way only if you will be able to turn your maxim into universal law. this helps us determine what are duties in life are. for kant our duties are superior in becoming a moral person. the categorical imperative tells us not to lie because as human beings we have a duty not to. an example of a maxim that can not be willed into universal law would be in order to get into college lie about your sat scores, if this was the case then students would get into schools above their actual qualifications but they would get a better education. schools would develop systems to catch those lieing and allow those who are qualified in only.

mills + kant = us

kant and mills have two very different theories based solely on the fact that one is concerned about why someone does something and not the outcome, and the other could careless about why  someone does something as long as it has a good outcome. i dont know what else to say i think that sums up my opinion about the two. if you combine the positives from each theory i think that you could compose a pretty good one. for example doing something with a good will because it will have a positive outcome on the most amount of peoples happiness.