The theory of morality

The theory of morality that we learned in class that is best for me is the morality of Aristotle. The reason is because, he tells us that we should lead our lives without excess or defect; that we should maintain balance in our life. And the mean is the character of virtue; that we should achieve happiness throught balance in our lives. We should not practices the vices of the extrems. We should practice the virtues of a balance life.
If someone goes to the extremes, they may end up in wrongful acts and violent behavior; this we see every day in the media and at our worplaces. An the contrary, we see people with balance having virtues that show in their actions

Aristotle: State of Character

For Aristotle the idea of living well involves acting in accordance with rationality and some excellence (mean). In fact, we must consider the virtue on the sense of good quality, therefore, can not be force. This is the way of achieving happiness in a longer term.
The state of character concerned with choices lying in an individual’s own interest.  However, the virtuous person is the happy one.  That we aim to conduct ourself in the right direction with balance.  Neither with excess (extreme) nor deficiency (rashness).  He says that we need to act in accordance with appetizer which should be in balance. ). He says that we need to act in accordance with appetizer which should be in balance. In the contrary, we see throught the media the deficiency of rationality in the situation of war and violence in the center of education and other places.

Aristotle

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?The aim of political science is to achieve happiness for all citizens by studying what is good for all people.

Hobbe’s Social Contract

The state of nature is a state of war, because human beings have natural desires and act on their own self-interest. The unlimited freedom gives people right to kill, steal, lie, etc. Unless, everyone has to come to an agreement that people will continue living in fears. Therefore, rational human being must enter in Social Contract in exchange of peace. Establishing rules to obey the contract and some punish to pursuit for breaking the rule. The government is an individual or group of individuals with enough power to enforce the contract. The establishment of the government consist that everyone has to submit themselves and no longer act in their self –interest. Therefore act only to enforce the law. It is immoral broken the contract.

This idea of self-interest basically can not exist because I could commit a serious infamy from my natural desire and self-interest to act. In which that my action implies doing what is right for me only. In order to applied this theory of living together as a rational human being in the state of nature I have to give up my unlimited rights and must enter to a social contract. That is Hobbe’s theory.

Hobbe’s The State of Nature

Hobbes believes that all human beings are rational animals.  This justifies the assumption of the fundamental theory of equality of human abilities.  That implies that each individual has the same basic needs, such as food, shelter, air, respect, protection, etc., in society.   This kind of belief demands arbitration between people.     Human nature is ruled by self-interested cooperation.  I believe this is egoism.   This equality in abilities makes people share their feelings of insecurity and constant fear of death.   

I agreed because human beings only act in their best interest, and live in a materialist world.  Therefore, men can only rely on their own strength and see every other man as potential enemy. 

Kant’s duty Derived from Categorical Imperative

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?

Because, Kant believed that all human beings are rational and that is something we all share in common. My interpretation is that it is conflictive, because it has to do with the person self-interest. Therefore, not everyone is capable to act in certain way. It shows no relations-ship when connecting with moral acting.

As most of us know from personal experiences in some point of our lives we have conflicts with our intellectual, physical desire and we neglect our natural gifts.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

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?

The categorical stands for the command that must be followed without exception. The imperative is accordance with duty. That is an only act in such way you could will your maxim into universal law.

The following is an example of a derivation of morality.

If you need money (categorical)

Tell a false promise. (imperative)

The action in this example implies that was done in accordance with duty toward an indirect inclination.
It is convincing because in this case the false promises will be to maximise this inmoral case into a universal law. This implies reasonable consequences and the contrast with Kant. Kant’s theory is the purpose of life to have a good will.

Mill vs. Kant

Compose a blog entry on the distinction between Kant’s moral theory and utilitarianism. In what ways do they differ?

Mills’ Utilitarianism theory of morality is simple straight forward. It is good if it increases the overall happiness.

Kant’s theory of morality is a complete different from mills’ theory, because this theory cares about the natural of goodness in itself of the good will.

Are there any ways in which Kant and Mill agree?

There are no ways in which Kant and Mill agree, because Mills’ theory is consequential, an action is good only if has a desirable consequence. On the other hand, Kant’s theory makes distinguish about the intension and the action of the act. The component of the morality is not about happiness, it is about the natural goodness of itself and the good will.

Private vs. Public

The principle of Utilitarianism is broad, in which the definition is good if it increases happiness. In such away the fundamental of overall Happiness will benefit from the moral act. In this chapter Mills argues about the moral opportunity that is done in public and private that will increases the overall happiness.

The following is an example of the public moral opportunity:

President Bush rescued a kitty cat from being killed.
A similar moral act was done by another person in A different place in the same situation.
The question is whether President Bush is many times more moral than a regular person in that they both did the same moral action? However, because President Bush is WELL-KNOWN and in the public eye, his moral action. Probably resulted increasing OVERALL happiness.
On the other hand, a regular person who had the opportunity and did the same moral action influences less people, BECAUSE less people would know about it. Therefore, the effect would be limited to increasing his or her or her private happiness known only to his or her immediate circle of friends and family.

The act is the same and should result in the same amount of happiness; However, it is not because The president has more influence to affect peoples’ lives. Seems that is very wrong and conflictive.

Obeying the Utilitarianism it would be require to the wrong thing. When in reality moral conduct should be equality divide regardless how conductthe action. I guess we are living in the Utilitarianism world.

Breaking moral rules

The case of JoJo the character discussed in class was the question whether or not to kill jojo?  Because this imaginary character JoJo was born with a strange disease that consist the unpleasant odor of his body makes everyone around the world sick to the extent that people vomit two times a day.  The interesting and controversial issue is that JoJo loves to be around peoples and enjoys life.  Based on the Utilitarianism theory JoJo is moral obligate to kill himself in circumstances in this kind of circumstances, because he is decreasing everyone’s happiness.  

 Morality over action 

Mill’s argues that this unpleasant action to kill JoJo for the greater of good is morally wrong.  I agree because the action of killing another human being is morally wrong in any circumstance.  There are so many people who are going to be hurt by this action.  By committing the killing maybe increase the overall happiness temporality.  In general killing is wrong.  Another negative consequence by killing the character of JoJo will terminated his human rights.  His right to Life, Liberty, the pursuit Happiness, prosperity, etc.  

This bad theory of morality leaves the unanswered concept of life.  However, it may be because I have a different concept of life. I strongly believed that only God is the only person to terminate our life.