Caity84's Weblog

Kant

caity84 — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:10:14 +0000

I find Kant’s theories very interesting. I think someone’s intentions speak louder about them than the consequences of their actions. A good person is always going to have good intentions. The outcome of their actions may not always result positively, but their heart will always be in the right place. Just because someone does something good, doesn’t make them a good person. It takes a lifetime of good deeds and good intentions to become a good person.

Murder

caity84 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:48:16 +0000

I believe murder is still morally wrong unless it is in defense of yourself or someone else. Even if someone does everything that would be considered virtuous for their entire life, they still dont get a free pass to commit murder. You can not weigh out a good person v. murder the way you can in perhaps a less serious offense. If a person is always good and then one day they shop lift, well shoplifting is still wrong but we consider them to be virtuous because the good outweighs the bad.

Rationality and self-interest

caity84 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:17:05 +0000

Everyone is out for their own self interest by nature. even when you do something for someone else it still nbenefits you because it makes u feel good. I believe anything you do for yourself is rational. You are trying to make yourself as happy as possiible so what is unrational about that? Even suicide is rational because you must have a reason you no longer want to lives which means you have given it thought and are not acting irrationally.

Who is part of the social contract?

caity84 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:01:27 +0000

I do not believe that children can be responsible to uphold the social contract, but only because their brains arent fully developed, therefore they can not make a decision about their rights. People who are stuck in their society because they are unable to leave for financial reasons must abide by the contract until it is possible for them to move. They are living here therefore they must follow the rules that everyone else who lives here follows. You are signing the contract by residing in that society, wherever it may be at the time.

Government

caity84 — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:42:51 +0000

I believe that the government must be held to the same moral standards to which the people under the government are forced to live by. The government should be setting the example and punishing those who do not follow, but can not be hypocritical and not follow themselves. The government is made up of people who when they are viewed individually are supposed to uphold the same morals as everyone else, so why does that change because they went to work? People are individuals first before they are their job position. They can not rule in one manner and act in another.

State of War

caity84 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:17:36 +0000

I agree with Hobbes that if man was left to his own devices, it would be a disaster for society. Without some type of rules and regulations, people will naturally go to war with one another. Everyone is out for themselves and without any rules, society will become out of control. There would be no reason for people not to fight or kill for what they want because there would be no one to stop them. They wouldnt have any kind of rules, therefore they wouldnt have any reason to even know that murder is wrong. They would have no rules to start basing a moral code off of. I believe society would come to an end eventually because people would be killing quicker than they can reproduce.

Categorical Imperative

caity84 — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:23:04 +0000

By Kant’s theories, it would be immoral to cheat. Cheating would be immoral because the intentions or cheating are dishonest. If everyone cheated then there would be no way to compare abilities making the use of tests useless. If there were no tests then there would be no way to cheat. The consequences would be irrelevant in Kants eyes. The action and intentions of cheating are dishonest, making it immoral.

My Group Assignment

caity84 — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:52:05 +0000

We were assigned a passage where Mill defends utility stating it is not interchangeable with expediency. Expediency is the idea of getting a result you want as quick as possible without a real concern for the long term affects of your action. When people begin lying to protect their own interests, human society as a whole loses it’s trustworthiness.

Question for Mill

caity84 — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:22:26 +0000

Question for Mill: Why don’t you care about someone’s intentions for acting a certain way opposed to only caring about the consequences?

I think Mill could say that everyone’s scale of good and bad would have to be the same to decide what is a good intention and a bad intention. If there isn’t a universal scale for morality then there can be no scale to judge someones intentions. Therefore we wouldnt be able to consider intentions in deciding morality of an action.

Does happiness have any intrinsic value?

caity84 — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:20:54 +0000

In my opinion I dont believe that happiness couldnt occur without external forces and/or relationships. I can’t think of a scenario in which you would be happy for no reason. If there were no external forces affecting you, you would be alone. If you are alone you do not have anything that is making you happy. Happiness is caused by people, events, material items and so forth, therefore if none of that is affecting you then why are you happy? what would be making you happy?