Philosophy class

Before taking Intro To Philosophy my knowledge of philosphy did not consist of much. I thought it was mainly asking questions and playing with the idea of religious, that I knew.  Now I know the history of a few philosophers and their principles they've developed based on their views of life like Kant, John Locke, Hume, Sartre, Descartes.  I can now label each philospher with his view; these people are not just names anymore but I can identify what they stood for.  I enjoyed the class discussions on freedom of the will versus fate. I understood and took in a lot from class but it did not really change my religious views although the information was thought provoking. One thing that stood out to me was the concept of doing good--we do good selfishly. We do good only because it feels good to do so and without this inner satisfaction we would not do so. I explained this concept to my boyfriend and he shed even more light on the subject, arguing that of COURSE if makes us feel good, doing anything has an effect on our attitude or emotion and it's natural that we would do something that makes us feel good or gives us pleasure, we wouldn't naturally do something that makes us feel bad.  Doing good just happens to make us feel good.

It is in this way that I found this concept interesting and I did take some knowledge from class that I will continue to apply. I will continue to ask questions and be curious; not simpy take in information and automatically assume it correct.  I will be skeptical. I will challenge views but I have always been an open minded person so when I listen to other peoples beliefs or values, I listen with open ears and put aside all judgements. Philosophy class was thought provoking and proved to be an insightful class.

My Issues With Utilitarianism

From what I understand from this weeks discussion involving the concept of utilitarianism, I have found myself asking several issues regarding the topic. Utilitarianism is defined as accomplishing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. The greatest amount of people part of the definition is not something that can really be argued because it is rather clear but as for the "greatest good" part, I have some questions on this aspecpt.

Who is to say what it "good?"
What if what someone finds good, others do not?

The story of Robin Hood came into my mind because although he was stealing from the rich, he provided plenty for the poor in great numbers.  Some would say that he is wrong for stealing but in my point of view he was more of a hero than a theif.  In this case one must compromise his sense of right and wrong in the way that although he was stealing from a few rich people, he gave a lot for the poor because to them, a little went a long way. In addition to this example, I found the in-class example interesting in the way that the group presenters over utilitarianism had the class deciding whether to save their child from an oncoming train or to save the 50 people on the train; killing the kid.  I asked my mom this question after hearing responses on the discussion and she unhesitantly answered, "my kid." She told me her child would be her priority. I then decided to up the stakes and ask her, "What if there were 1,000 people on the train?" She shook her head and kept her same answer.  It seems as if this rule of utilitarianism doesn't jive with a lot of people. Me being one of them.

Sure this rule comes in handy in some circumstances but it would be nuts to live by this rule all the time.

Ethics

Morality can be defined as what is right and wrong.
It is said to be the basic premise for what we base plenty of our actions on.  It is "above" us whether it is considered by our laws or not.  Of course murder and theft are examples that are considered by our laws but morality is an abstract law, in a sense, that we all live under.

Through reviewing this weeks readings I have examined the six different theories examinging ethics as they explain the different ways of identifying morals and moral beliefs.  I mostly agree with Hume and Rousseau's standpoint on the matter of that morality is essentially a matter of feeling.  We interpret our morals based on our feelings of killing for example.  Regarding this theory I have an adjustment to be made with this perspective.  I believe most, if not all morals are instilled in us, that is, we are born with them.  I understand this is a bold stance to make but I firmly believe this as I allow faith as my backup on this point.  Is it naive of me to think that there is an inherent good in everyone? I do believe we all are born knowing this premise of right and wrong.  Regarding the "tablets of virtue" inscribed by God, the Ten Commandments, I believe they justified not because they are that of a holy authority figure but because they are right.  We are born with that innate conscience. If you want to take the Christianity standpoint on the matter I would say, yes-God created the commandments because they are right. Not, God created them therefore they are right. 

My personal theory on ethics is this: Most, if not all morals are innate.  I believe we are all born knowing what is right and wrong. It is however our decision on what we plan to do with this instilled knowledge and do we listen to our conscious or not.  This principle ties in with the ethics proposed by Artistotle when we said that virtues allow us to "control our feelings and act rationally."

Relativism v Absolutism

In the text Introducing Philosophy relativism is defined as:

" The thesis that there is no single correct view of reality, no single truth. Instead there are "different conceptual frameworks, alternative lifestyles, and various forms of consciousness." "

In contrast, absolutism is define as:

"The thesis that there is but one correct view of reality."

I understand what Hume is trying to get at but I can't help but think that there has to be some sort  of middle that has to be reached between the two.  Why must we be either a relativist or absolutist? This question came into my mind during class and I couldn't help but wonder.  One could define the situation with a relativst approach or absolutist one depending on the context.  This circumstance can be seen in the following situation.  Just the other day I had passed by the local church, and outside where a bunch of protesters holding signs that were holding Pro-Life signs and yelling to passing cars.  I personally agree with the Pro-Life stance on the abortion issue.  Although I realize that I believe my beliefs that I do, I also understand and recognize that not everyone agrees with me or sees my perspective on things.  I respect those people who are standing outside waving those signs with their own  beliefs and I acknowledge their values as legitamite as mine.  In this situation I would adopt the relativist perspective.  In other situations like gay marriage which is a very controversial issue I would take the absolutist approach because I am so firm in my belief that I will not be persuaded in the least bit sense.  I will listen and respect peoples beliefs although I do not believe them myself.  But this poses the question, where does it go from there? Who is right?  Where is the truth found? The answer is I don't know.



The Veil of Perception

17th century philosophers Locke and Bishop both take different standpoints on the issue of matter, and our perception on it.  Locke claimes that how we see and think about things is based on our perception.  Bishop argues that all ideas and perceptions are ones of God. 

I have an example to prove Locke's claim, I think.  This example does not disprove Bishop's however but rather aids Locke's so I'm just going to go with it for now. So. Midst writing this blog, I thought to myself, "Hm. I'm hungry," so I walked into he kitchen and opened the cereal cabinet. Now, my expectations were to find a big yellow box of Pops cereal, the best and most tastiest cereal in the entire world.  I could taste it already.  However as I stood in front of an open cabinet I saw no Pops, only Frosted Flakes and Froot Loops.  I dug in the back of the pantry because I clearly remember there being Pops here just yesterday.  The box was full and I had been the first to open it so I knew there should be more. I frantically began to dig my way toward the back of the pantry, clearing all unappealing cereal out of my way.  I found no Pops. It struck me that my memory of there being Pops was a dream I had last night.

To me, Pops was the object of my perception.  I truly believed that it existed, I was even experiencing salivation and images of actually having a big bowel of Pops in front of me.  But when I realized that there wasn't any, and that it was only a dream, my perception suddenly changed.  The cereal was real, it was existing up until the point where I physically saw that it was not.  And then my realization came soon afterward that it was only a dream.  Even though it did not actually physically exist ever...it did for me, in my perception of it.  For me, it was real and concrete.  But once my perception broke, it did not exist.  What I'm getting at is our perception makes our reality.  I am aware of how cliche that sounds but it's really true.  Just ask my nonexistent bowel of Pops cereal.