Posts

According the reading, the study of ethics is necessary in order to give individuals a clearer understanding of human morality. By studying ethics, one attempts to answer the multitude of questions that arise when dealing with what's "right" and "wrong". Why do humans act the way they do? Is it to be nice to other people? Why is it "wrong" to kill another human? What if someone asks you to kill them; do you hold by your obligation to be loyal to friends in need or your obligation to refrain from murdering? After all, everyone has a right to live. But what exactly is a "right"?

Many moral questions that come up throughout our ordinary lives have a number of different answers. Likewise, there are a number of different ways to answer these questions. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, one can use either metaethics, normative ethics or applied ethics in studying ethics and morality. Metaethics is like a way of studying ethics from an outsider's viewpoint. A metaethical approach focuses on seeing things from different perspectives in order to get a better idea of where common morality comes from and the different forms morality takes. For example, people act selfishly at times and altruistically at other times. How are we supposed to know when to act in our own interest or in the interest of others?

Normative ethics is an attempt to find a universal answer to the questions of morality and turn it into a single guideline for every person (regardless of where or when that person is living). In essence, normative ethical studies strive to create a "Golden Rule", such as "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". This includes applying rules to everyone and suggesting that humans have moral duties that must be fulfilled. An example of a rule is that one shall not murder. An example of a duty is to help those in need.

Applied ethics focuses on a narrowed down topic of morality, such as abortion or animal rights. Normative ethics can be used along with applied ethics in studying a particular topic and finding a universal solution for it. In order for a topic to be studied under applied ethics, it must be controversial (by having two strong groups of representatives for and against the topic) and it must regard an issue that applies to humanity as a whole, not just one particular society.

Just as there are various methods in studying ethics, there are various types of ethical investigators. In Great Traditions in Ethics, social scientists, casuists, moralists and ethical theorists are explained. Social scientists focus on studying human behavior. Casuists focus more on moral institutions such as religon and law. Moralists are comparable to normative ethics in trying to apply a single set of morals to humanity as a whole. Ethical theorists focus more on questioning and examining moral principles.

It is important for one to take an ethics class because moral and ethical standards are present in every human society. Whether these standards are written in stone or are questioned varies from society to society. In general, I think people need to be as informed as possible in battling moral issues. For example, people need to be aware of the rules in their society so that they do not do anything illegal, or so that if they do, they know enough to argue their reasons for acting as they did. On a smaller note, American societies are growing increasingly concerned with ethical issues. Should we clone human beings? Should we allow abortions? If we do allow abortions, during which trimester is it still acceptable? Should we have to say "One Nation Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance? The number of ethical issues is rising and it is definitely helpful to be educated when debating such issues. By knowing more about how to study ethics, one can even make an easier and wiser decision as to what one stands for. Studying ethics will expand one's mind to ideas that hadn't been brought up before. By learning what other people think, one can function more easily in society while learning about oneself as well.

Lastly, I think it is important to take an ethics class because moral and ethical decisions effect so many people. A single ethical decision could effect one person or an entire country. Furthermore, the study of ethics is something that is universal and is important regardless of who or where you are. If nothing else, one should take an ethics class because, as Socrates so greatly stated, "the unexamined life is not worth living".

The ethical theories of Plato contain structure and balance. Plato believed that the human soul needed certain amounts of different virtues in order to function properly . This is not unlike the functioning of a society, according to Plato. The human soul struggles to find a medium between reason, passion and desire. When all three of these elements work harmoniously, there is justice. When controlling the soul more through reason, there is wisdom. When using passion to accommodate reason, there is courage. When suppressing desire to make room for reason, there is temperance. The same way desire, passion and reason work together is the way members of society, or the "State", work together. If one element of the soul does not cooperate, the soul is disrupted as a State would be if one class of society did not cooperate.

Although the justice of a harmonious soul is a significant goal in Plato's ethical theory, there is a higher goal to be reached. Plato believed there is an "Idea of the Good" that is the driving force for every individual. The "Good" is like the epitome of all things. In comparison to the sun, the Good shines light on all other reason. Without the sun, one would not be able to see objects; without the Good, one would not be able to see the truth. The actual Good itself is too profound for the human mind to grasp, but knowledge that the Good exists and what it represents is all that is needed to shine light on truth and reason. Plato once again compares the soul to the State in suggesting that any competent ruler must have knowledge of the good. An individual who has knowledge of the good and a just soul, according to Plato, would invariably choose to act in a just manner because of the benefits of justice over injustice.

Aristotle, a student of Plato's, also focused his ethical theory on defining pleasure and balance in the human soul. Aristotle believed every study or investigation in life is made in order to reach a goal. In other words, if I study medicine, my goal is to learn about health in order to help those who are sick. Aristotle also believed the study of ethics and social philosophy have ends to meet. However, these two sciences (which combine to form the category of "politics") rule over all other studies because they dictate the organization of a State and control the details of exactly how the other sciences are studied. Because politics involves human opinion, only professionals should focus on it so as not to have a chaotic clashing of opinions. One thing the layman and a wise philosopher can agree upon, however, is that happiness is the greatest "good".

The goodness of happiness, according to Aristotle, is what humans live for. Humans reach happiness through not only reason, but also action in accordance with reason. This makes the difference between a man and a good man; a good man acts on his knowledge of what is good. Happiness also comes with virtue, which relates to the moral and intellectual functions of reason. Intelligent people are wise and moral people are temperate. Morality comes with the balancing of three elements in the human personality: passion, faculties, and the states of character. When these elements work together, a person finds morality by compensating between excessive and depleted amounts of any chosen vice or virtue. In regards to intelligence, Aristotle separates philosophical wisdom from practical wisdom; the former focuses on the search for truth, while the latter focuses on a union of knowing what humans ought to do and actually doing it.

A major part of Aristotle's ethical theory is that humans must strive to choose their acts for their face value, not as means to ends. Instead of wanting to do something because there is some sort of personal gain or reward involved, humans should try to make choices that involve things that are self-sufficiently pleasant in themselves. The ruling activity proposed by Aristotle is that of contemplation. The pure joy of thought is an action that brings happiness in and of itself, not as a means to some other end. It is self-sufficient and also endurable; one can think longer than one can do other activities of choice. Aristotle even suggests that humans need to strive to become immortal instead of only thinking of mortal things.

Aristotle and Plato share many commonalities in their theories. Both focus on happiness and goodness. Both focus on virtue and the balance of the elements of the soul. In regards to these elements, both have designated three to the soul. Plato's are named "reason, passion and desire"; Aristotle's are named "passion, faculties and states of character". Plato and Aristotle both attribute virtues and vices to the imbalance of their elements (i.e. too much passion constitutes ambitiousness). Both philosophers acknowledge that comprehension of the good is important. They also tend to compare the human soul to the composition of the State.

There are also a number of differences in the ethical theories of Plato and Aristotle. Although they both acknowledge the need for a balance in three elements of the soul, Aristotle believes the median is different for each individual, whereas Plato does not. Another difference is that Plato did not emphasize that the driving force of all action is to reach a desired end, as did Aristotle. Aristotle also focused more on the good being happiness, and happiness being the use of reason and contemplation. Plato explained the good as a more intangible and incomprehensible idea. Additionally, Aristotle stressed the importance of not only knowing what the good is, but having the drive to want to act on such knowledge.

I found Aristotle's theories more appealing. I agree with his thoughts regarding the individuality of finding the median between the soul's elements. Each person is different and needs various amounts of particular virtues. I also appeal more to his view of happiness than Plato's view of an incomprehensible "Good". I agree with Aristotle in his proposition that happiness is end towards which human actions are driven. I also agree that contemplation and thought are significant activities in humanity. The ability to think makes me happier than any other activity I can think of; without thought I would not be able to partake in much activity at all.

4. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:46 pm Subject: optional post 2

What would make me happy? Well, this question is certainly not answered easily, though it seems that I ask myself the same thing every day. There are so many things that I would need collectively to be happy in this life. First off, I would need everything to be the same as it is right now; I would only need to improve upon it. Here is a list of what would need to remain the same:

In assuming the aforementioned requirements are met, I will continue by saying what it is I would improve upon. I would need a committed relationship with someone whom I honestly and truly could not live without. Relationships are extremely important to me and the one thing that I do not have right now that I need in order to be happy is a partner. We don't necessarily have to be married, but just in an intimate relationship.

Secondly, I would need an outlet for creativity. One of the biggest fears I have in life is that my talent will go to waste. In order to be happy, I would need to be able to make music, paint, design, shop, dance, sing, write and read whenever I want. Although, as I was writing that last sentence, I realized that it is not only the act of doing these things that makes me happy, but the reaction I get from other people. In order for me to truly be happy, I would have to be acknowledged for my work. I would want people to love the products I put out, but offer constructive criticism as well.

I suppose one thing that I would love to see disappear is the act of violence out of ignorance and provincial thinking. When innocent people suffer at the hands of another person (whether dying at war or having one's purse stolen), I get sick to my stomach. If this type of injustice would stop, I would be happy. In other words, I would appreciate peace on Earth!

I've been sitting here trying to think of what else would make me happy and the truth is I really am happy already. In reaching the conclusion that I am happy the way I am, I can only make minor suggestions as to what would make me happy besides the things I mentioned above. I would be happy if I could eat whatever I wanted and not be affected in my health. I would be happy if I could do everything I wanted without things conflicting (school has constantly conflicted with my career). I would be happy if there was some sort of teleportation so that I would not have to drive in traffic or for hours at a time. I would be happy if I could live a full life without injury or pain. If these secondary changes could be made on top of what I already have, I would undoubtedly and forever be happy.

If Aristotle were to critique my views on happiness, he would most likely focus on the element of contemplation. According to the text, Aristotle believed "happiness is activity in accordance with virtue". He also believes that the highest activity we can engage in is contemplation, therefore the ultimate happiness is contemplation. In regards to my views on happiness, then, Aristotle would critique them in assumption that they will not bring me ultimate happiness since I did not include contemplation or reason. However, if I were to engage in activities such as dancing or painting in accordance with virtue (meaning to their greatest potentials and with moral respects), I would find pleasure and happiness in these as well.

My downfall in this, of course, is that I would not be dancing or painting merely for the joy of dancing or painting. I stated that I would also need to be praised for my work in order to be happy. The fact that I would be bitter if I did not feel I received proper acknowledgment for my work would mean that I am engaging in these activities as means to an end. The end I am striving for is a stroke of the ego and reverence. Aristotle discourages the human tendency to choose activities based on reaching an end. As a result, he would criticize my choice to dance or paint in anticipation of receiving praise.

Epicurus views the life of an ethical person in terms of the pleasures and pains are experienced. Although people tend to seek out pleasures and avoid pains, we often realize that sometimes we have to endure a certain amount of pain in order to get a greater pleasure. For example, I am a dancer and have to stretch often. I greatly dislike stretching because it hurts and is uncomfortable, but I still choose to stretch because I know the pleasure of being flexible will outweigh the pain of stretching. Likewise, Epicurus believes we should avoid such activities as drinking or greed for wealth since there is often more pain than pleasure that results. Epicurus also distinguishes the difference between the quality and quantity of pleasures. An ethical person should be more interested in pleasures that last for quite some time, rather than seeking out extremely intense pleasures that are ephemeral (such as sex or drinking). The most obvious and significant of these durable pleasures is contemplation.

In regards to God, Epicurus suggests the possibility that ethical people do not fear God or the afterlife because they know that once the body is dead, the soul is no longer capable of feeling pain or punishment. If the soul cannot feel anything after the body is dead, there is nothing bad that one can experience after death. The ethical person is free of fear of divine intervention and knows that a humans have more control over their lives than do the gods. An ethical person who lives to be 20 years old, therefore, lives a happier life than a person who lives for 80 years in fear of death. The most security an ethical person can gain is through a tightknit group of companions (much like Epicurus' Garden). Through this, one gets closer to the life of "serenity" that Epicurus believes is the goal of every ethical person.

Epictetus, on the other hand, is a Stoic. As such, he thinks an ethical life is one which revolves around indifference. For example, if my boyfriend were to break up with me, I would want to cry and fall into depression. If I were to follow Stoicism, however, I would not react with sadness, but would rather react with indifference. I would not be sad or happy, but would just take the break up as a fact of life. The point is, according to Epictetus, that we do not have any control over what happens to us in life; all we have control over is the way we react to what happens. In other words, I cannot change a breakup, but I can change whether or not I let it effect me negatively.

The human role in life is inescapable and inevitable, according to Epictetus. We are not unlike actors in a play. If we are chosen by God (or some other power) to play a poor vagrant, we must not fight this role nor be bitter towards it. Instead, Epictetus suggests we play the role as it is since it has a specific function in humanity. Life has a cycle that cannot be avoided. One should not try to avoid illness or pain because they are parts of life that play an important role and have to be played out. Once one understands one's role in life and plays accordingly, one is living an ethical life by Epictetus' standards. Additionally, none of this is possible without the power of will. All of the human faculties (such as eyes, ears, mouth and so on) are useless without the conviction of the will to utilize them.

Epicurus and Epictetus have a few points to compare in their theories. For one, they both believe death is nothing to be feared. They differ in their reasons, however. Epicurus finds that the soul cannot feel pain after death and so there is no reason to fear what might happen in the afterlife if it cannot hurt your soul. Epictetus, on the other hand, sees death as an inevitability and finds that there is no reason to fear what is inevitable. After all, what is the point of fearing something that you have no control over? Whether you fear it or not, death will come. Epictetus also argues against Epicurus that although the physical body is significant, what is more important is the will behind it. Another idea both philosophers share is that of the triviality of desires such as wealth and fame. Yet, once more they differ in their reasons for shunning desire. Epicurus believes the desire for unattainable wealth and fame causes more pain than pleasure and should, therefore, be avoided. Conversely, Epictetus believes wealth and fame are not in one's control and should therefore not be desired. If one refrains from desiring the unattainable, one will not have to deal with disappointment.

A final difference in the two philosophers' theories addresses the role of the human being. Epicurus stresses the importance of knowing that human's have total control over their lives. We are not entirely under the command of the gods; we do have the power to change our own lives. In contrast, Epictetus stresses the importance of playing one's part as if acting in a play. According to Epictetus' theory, one cannot change one's role in life (as Epicurus believes).

I relate more to Epicurus than Epictetus. I agree with Epicurus that the quality of happiness is much more important than the quantity. I would rather live a short and pleasant life than a long and painful life. Furthermore, I agree with him that humans have control over their lives. We are not puppets on the strings of the gods. I also agree with Epicurus that not all pleasures are desirable and not all pains should be avoided. Sometimes I choose to undergo pain because I know a greater pleasure will come of it.

6. From: "squaww03" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 1:08 pm Subject: tripod website problem

Is anybody else using Tripod? I have had a website for a while and for some reason it is no longer letting me edit my pages. I can't add any text or edit the text that was already there. This obviously poses a problem because I can't put any of my posts on my website! Please help!

Existentialism revolves around the notion that humans have a great deal of control over their lives. The existentialist believes the world around them is a product of human choice. There is no way to exist without making a choice; even if one wants to deny choice, they are choosing not to choose. The inevitability of choice is a product of freedom in humanity. Humans are so free that they carry heavy responsibilities to act and live dynamically. We are forced to make choices for ourselves and for others every day of our lives. The existentialist sees human life as a piece of clay that is molded by each individual's choice. By acting on our choices, we make a dynamic world around us that represents our individual selves and humanity as a whole. As an example, the existentialist believes an artist who has talent is nothing without making the choice to act on this talent. What good are brilliant ideas if they never come to fruition? We all have immense freedoms that allow us to take control of our lives through taking action.

Jean-Paul Sartre noted the conditions of this absolute freedom. The only way freedom is really embraced is when society has structures to work against. Freedom is only utilized to a full extent when there is something to act freely against. Sartre thinks of humans as a unit; the choices of one man are actually choices for all of humanity. For example, if I choose to be a vegetarian, I am choosing this not only for myself but for everyone. Sartre believes I am endorsing vegetarianism for all humans because I would want other people to act as I act and hold my values regarding animal rights and health. Not only that, but I would be choosing in terms of how I would feel if the rest of humanity chose as I chose. If I choose to steal someone's purse, would I feel okay if everyone else made that decision as well? Probably not, since I would not want my purse stolen.

Sartre also believes we are all living in specific times and places, fulfilling specific roles. Thus, we must live these roles actively or else they are worthless. Furthermore, Sartre suggests that to deny one's responsibility in making choices is rubbish. He uses the example of war: If I were to die at war, it would be nobody's fault but my own. I could have just as easily chosen not to go to war as I chose to go. Yet, people tend to fall under the influence of peer pressures, societal standards, family allegiance and so forth and end up choosing to go to war even though it is against their real intentions. One cannot blame anybody but oneself for the choices one makes. Sartre even suggests that one's own birth can be considered a "choice". In essence, although I have no control over the fact that I was born, I do have a choice whether to accept my existence or not. For example, I can choose to commit suicide and, therefore, deny my existence and my birth.

All of Sartre's theories relate to ethics because they suggest that our choices and moralities are based on how we perceive ourselves and others. We act for not only ourselves, but for all of humanity. Therefore, a normal ethical standard, such as monogamy, is seen as a choice that is made because one would expect all humans to be monogamous. Furthermore, Sartre's theories attach responsibility to ethics in suggesting that everybody should be held accountable for their actions. What would be considered unethical, then? Sartre believes that humans are all striving to reach common goals. We see these goals by standing outside of ourselves and looking at humanity from an outer perspective. This theory would suggest that anything that is not in line with these "common goals" would probably be deemed unethical since it is not something that would be accepted if attributed to all humanity. Kierkegaard also stresses the importance of choice in human existence. People are continuously forced to make decisions. Every decision is important, no matter how small, because it builds a person's character. One should not waste time debating over a choice; instead, one should think of it as an "either/or" situation by choosing either one thing or the other. He believes humans should focus on subjective, rather than objective, living. By this, Kierkegaard means to suggest that humans need to focus on themselves instead of trying to look at humanity from an outside perspective (as Sartre suggests). It is as if we need to personalize our own lives; each person's answers to the questions of life are different. My motivation in life is different than anybody else's, but this individuality is masked when society attempts to categorize humans into institutions (whether religious, military, political and so forth) that generalize us as objects instead of subjects.

In spite of the great significance of human individuality, Kierkegaard does not think a human life is a lump of clay to be molded by each individual. Rather, life is more like an outlined picture drawn by God and we simply have to make choices as to what colors we want to use to fill in the outline. Thus, we do not have total control and cannot stray from God's will; we cannot deny the drawing and search for clay to make a sculpture instead. For if one were to attempt to stray from God's will, one would accomplish only ephemeral successes because one would be feeding into objectivity instead of subjectivity. Furthermore, in questioning God's existence and the validity of his control over our affairs, one is once again becoming too objective and analytical. Instead, Kierkegaard suggests we should set aside profound rationality and thought in favor of devotion to God (in the same way Abraham served God instead of being rational when he sacrificed his son, Isaac).

Kierkegaard's concept of choice relates to ethics because he sees those choices that are absolute and decisive as being ethical. A choice that is important enough to be a deciding factor of one's values and character is considered ethical because it has enduring effects. Yet these choices only have moral worth if they are made in accordance with faith in God and sincerity in the soul.

One difference between Kierkegaard and Sartre is that, in regards to choices, Sartre believes a significant factor is the universality of the choice, whereas Kierkegaard tends to stress the intensity and motive behind a choice. Kierkegaard recognizes that there are even benefits in making a wrong choice, for even in choosing wrongly, one is learning the difference between right and wrong. Conversely, Sartre seems to think a wrong choice is merely a sign of an unethical person. Kierkegaard also spends time describing how important it is to make choices in the first place, for one who is indifferent is unethical and one who chooses to make choices has automatically chosen the good simply by becoming involved in the act of choosing.

Although there is a similarity in that Kierkegaard acknowledges the duty of choice and Sartre acknowledges the responsibility of choice, Kierkegaard adds that it is not enough to only conform to this duty or responsibility. One must also include the spirit in such matters by making choices because one wants what is best for others, not because one simply tries to conform to law. Another contrast between Kierkegaard and Sartre, although they both acknowledge the universality of morals and choices, is that Kierkegaard believes there is a quality that allows the individual to rise up above this universality: namely, faith. If one has faith, one can become superior to the universal laws (as, once again, Abraham did in sacrificing his son).

One should realize in noting the differences between Kierkegaard and Sartre that Kierkegaard had a much greater reverence of God. While Sartre does not deny the existence of God, he does hold that it would not make a difference if God exists or not. According to Sartre, since humans have complete control over their lives, the presence of God would not make a difference in the choices we make. Conversely, Kierkegaard bases everything around God's will, faith and religious motives behind choices.

Saint Augustine's ethical views revolve entirely around the idea that God is truth. The Old and New Testaments set the groundwork for Saint Augustine's viewpoints. One must have faith and love for God in order to live an ethical life, otherwise they will suffer an eternal death in which God leaves the soul. According to Saint Augustine, God is an omniscient force that is beyond human comprehension (much like Plato's concept of the "Good"). Humans cannot understand God's divine plan or why certain things are the way they are. For example, one might be baffled at the thought of a murderer being found innocent and allowed to roam free. Equally baffling would be the thought of an innocent man being wrongly accused of murder and spending his remaining years in prison. Saint Augustine suggests that God attributes this good fortune to bad people and bad to good because in the end, each person will get what is deserved. Those who are bad are a part of the City of Man and will ultimately suffer eternal death, whereas those who are good will spend an eternal life of happiness in the City of God. Thus, what we experience during our earthly lives is transient in comparison to what our eternal fates are.

How can God punish someone for choosing evil if He is the one who gave us the freedom of choice? Saint Augustine first points out that evil is but the absence of good (much in the same way that silence is the absence of sound and darkness is the absence of light). God is entirely good, but the humans he created are not entirely good and, therefore, inhibit certain evils. God gave us the choices of good and evil so that if we choose evil, we are still acting in his will and, therefore, our choice is still turned to good. Furthermore, God has a divine plan that includes both good and evil acts. God has already designated who will be damned and who will be saved. Likewise, there are times when an evil act is just part of God's plan. For example, if I were to be killed in a drive-by shooting, it would have only happened as part of God's plan even though my family may think it was an evil act. Since humans are not capable of knowing whether or not God has chosen them to be saved, they must all act according to God's ways to ensure their salvation.

Saint Augustine also believes that there are more things to know about life than are obtained through reason. The wise man, he argues, is no less affected by the pains of life than any other human being. Philosophers and scientists rely too much on the senses and physicality of life; what would such people do if they were rendered deaf and blind? Saint Augustine suggests that it is more important to have knowledge of God than of earthly materials. Furthermore, it is not so important to have the typical virtues of prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude than it is to use these virtues in the name of God. Otherwise, these virtues are used in a selfish way and are directed towards the flesh instead of the soul. It is okay for people to engage in thought, but the most important thing to know is God, for this knowledge combines with faith and mystical visions in creating a life that will be saved. According to Saint Augustine, all of this will be important come Judgement Day, when God will determine who suffers eternal damnation and who is blessed with salvation. Our lives should be motivated by the hope that this day will come and we shall receive what we deserve.

In critiquing Saint Augustine's ethical theories, one must realize that they all revolve around a force that has not been proven to exist. Saint Augustine has made an assumption that God exists and then made human life a product of that assumption. If God does not exist, however, humans will have been living in accordance with a lie. There is no way to prove that our lives are a part of a divine plan or that we will approach a day of judgement. Although scientists and philosophers cannot explain exactly why there are evils in life, neither can Saint Augustine. All Saint Augustine offers is that there is some other plan that we do not know about. This lacks any validity since we cannot prove there is any plan, let alone an omniscient deity capable of making such a plan. Thus, the suggestion that evils are here for a reason that humans can not comprehend is unsubstantiated and weak. The excuse of human ignorance could be used to justify any claim imaginable that we have not yet come to explain. Yet, with time and the help of people like scientists, we have come to understand many things that were once enigmatic, such as the rising and setting of the sun. Judgement Day, furthermore, lacks any evidence as well, so why should anybody believe that it is coming? Perhaps just the thought of a day of judgement scares people into thinking they will have to pay for any sins they are guilty of, making them avoid sins simply because they fear being punished. Yet, if Judgement Day never comes, people have been avoiding sin for no reason. Basically, Saint Augustine's ethical theories are based on assumptions that cannot be tested or factually supported. What he offers that is independent from belief in God is the idea of hope for righteous people and that if we act out of love, there will be more peace for humanity.

Whereas Augustine was influenced by Plato, Saint Thomas Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle. Both Aquinas and Aristotle suggest that humans choose actions in life as means to ends. Everything we do is in hopes of reaching a higher goal and there is ultimately one single goal that is highest. According to Aristotle, this goal is happiness, but according to Aquinas, happiness does not come until we have true knowledge of God. This end is often ignored, according to Aquinas, because we forget that God has given us a second source of truth in addition to our human source. Unless we find happiness to both of these sources, we will not reach our final end. Additionally, Aquinas suggests that a moral life is undoubtedly important. Moral acts are judged according to the act itself, the motive for the act and the consequences that result from the act.

Aquinas believes that humans are automatically aware of God's eternal law. Although we abide by natural laws as well, humans are distinct from animals because we are aware that we have choices and we make choices voluntarily. The only time we are not responsible for a choice we make is when we have an ignorance towards the situation we are in. Aquinas' example is that if a man accidentally mistakes another man's wife for his own, he is not considered evil if he pleases her. However, if a man pretends to be ignorant or chooses to ignore certain information for the purpose of justifying an otherwise evil act, the man is still considered wrong. Likewise, if one's conscience is having "technical difficulties", one is not to blame for following one's conscience. Yet, if one is aware that one's conscience is right and denies one's conscience anyways, one is still responsible for one's acts. Furthermore, one can also be judged according to the intentions of an act. If one knows that the act they are committing will have bad consequences, one is acting in accordance with evil.

Aquinas' ethical theories focus mostly on what is right and wrong as designated to humans by God. Because he is assuming that God is our ruler, he is assuming that all humans are aware of the rules of God's law. However, the lack of evidence regarding God's existence makes his eternal law lack evidence as well. There may be some things that believers in God think are wrong that non-believers think are right. For example, a homosexual may think his conscience is working perfectly fine and that there is nothing "wrong" with his sexual orientation. The "eternal law", however, may say that homosexuality is wrong. Is the homosexual to be blamed if he is not in accordance with the eternal law? Perhaps his denial of the eternal law would be considered an "ignorance" according to Aquinas. Furthermore, non- believers would obviously not agree with Aquinas that the end to all means is God. I think a key fault to Aquinas' theory is that all humans are supposed to follow one eternal law as written by God; it is suggested that we should all somehow know what is right and wrong according to God. On the contrary, I think humans have different interpretations as to what is right and wrong and I do not think we should be labeled evil if we do not comply with God's eternal law.

I do believe that Aquinas is more lenient in his teachings than Augustine, who takes the Old and New Testaments as literal guidelines to human life. Aquinas gives more freedom to humans in saying that it is up to us to choose what we want and to discover our road to happiness. Aquinas basically lets one do whatever one wants as long as it is in accordance with the eternal law. He is also more forgiving of people who don't know that they are acting "wrongly" and acknowledges the effects that emotions such as fear or overwhelming desire can have on human action. Augustine suggests that those who stray from God will be damned for all eternity, whereas Aquinas does not attribute sever punishments or rewards for those who are for or against God.

9. From: "squaww03" Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:53 pm Subject: Re: Field Trip Assignment

<< Are we to post our paper on this group as well as our website or only on our website? thank you

Spinoza's ethical theories revolve around a more pantheistic view of God. Spinoza believes that God and Nature are one and the same, meaning such theories that our lives are predestined and under God's plan are rendered false. Instead, Spinoza argues that God does not have any type of divine plan and has not determined what is good or bad, things are just as they are naturally. Thus, it is also silly that we think God is beyond human comprehension; all humans have the ability to know God and Nature. Humans must free themselves from the bondage of emotion, favoring reason instead. Emotion gets in the way of understanding that everything has a place in nature. Once we objectively see Nature as such, we will not be so disconcerted with what we otherwise see as "bad" things.

One step towards gaining happiness is the forfeit of material possession or selfishness. Money, fame and sensual pleasures all eat away at happiness. For example, sensual pleasures are transient and leave a person feeling less pleasant once they have passed. Money and fame are to be avoided because they feed on themselves; one is never satisfied with the amount of money or fame one has and is always yearning for more. Thus, we find happiness only in what is eternal (namely, God) and the ultimate understanding is that our minds are one with Nature. If we take our minds off of things that are not eternal, we will not be so devastated when these things eventually perish.

Regarding the ethical concepts of good and bad, Spinoza believes they stem from the false notion that God has a divine plan. Those who think they are following His plan wrongly associate things with it and label things good or bad according to whether or not they follow the plan. This leads people to falsely administer causes to effects. For example, if I am struck by lightning, I might assume that God had it in for me because I used His name in vain last week. Spinoza would suggest, however, that I was struck by lightning because I was swimming during a thunderstorm and the electricity of the lightning bolt was attracted to the water, which I was in. Those who believe in a divine plan will keep asking, "but why?" when any type of objective explanation is offered until we cannot objectively explain nature any further and must resort to saying, "because it was part of God's plan". Furthermore, Spinoza believes that we attribute what is good or bad to what gives us pleasure or pain, which makes it a personal issue because we each have different feelings. Emotions, however, can be deceiving and can make us desire the wrong pleasures and avoid the wrong pains.

On the concept of free will, Spinoza believes that things happen as the are and it is silly to think our acts are anything else than what they literally are. Even if I am drunk, I think I am speaking out of free will, but when I am sober I realize that I would not have freely said many things that I have said when drunk. Likewise, when I dream, I feel like I am using my free will to punch an adversary in the face, but when I awaken, I know I would not use my free will to do such. Thus, Spinoza suggests that anyone who thinks they act under free will are merely "dreaming with their eyes open". Instead, Spinoza suggests that we are really free when we act according to reason, under the concept of God as nature, and with acceptance of our own lives. We must not let emotions get in the way, for they are natural occurrences that can be considered objective just as any other natural occurrence. The more we use reason to understand emotions, the less we will fall prisoner to emotional distress.

Spinoza's theory regarding virtue is that the ultimate virtue is self- preservation. We must be alive before we can do anything else in this world. Thus, to strive to "live rightly" is actually secondary to striving to simply live. For without the latter, we cannot complete the former. Spinoza also proposes a "third" kind of knowledge (the first two being belief and scientific knowledge) that consists of knowing God. This knowledge and love of God is eternal and, therefore, gives us true pleasure.

Spinoza's ethical theories can be compared with Saint Augustine's theories that revolve around the very concept of God that Spinoza denounced. Saint Augustine saw God as an entity beyond human understanding, whereas Spinoza sees God as simply Nature, or reality, and capable of understanding. Saint Augustine also thought God has a divine plan and has predetermined who is good and who is evil, whereas Spinoza did not think there was a divine plan at all. Spinoza suggested instead that things are necessary in life, but not that they are planned out by God. Both philosophers did agree, however, that it is important to have compassion for others and that money, fame and sensual pleasures are pernicious.

I know what is right and wrong because I follow what is accepted in my surroundings. At this moment in my life, I gauge my actions off of others. When I watch the news on television, I see that murder and stealing are bad because the news reporter will speak in a solemn manner when addressing these stories. On the other hand, when a reporter speaks about a new diet that is making people skinnier, he or she will use a more upbeat voice and even smile, making me think this story is good. I have come to learn through experience that when people are sad or upset, they speak in a somber tone, and when people are happy they smile and use higher voices, so I associate these mechanisms with what is right and wrong. If someone reacts to my actions by laughing and smiling, I assume that my actions are right.

Much of what I know as right and wrong is told to me everyday. For example, I know that littering is wrong because I constantly hear advertisements on the radio that tell me to put my trash in the receptacle and not in the sewer. I also have friends that will tell me I am wrong if I throw my trash on the street. Likewise, I am reminded when I drive that stopping at red lights is good because I see everybody else stop at red lights. Even if I was not told by my driving instructor to stop every time I see a red light, I would eventually learn that it is the right thing to do because I would see everybody else doing so.

Even though I might think I naturally know that some things are right or wrong, I still associate the initial inhibitions with what others do. For example, if I think about grabbing a knife and slitting my best friend's throat, I have a natural negative reaction and feel like it is not something I should do. Yet, if I think about going to the dentist, I get the same negative reaction, but think of it as "right". The only reason I know that slitting someone's throat is wrong and going to the dentist is right is because I am told that killing is bad and having clean teeth is good. If I lived in society where killing was praised and rotten teeth were commended, I would think differently. Because I am repelled by both killing and the dentist, the only way I know which is right and which is wrong is by seeing what other people do and knowing what is socially accepted. Thus, I cannot say that I "just know" that some things are right or wrong. I have learned that there are plenty of times when we are supposed to do the opposite of what we think is correct (for example, I might think it is a righteous move to fill a stranger's expired meter so that they don't get a parking ticket, but then I will learn that this act is illegal, or "wrong").

Personally, I think I am more influenced by my surroundings than I realize. When I went to the Museum of Tolerance, I went there already thinking that prejudices and cruelty towards humans is wrong. Thus, when I heard the Holocaust speaker tell her story, I already had it imprinted in my mind that I was supposed to feel sad and angry towards Hitler because this is how I always see people react when they even hear the word "Holocaust". I automatically think the Holocaust is wrong, but I think this is more due to my copying of how others react. How do I know that Jews are not inferior? How do I know that it is not right to gas people to death? If the Germans had no problem with it, they probably thought it was right. There is no way to really tell who is right. No law is imprinted in our brains that says, "killing is wrong" or else the Germans would have gotten the memo. I only think that killing is wrong because I have been told so and I personally could not stomach the act of killing another human being. If I were told that killing was right, however, and killing was a common act, I would put aside my aversion and kill (much like soldiers do when at war).

Hume believes that we discern right from wrong with both reason and the passions. He would agree with my thoughts that we do have natural feelings towards acts (such as killing), but we also must use reason to determine what to think of these feelings. He also thinks that morally accepted acts are those which benefit society. This would explain why people think it is right to stop at a red light; it is beneficial to society to have everybody follow this pattern so as to prevent collisions and chaos. Hume also believes that the moral conclusions we come to cannot be explained in factual detail. For example, Hume would suggest that my aversion towards killing is a sentimental feeling rather than a factual existence. If I were to make a list of all the things that make up a murder, I would not write down anywhere "Step 5: Wrongdoing". Therefore, my feelings that murder is wrong are not factual or ruled by reason. Furthermore, I cannot depend on the relationship or circumstances of a situation to guide me into thinking murder is wrong. If I am killing somebody who has just bought me a cupcake, is it more wrong than if I am killing somebody who just stole my bike? My conclusion of what is more wrong will rely more on sentiment than reason. Hume would also agree with me that there is no "rule of right" to go by (or no sign posted in our thoughts that tells us "killing is wrong").

Hume concludes, then, that neither reason nor sentiment is wholly responsible for morality, but they compliment each other. After we use reason to gather all of the facts about a situation, we can then use our sentiment to determine whether we feel it was right or wrong. Hume also believes that such virtues as benevolence and justice are only useful in certain circumstances. If I were thrown into a world where nobody followed any laws and there was no regard for property, what good would it do for me to be considerate of others? Would I rather starve than take another man's bread, when I see everybody else doing so? Obviously being nice is not beneficial in every circumstance. Hume essentially believes that virtues are invariably beneficial to either the possessor or others. For example, benevolence is beneficial to the possessor because it maintains a happy disposition, whereas bitterness would not make one very happy. Benevolence is also beneficial to others because people enjoy being in the company of a kind and generous person. Virtues can thus be seen as acts that benefit the possessor or those who come in contact with the possessor.

In contrast to Hume, Kant believes we are predisposed to know certain things. Kant suggests that skeptics are distracted with trying to figure out the cause of a certain event and do not realize that we inherently "know" that an event has a cause in the first place. We do not know this from experience, but it is rather a priori. Kant attributes this a priori knowledge to morality as well; what is "right" is what everybody knows and what is accepted for all rational beings. In critiquing my reasons for what is right or wrong, Kant would suggest that murder, for example, is wrong because every person's conscience tells them so. Murder is even more wrong because it would not be accepted if all rational beings were murderous. I suppose Kant would elaborate on my reference to soldiers at war by saying that a soldier's conscience tells them it is okay to murder when at war and it is acceptable for all soldiers to be murderous. This shows how morality changes in different circumstances. Kant names the imperatives of morality "categorical" and "hypothetical". If I say, "I do not want to kill because it is morally wrong", this is a categorical imperative since it is objective. However, if I say, "I do not want to kill because I do not want to go to jail", this is a hypothetical imperative because it is a means to an end and has the purpose of avoiding consequences.

Kant believes that every action can be made worse if it is not supported by good will. He would probably say that filling a stranger's expired meter is still considered a good act because it is motivated by good will (even if the law punishes a person for doing so). As long as a good act is committed, it will remain good regardless of the outcome. The way reason comes into play, according to Kant, is through choosing good will. Happiness is not a result of reason, but is something deserved by those with good will. People who rely too much on reason end up more disconcerted than those who act on instinct. This reminds of a book called Facing Up, in which Steven Weinberg explains the paradoxical realization that the more we study life through science, the less we know. Reductionism can only take us so far before it becomes unhelpful. Kant suggests that reason should merely be used to produce good will and that happiness comes from good will.

Kant believes that moral worth rises out of actions that are performed out of duty. In regards to the situation of filling a stranger's meter, Kant would argue that if somebody suppressed their inclination to fill the meter in favor of following the law, or duty, it would be a morally worthy act. This is even more moral than if somebody were to not have the initial inclination to fill the meter at all and were still following duty. Kant believes that when people act in spite of their natural feelings in order to commit to duties, they are acting morally. Another example would be if a wealthy man was not a naturally giving person and had no desire to share money with others, but became a philanthropist anyways because he was following his duty to share wealth.

I believe Kant would respond to my proposition that I follow what others do by saying that this makes sense because we all choose to do what we believe is right for all humans. The reason murdering and littering are looked down upon by the majority of people is because they are two acts that people would not want committed by humans as a whole. According to Kant, murder would fall under the category of acts that would be impossible to posit on humanity because it would terminate our existence. Littering would fall under the category of things that would still allow human subsistence, but would in no way be willed upon humanity. In addressing my views on the Holocaust, Kant would point out that I would know that gassing people is wrong because I would not want gassing to exist as a universal principle. I would know that placing Jews in an inferior category is wrong because, although the world can subsist without Jews, I would never will this inferiority on anyone else and would not want to be considered inferior myself. Kant would also have an explanation for my concern that I sometimes think one thing is right, but I learn that it is not and must act accordingly. Kant would attribute this to duty and putting aside one's own inclinations in order to follow the law.

Marx believes people are products of their environments. We are all effected by the time and place we live in. Philosophers like Hobbes and Locke, for example, focused on the exploitation of money because they were influenced by the Dutch bourgeoisie and lived in a period when the Bank of England was on the rise. The key to happiness is productive output; when a person sees the immediate product of his or her labor, happiness is achieved. Accordingly, capitalism is a hindrance that prevents people from seeing the fruits of their labor. People need to live in a society where their labor is not taken advantage of by ruling classes. A classless society is needed instead, resulting in a more flowing society that is free of friction between classes. The only way this classless society is achieved is if the working class revolts against their exploitation.

In trying to explain human morality, Marx works from the ground up. He focuses first on the physicality of a human being. Humans are physically explainable before they are spiritually or mentally explainable. Thus, concepts like morals or religion are products of our physical existence in specific surroundings. Higher mental concepts are only valuable when considered in context with the times and places they occur in. Furthermore, the ruling class of any particular time and place determines the prevailing moralities of that period. Since the ruling class has control over society and effects a person's occupation (or, more importantly, a person's means of productivity), each individual is greatly effected (since happiness comes from productivity). The more a person puts into an alienated product of labor, the more identity is taken away from the person himself. The same can be said for God; a human loses more of himself the more he invests in God.

Unlike Marx, Mill did find value in utilitarianism. Mill's view is that the purpose of morality is to make society happy. Morals strive to make the greatest number of people happy. Furthermore, what is good is what gives people pleasure and what is bad is what gives people pain. Mill believes that moral acts can be measured by not only quantity, but quality as well. The duration of a pleasure or pain is not necessarily more important than its qualitative value. Mill supports a normative theory of ethics that suggest that, although people tend to follow the individual psychological hedonism and measure life according to their personal balance of pleasure and pain, we ought to have the motivation to follow the universal ethical hedonism and want the most pleasure for the greatest amount of people (not just for ourselves).

How does one make the transition from selfish thinking to altruism? Mill suggests the possibility of both external and internal motives for our actions. External motives act as scare tactics by making people act morally only through fear of punishment. Internal motives (collectively known as the Conscience), on the other hand, act as instincts inside of a person and lead a person to act morally because of natural feelings, regardless of reward or punishment. Since some people have the internal motive to make others happy, the transition from the individual psychological hedonism to universal ethical hedonism is conceivable. If nothing else, the fact that people do inherently desire the happiness of others is proof in itself that the "greatest happiness principle" is desirable. Mill points out that the happiness principle is not a rule that lays out how people should act, but is rather an explanation of peoples' moral commitments. That this principle is not a rule but an applicable observation explains the obvious fact that people do not always act in accordance with the greatest good. Mill also suggests that a man of intelligence would never trade his superiority to live as a fool. This is because an intelligent man can imagine what it would be like to live both intelligently and basely, whereas a fool only knows what it is like to live basely. Thus, the intelligent man would choose the better of the two and the fool has no basis on choosing because he does not know both sides.

Hobbes focused more on the basic notion that people are essentially bodies in motion. Everything from psychology to politics has a basis in this notion and Hobbes wanted all sciences to join at this starting point, which he called mechanistic materialism. Hobbes believed that certain human qualities are predisposed, namely desire and aversion. People label things good and bad according to what they desire and avoid. Thus, "good" and "bad" are terms that are subjective and often change with a person's mood. Unlike Mill, however, Hobbes believes people are inherently evil. Mill thought that we have internal sanctions that lead us to act altruistically, whereas Hobbes thinks we are born with nobody on our minds but ourselves. It is as if Hobbes sees people as stuck in Mill's version of the individual psychological hedonism.

Hobbes believes that the way to control this egoistic tendency is for everyone to assign their rights to one man or assembly of men. Consequently, Hobbes believes that absolute sovereignty is the best means of a social contract that enables humans to live peacefully. When everything is centralized in one man or an assembly of men, society can then base morality off of this centralized force. Anything that is in accordance with authority is good, anything that deviates is bad. Mill would suggest that authority is used as a mediator and as judgement between two desires or pains. Hobbes, on the other hand, would suggest that authority is merely a means of aiding to the selfishness of life. With authority, one is more protected and secure from others, which means authority is actually just another stepping stone to gaining personal happiness. Furthermore, there is no reason for our evil predispositions to be contained until there are laws set up that restrict them. There is no way for laws to be set up without an authority, therefore we need an absolute sovereign. Hobbes insists that he is not acting any more cynical towards humans than his opponents; when one locks his door at night, isn't he being just as cynical?

Another example of the differing view of Mill and Hobbes is the act of benevolence towards another. Mill would assume that people are nice because they have a conscience that tells them that it is good to treat others with respect. Hobbes, however, would assume that people are nice because they really want to be treated nicely in return, which would contribute to their own personal happiness. Both Mill and Hobbes would, however, agree on the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. They both also agree that society works in the interest of the greatest good, but Mill attributes this to benevolence and Hobbes to selfishness (after all, if everyone is happy, I am included in everyone and will, therefore, be happy). Hobbes would disagree with Mill, however, on the role of the Conscience. Hobbes believes that the conscience needs to be restricted by authority because each individual man should not be his own judge of conscience.

Marx would argue against Hobbes' opinion that it is necessary to depute one's rights to an authority. Marx believes that we are only happy when we see the products of our labor and if we give all responsibility to a sovereign authority, we risk exploitation of that happiness. Marx and Hobbes would both agree, however, that a capitalist or utilitarian society is pernicious. The two also have similar theories that are based on the physicality of humans. Marx describes humans first as physical entities instead of by intangible qualities such as a spirit and Hobbes describes humans first as moving particles. Marx would also agree with Hobbes that a society's well being is based on its authority. They both acknowledge the influence that a leader can have on his followers (though Marx sees this as negative and Hobbes as positive). Marx's views differ from Hobbes in the area of nature versus nurture. Marx believes human moralities are merely conceptualized ideas that arise out of specific times and places. Hobbes, on the other hand, thinks humans are born evil, meaning their concepts of good and evil are based on something predisposed.

Marx and Mill also have differing viewpoints on a few matters. Mill thinks happiness comes from morality and a natural want for others' happiness. Conversely, Marx believes happiness comes form appreciating the fruits of one's labor. Another difference between Mill and Marx is that Mill thinks a major transition needs to happen from selfish thinking to universal thinking. We need to stop focusing on our own personal gain and instead need to be considerate of others. Marx has a much more drastic transition in mind. In fact, it is more of a revolution. Marx encourages the working class to overthrow authority in order to gain a classless society that would operate peacefully and allow them to be connected to the products of their labor. Thus, Marx encourages revolt against others, whereas Mill encourages embracement of others.

Nietzsche places humans in two categories: master-morality and slave-morality. People of the master-morality type are masters of their own lives. They are aggressive and powerful, taking charge of their decisions and the values they live by. People of the slave-morality type, in contrast, are slaves to their lives. They use consructed virtues, such as patience, as excuses for their imperfect
lives. They let a higher official be the judge of what they live by and follow another person's standard of what is right or wrong. The Christians, for example, put the responsibility on God so that they have an excuse for why their lives are so imperfect. Nietzsche expresses his disappointment with Christians for condemning the world
while also suppressing their natural egoism. They turn away society, but do not even accept their own marvelous humanity. They think the master-morality group is evil because of its forcefulness and aggressiveness, but these are the exact characteristics that the master-morality cherish in themselves. After all, Nietzsche argues, this aggressiveness is what makes the world turn in the first place. There is no time when societies will evolve without one lesser society being taken over by a more dominant society. We owe the evolution of man to the master-morality and its embracement of the Will to Power. Without the Will to Power, there is no competition, and without competition there is no progression in life. In fact, the goal of humans is not happiness, as was formerly philosophized, but power. We have just been too scared to admit it because it would be "immoral".

Nietzsche criticizes Judeo-Christianity because it denies the nature of existence. For example, Christians believe in loving their enemies, but this is against the natural instinct to hate an enemy. Furthermore, the concept of God being the measure of all things goes against the all-important ability we each have to individually think
for ourselves. Nietzsche sees Christianity as the source of decadence in Europe because it reverses the effects of evolution by preserving those who are weak and restricting those who are strong. Christianity gives hope and help to those who suffer or are not ideal humans and tries to take down the autocratic, powerful man that represents everything that should be embraced. This is the opposite of what needs to happen, according to Nietzsche, and is bringing about the survival of the weakest and the destruction of the strongest.

In hopes for a freer future, Nietzsche foresees a new generation of philosophers who will leave behind the morality and utilitarianism of the past. These new philosophers will realize that there is no such thing as a "common good", for each person defines what is good according to their personal judgment. The future will bring a transvaluation of values, which means we will be rediscovering the significance of the values in our lives. In bringing to light the real terms of freedom, we will have to redefine what we once thought were good and evil and see these values for what they truly are. In essence, a transvaluation of values is merely the process of determining which values you do or do not live by. This process in itself contradicts the notion of universal morals. If one can weed out certain values that do not particularly suit oneself, then there is no absolute morality. With this in mind, morality is catered to each individual and cannot be treated as a social construction that should pertain to all individuals. Therefore, as Nietzsche explains, institutions such as religion falsify the notion of morality by assuming that all individuals should follow the same standards of living (standards that Nietzsche thought were more of a burden than an escape). Nietzsche believes that the height of humanity will be
personified in the Superman, a man that represents the glory of humanity in reveling in egoism and power. The Superman will be the epitome of humanity who says a valiant "yes" to life.

From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 3:23 pm
Subject: post 9

Passage 13:

This passage explains the confusion in thinking that life is aimed towards self-preservation. Nietzsche suggests that the real aim of life is the extension of power, and self-preservation is merely a tactic used sometimes to fulfill this true aim. Self-preservation is just a stepping stone that contributes to prolonged power and ascension.

My interpretation of this passage is that many early philosophies that deem self-preservation as life's purpose are just misguided. I think it is understandable that maintaining one's life helps contribute to an increase in power. If one wants to extend one's power, one must first ensure one is alive to do so. I agree with Nietzsche that we do not merely try to preserve ourselves for the sake of living, but we do so as a vehicle to help us do other things, such as increase power.

Passage 32:

In this passage, Nietzsche focuses on the tendency people have to lie to themselves. We often turn the other way when we hear things we do not want to hear. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone knows about these lies but ourselves; the point is that we are lying to ourselves. Religious figures and texts are also lies told to the masses, and the
fact that there is a higher truth out there means that these religious figures and texts are lying.

I interpret this to mean that people are too much in denial to admit their faults. When someone is brought up religiously and has the word of God embedded in their way of thinking, they have a hard time facing the fact that they may be following a lie. Consequently, people lie to themselves in order to feel better and maintain the mentality they are comfortable with. People should realize, however, that there is truth beyond what they are comfortable with and they need to first admit that they are lying to themselves in order to discover the real truth. Since this self-deception is common among all religions and
even Plato, we must strive to be honest with ourselves, no matter who we are.

Passage 36:

This passage addresses the issue of how philosophers study life. Nietzsche compares human life to a painting. Philosophers tend to stand outside of humanity and study it the same way they would a painting. However, as Nietzsche argues, human life is not stagnant like a painting. It is not finished or complete. We must look at life as an evolving entity that has been growing for quite some time
and is still growing. Thus, to study life as a thing-in-itself, like a painting, is meaningless because life is ever changing.

I think this is a significant observation by Nietzsche because, although there are certain characteristics that hold true for humans in different points of history, humanity is constantly changing. Perhaps the words of Nietzsche are not even accurate to the society of 2004. We must treat life as a dynamic force that goes through
different cycles, or else we will falsely assume that it is an object that will not react to time or place.

Passage 40:

God is dead. Nietzsche foreshadows this prediction in this passage, but suggests that people are not yet ready for this to happen. A madman has entered a marketplace and yells to the crowd that God is dead and all men are the murderers. We are left in a state of abandonment and responsibility after God's death, so we must rise to a
higher state of humanity to make up for losing Him. The future will be a state of humanity that is absent of God. The crowd is not ready to hear this news, so the madman leaves and goes to a church instead, saying that the churches themselves are like God's graves.

This is an extremely significant passage that suggests humans are moving from a state of dependence on God to a state independent of Him. Once humans realize that rationalism and fact will prevail over God, our thoughts will kill the idea of him. Everybody can be considered His murderer because everybody will make this switch away
from Him. Nietzsche suggests that the crowd is not ready to hear this news because in reality, humans have not yet killed God and are not yet to the point where this is going to happen. The madman does foreshadow a future where God will be dead and the youth will rise to take his place, which means there will be a time when humans will have
control over their lives and will not need the excuse of God anymore.

Passage 72:

In this passage, Nietzsche looks at his differing viewpoint from the rest of humanity in realizing that morality is anti-nature. He dislikes morality because it suppresses everything that humans naturally do, but has been given such a name that it is accepted more than nature. Morality has become the law of the land and is seen as something that we naturally follow, even though it is the opposite.
Nietzsche attacks specific moral concepts that mankind has erroneously come to follow: We have invented the soul, but in the process deny the existence of the body. We are made to think that sexuality is unclean, not realizing that it is a precondition of life. We try to be strictly selfish, but selfishness is what drives human life. All of these morals lead to the decadence of mankind.

Nietzsche makes a point that holds true even today. We tend to suppress our natural instincts, like sex, for example. Society has imprinted it in our minds that to even talk about sex is wrong. People get offended by seeing a breast on television, but a breast is a part of the human body. Nietzsche thinks it is extremely important to see that we are shifting all of our attention away from what is natural to this contrived idea of the soul or spirit. In focusing on these externally invented concepts, we have our values reversed to see our bodies as negative and the soul as positive. The only way to stop our entire species from destruction is to realize that it is okay to give in to bodily pleasures. Since religion is a great barrier to indulging in the body, we must also incorporate Nietzsche's idea of eliminating religion in order to eliminate false morality.

Passage 95:
This passage explains the connection between the ascetic priest and guilt. Ascetic priests have used the concept of guilt against followers; guilt is not unlike a tool that priests use to invent the concept of sin. When a man suffers from his own perils, the priest tells him that he is suffering because of sin. Sinners suffer so much that is as if they have a sickness, as if they are invalids. The
priest stills wins, for his kingdom has come when pain is desired instead of avoided. This leads to concepts such as hell, where pain is used to further the trend towards the ascetic world.

Once again, religion is exploiting man's feelings. Religious figures use sin as an excuse to make people feel like they are wrong for living in accordance with nature. While the devotee falls deeper into guilt and punishment, the priest still revels in his kingdom. Guilt is used merely as a vehicle to make a strict life even stricter and
make people punish themselves for their natural ways. The priest gets followers to blame themselves for what they naturally do.

15. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 4:31 pm
Subject: post 10

Passage 108:

This passage outlines the importance of Jesus' dying on the Cross. Jesus did not aim to redeem humanity, he only lived according to his beliefs and his teachings. Jesus used his enemies as sources of love. He responded to the thief's claim that he was a child of God by saying that the thief is a child of God as well for his beliefs. Jesus did not speak these words to offend or intimidate, but merely out of love. Nietzsche suggests that the only Christian who ever lived is Jesus Christ himself.

Nietzsche's point in this passage is that one must live according to one's beliefs honestly, not in order to have some imposing effect on others or as some other means to an end. Jesus Christ was a Christian because he lived by his own values, those of Jesus Christ. Anyone else is not truly a Christian because they are not Jesus Christ and cannot be living according his values, but do so in order to follow a
separate set of rules and gain something in the end. Jesus acted out of love of what he believed in, regardless of the consequences.

Passage 115:

Paul is the focus of this passage, and not a respected one at that. Nietzsche explains how Paul, who merely used Jesus to gain power, distorted Jesus' message. Paul made up the story of Jesus' resurrection so that people would find that their beliefs were not in vain. Nietzsche even suggests that Paul might as well have been the one who nailed Jesus to the Cross. Paul couldn't learn enough from
the life of Christ, as was meant by Jesus; Paul needed to use the death of Christ and even invent a resurrection to learn anything from Jesus. Paul had an end in mind (which was power) and used any means necessary (the contrived story of the resurrection) to reach that end. Paul basically made up the resurrection to gather everyone into a herd that he could lead.

In interpreting this passage, one must realize that Paul is missing the whole point of Jesus' life. Jesus did not mean for anybody to seek vengeance or feel guilt for his death, he merely wanted to set an example through his life and not his death. Paul completely exploits Jesus' teachings in order to gain power. This defeats the purpose of Jesus' teachings because now the herd has been gathered away from the real message into following a false message that feeds Paul's authority.

Passage 136:

Those who have killed the idea of God are said to be "free spirits", according to Nietzsche. Even though the whole of European thought was based on God, it is actually not a devastation to realize that God is dead. Instead, the death of God will open up new horizons and lift a burden off of the shoulders of the "free spirits". Regardless of the
danger and uncertainty of these new possibilities, the important thing is that man would be freed from the constraints of God.

I interpret this passage to mean that the death of God is merely the first step in freeing the spirit for exploration. Nothing can be gained if the first step is not taken and one must not let their fear of the unknown prevent the taking of the first step. With God out of
the way, there is so much possibility, so much open sea. The sea would at least belong to us, not to God. It should almost be exciting to know that one can freely go out and face any danger that awaits.

Passage 149:

The Superman is the next step in human evolution. In the hierarchy of the animal kingdom, there are worms and apes, which we consider lower than ourselves, but man actually still has the worm in him and acts more like an ape than an ape does. In order to evolve into another higher species that will see humans as inferior the way humans currently see apes as inferior, we must make room for the Superman.

Humans are too content with their current state of affairs. We have a superiority complex that we think makes us infallible. Instead of being comfortable with ourselves, we need to realize that humans are not perfect, but that there is possibility to perfect ourselves in the Superman. It is only natural that the animal kingdom evolves over time, so why should we stop with humans? There is so much to overcome in our naïve and provincial thinking, and it is definitely possible that we could one day use this motivation to create the Superman.

Passage 184:

The eternal recurrence asks the question, "How would you feel if you were destined to repeat your life identically for all eternity?" This passage poses the scenario in which a man is awakened by a demon that brings him the news of the eternal recurrence. Would the man be devastated and lose all hope? Or would he strive to live a life in which each high and low are worth experiencing over and over again? How would one have to life in order to actually want the fate of an eternal recurrence?

In hypothesizing the eternal recurrence, one realizes that every moment should be lived in one's own interests. We must thrive off of every high and low in life and make it interesting enough that we should experience it again with excitement. The eternal recurrence also makes me think that our lives should be as varied as possible. One would not want to relive a life of complete sorrow or anxiety, nor
of complete indifference and mediocrity. One should experience all there is to experience so that life has dynamics. Furthermore, the eternal recurrence complies with Nietzsche's argument that we should not live in fear of another life; who would want to eternally relive a life that is in fear? Who would want to relive a life of abstinence and restraint? The eternal recurrence puts life into a different perspective.

Passage 206:

Dionysos had it right in embracing the significance of sexuality. By embracing sexuality, which means embracing procreation, we ensure ourselves eternal and true life. The Greeks understood this and worshiped every aspect of procreation. Sex, pregnancy and birth are all necessary and embraced. We must endure the pain of childbirth in order to get anywhere in life; we can't ensure life to go on forever
if we do not also allow the pain of childbirth to go on forever. Christianity had it all wrong in resenting the very foundation of life, sexuality.

Once again, we find ourselves comparing the suppression of nature and the acceptance of nature. How can one try to preserve life, but deny the very thing that is needed to harvest life? Without sex, we cannot exist, so why act like sex is unnatural? We should embrace sex and everything that comes along with it, for it is the beginning of our
existence and the road we must follow. This is just one example of how people blind themselves to what is really important in life and focus their reverence on the wrong things.

16. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:12 pm
Subject: post 11

Singer defines ethics from a utilitarian standpoint, meaning he veiws ethical acts as those that increase the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of beings. Singer also believes the greatest amount of beings that can possibly live such happy lives should also be taken into consideration. He believes we should do what is in the best interest of society and all persons. Where this gets important is in Singer's definition of a "person". Singer considers a person as a being that is self-conscious, rational, can consider the future and the past, and is sentient. This means that there are some animals that are persons and some humans that are not (namely, infants and mentally impaired humans).

Since animals such as chimpanzees fit under Singer's criteria for what constitutes a person, Singer is against harm done to animals. Any animal that can feel pain and pleasure should not be harmed, for this would go against utilitarianism. Not only that, but killing an animal that has a sense of the past and future cuts off its desires to
continue living. Some may argue that animals that are killed can be replaced by other animals, so it is okay since we are bringing more life into the world. Singer, however, wants not only quality of life, but quantity as well. Why not give the most number of animals happy lives instead of killing some off and replacing them? If there is any pain involved in the process of killing the animals in the first place, the killing still is wrong on utilitarian grounds. Furthermore, are we suggesting that animals are replaceable and that any new animal that is brought into the world is equivalent to any previously exterminated animal?

Thoughts such as these lead Singer to see speciesism at work when humans put less value on animal lives. Why is a human life worth more than an animal's life? There are humans who are less intelligent than some animals, but we still tend to favor the human life. Why? Singer thinks we should not place humans in a high and mighty category that
sees animals as dispensible beings that can be used for human enjoyment. We do not HAVE to kill animals in order to survive, which means we are voluntarily killing animals in painful ways for our enjoyment. There are animals that possess all the mental capacity of a human except for language. Even then, these animals are very capable of learning language and perhaps have their own languages,
just not written or spoken. In knowing that some animals are this mentally advanced, the claim that human life is indespensible and animal life is despensible lies on shaky grounds. Humans are picking and choosing what deserves to live and what deserves to die. Why do we treat dogs and cats with respect, but slaughter pigs for food? Singer encourages one to consider the physical, emotional and mental capacities of animals and realize that we are painfully cutting short lives that would otherwise be desired to continue.

Perhaps it is okay to kill an intelligent animal and not a handicapped person because any person, no matter how disabled, is still more important to us because they are a member of our race. Singer thinks this claim is too dependent on our emotions. We should not base our actions according to how close we feel to a certain being. He uses
the example of a man and his cat; if a man is in a situation where he must save the life of either his cat or his neighbor, and he is more attached to the former than the latter, is it morally right for him to save the cat? Singer discourages us from using our feelings in this
manner and does not agree with being partial to humans and not animals just because we feel for our species.

Lane also believes it is wrong to kill animals. His claim is based on the neuro-ethical argument that animals have nervous systems and can feel pain. Since we are not forced to kill animals in order to survive, we should not voluntarily kill animals and cause them pain. This is similar to Singer's utilitarian wishes to avoid inflicting
pain on animals. Both Lane and Singer acknowledge that it is a human CHOICE to kill or eat animals. We could very well survive without killing animals, but continue to painfully slaughter countless number of them each year. Lane suggests the possibility that a higher species could visit Earth and slaughter humans for food. We would not
want this higher species to do that, would we? So why do it to animals? This is also similar to Singer's speciesism, for humans take control over the lives of those that they see as inferior just as the higher species would do to humans.

17. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:27 pm
Subject: why i am not a vegetarian

I joined the Vegan group and followed a post's link to a PETA video that showed the process a cow, chicken and pig go through in slaughterhouses, but as much as it disturbed me, I still eat meat. It reminds me of smokers; everybody knows that smoking gives you cancer, causes impotence, harms your children, kills through second hand smoke, supports the tobacco companies and is horrible for overall health, but people continue to smoke. Maybe because it's
addicting? I have friends that have no addiction to smoking and only smoke socially every few months, but when it comes down to it, they still smoke. Likewise, I know that eating meat kills animals and that I have the choice to eat meat or not and that we can obviously live without eating meat, but I still eat meat.

When I eat a hamburger with everything but the meat (which I've tried to do many times), I am not satisfied because I miss the taste of the meat. My issue, then, is not that I
eat meat because it's just there and I really only like the
condiments, but that I actually do like the taste of meat. I also know that if I were to stop eating meat, there would still be the same number of animals dying every day. Whether or not I choose to eat meat, McDonald's and Burger King will still serve it. I know that the point is for enough people to stop eating it that animals will be saved, but if meat is readily available, I might as well eat it. If animals were killed in a painless way, would it be okay to eat meat? If the issue is simply a matter of the pain that animals feel when slaughtered, then let's put them to sleep. If it's a matter of thinking animals do not deserve to be killed needlessly, I think we are concentrating on a less important issue. I feel like there are too many humans that are dying needlessly for us to be concentrating more on animals. Not only that, but if we can't even keep people from killing themselves (for example, by smoking), what makes us think we can convince people to save animals?

Although I do think vegetarianism is a respectable issue, there has not been a turning point in my life yet. If another species comes and kills humans for food, that's the way life goes. Survival of the fittest. The super-species is not going to save the vegetarian humans from going to
the slaughter, we would all be killed no matter how ethical we were. Becoming a vegetarian is a purely moral act that I have not yet adopted because I have not been convinced to do so yet.

(On a side note, I am aware that the previous post was completely the opposite of Singer and Lane's arguments, but I do not agree with Singer and Lane. Be aware that I realize I expressed speciesist ideas, according to Singer, in using the comparison of humans who smoke because I do feel that it matters more to me that humans work on themselves first instead of animals. Singer disagrees and sees this as speciesism, but I do treat humans more importantly than animals.)

18. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 3:29 pm
Subject: post 12

In critiquing abortion, euthanasia and poverty, Singer takes a utilitarian position by concentrating on the degree of pleasure that arises out of each situation. All three of these issues deal with one person's power over the life and happiness of another, and Singer sees the goal as one of increasing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. On the issue of abortion, Singer analyzes what
exactly is involved in the killing of a fetus, embryo or infant and if there is a difference in the morality of killing a human being in each of these stages. What determines the first step of a human being's life? Is it the actual process of birth in which the baby is no longer in the womb? Is it the moment when the fetus first makes a
movement? Is it the development of the heart? The spine? Singer does not think that the physical position of a being (as in inside or outside the womb) or its stage of development is really the problem. The problem is whether or not the being has interests in its future and is self-conscious. Notice that this does not mean whether or not a being has the potential of such intelligence, for then Singer would argue that sperm or an egg would have the same protection against being "killed" since they both are potentially intelligent beings. Singer wishes to consider the present mental capacity of the being, so that it would not make it wrong to kill a premature baby and right to
kill a healthy fetus if both beings have the same mental capacity.

This also means that we cannot treat a human and a non-human possessing the same mental capacity differently. Singer encourages one to avoid speciesism in thinking we cannot kill a fetus just because it is human even though we kill animals that have more interests than a human fetus. Singer does not see a fetus or newborn baby as a person, since a fetus or newborn does not meet the criteria of being self-conscious and having interests. Since the fetus or newborn is not a person, Singer does not delegate it the same right to life as a person. The only problem that Singer sees is determining just when a baby becomes a person. He suggested perhaps a month after birth, but regardless of the exact moment, it will have been after any
the baby is born and too late for an abortion.

Furthermore, Singer thinks an important factor is whether or not another child will replace the aborted fetus. This would occur if the parents decided to have another child to take the place of the aborted fetus and would result in a child brought into the world that is happier than if the aborted child would have been saved. Since Singer does not see newborns as any different from fetuses, he applies the
same replacement argument to newborns. Singer only thinks this concept applies to beings that are killed because of devastating disease or miserable lives (such as those with spinal bifidia), not to beings that are killed in spite of the possibility of living happy and normal lives. Singer does not necessarily think beings with such illnesses are inferior or less valuable than a healthy human, but he
thinks a parent should have a right to choose whether or not to abort.

With all of these concepts in mind, Singer thinks abortion is acceptable (except, of course, if it is done for selfish reasons such as monetary compensation). As long as the parent of the baby wants it dead and there will be greater happiness with the baby dead than alive, Singer does not see abortion as wrong. The rules of killing an adult do not apply because the baby is not rational or self-conscious
and, therefore, killing it cannot go against its wishes since it doesn't have any wishes. The only other negative consequence of killing a baby would be the grief of a suffering family and mother, but if the family and mother desire the baby's death, this negative consequence is eliminated.

In addressing euthanasia, Singer again determines the specifics of the issue. He identifies three types of euthanasia: voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is carried out voluntarily on the victim's behalf. This occurs when a person decides that death would be better than living in the condition he or she is in. This also occurs if a person writes a request ahead of time that states that in the event that he or she ends up in a condition of unbearable pain and suffering, death would be desired. Involuntary euthanasia, as one might suspect, occurs when a person involuntarily is killed by someone who thinks the victim will be happier dead. The
victim has either been asked if death is desired and declined, or has not come forward and taken the initiative in asking for death. Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when a person is not capable of determining his or her state of being and cannot choose death over life. Examples of such people would be infants, the mentally impaired, or severely paralyzed people. A doctor will take the initiative and assume that if this person were capable of choosing, death would be preferred over their currently miserable life.

Singer applies the same concepts of abortion to euthanasia. If an adult shares the same capacity of a fetus or newborn, Singer believes this adult can be ethically killed. Since the adult lacks the ability to reason or have interests for the future, killing him or her would not violate any desires. Singer also believes that if an adult is
suffering from a painful illness or serious injury, there is no point in letting him or her suffer a drawn out and painful death. Why would anyone want to live in misery when they have the option of a painless and quick death? Even passive euthanasia, wherein the victim is left to die slowly by being withheld medical attention and support, is
worse than just killing the victim actively. Whether the death is quick or drawn out, the result will still be death. Singer thinks it is only obvious that a quick death would be preferred.

An important component of Singer's stance on euthanasia lies in the four reasons he gave against killing an innocent and self-conscious human being. One of his reasons against killing an innocent human being is that humans are capable of fearing death and will live more miserable lives of fear if they see others killed. A second reason against killing is that people have a desire to live and killing them violates that desire. The third reason is that a self-conscious being has a right to life. A fourth reason is that we need to respect the autonomy of rational beings and the decisions they make. If we apply these four principles to voluntary euthanasia, we see that there is no
reason not to kill someone who wants to be killed. First, the victim does not fear death because they desire death. In fact, they might fear a continued miserable life more than death. Second, killing would fulfill the victim's desire instead of violating it. Third, a being can waive a right at any moment, just as we waive our rights to privacy when we invite people to watch home videos. The victim can waive the right to life if death is desired. Lastly, the need to respect others' autonomy includes their decisions regarding death. If someone chooses to die, we have to respect this decision the same way we respect the choice to live.

Thus, Singer believes euthanasia is perfectly acceptable as long as more happiness comes out of it than sadness. Anyone who desires death will be happier dead than if forced to live a miserable and painful life. Those affected by the victim's death will most likely be happier if the victim is relieved of suffering than to see the victim forced to live in agony. In the case of involuntary or non-voluntary
euthanasia, killing the victim is justifiable if his or her life is obviously less desirable than death. Singer basically thinks a human's choices should be respected, even if that choice is to die, as long as the outcome is favorable over continued existence.

In regards to poverty, Singer thinks anyone who can help those less fortunate without suffering any detriment should do so. This applies to nations as well. A nation as wealthy as the United States should help poor nations because it would not harm us to do so. Some people might say that it is more important to help those closest to us first. Singer agrees with the preference of kin over strangers, but he
suggests that helping those closest to us does not mean letting our sons and daughters have excessive luxuries. If a family is rich, it is not necessary to please one member by giving them a second car with chrome rims and justify it by saying that family comes first. In this type of situation, Singer believes it is more important to give to the poor since the forfeit of the new car is not more important than the extreme poverty of another family. Singer wants people to realize that it is very possible to give money without any setback, for there are plenty of resources of wealth in the world, they are just inefficiently distributed.

Some people might also suggest the use of triage in helping other countries. This means the only countries that would receive aide would be those that would not survive unless given aide. Countries that would not receive aide would be those that would be able to survive on their own and those who would not survive even with aide. Singer thinks this is a horrible option and feels it represents the
disgraceful nature of humans. Are we to sit back and watch extremely poor countries wallow in disease and famine and not help because we think they are helpless? Singer does not think it is ethical to allow a poor country to succumb to population control through disease and starvation. One suggestion Singer has is for everyone to give approximately 10% of their income to the poor. This is not a set number and is not something he wishes to force onto people, but is merely a guideline as to how much people should give. If someone is capable of giving more than 10% without suffering any major detriment, he or she should give more. If someone suffers greatly from giving 10%, he or she can give less. Singer simply thinks we should give as much as we can as long as we do not suffer more than we please others.

My opinions vary regarding Singer's theories. I think he is justified in his claims for abortion and euthanasia. I think it is acceptable to think of these topics in terms of the amount of happiness that will come out of them. If a mother would suffer more with a disabled baby than with a healthy baby, I think she should have the choice of
aborting the disabled baby. If I were old and suffering from countless diseases and physical dysfunctions, I would want to have the option of euthanasia instead of being forced to prolong the pain of life. I agree with Singer that these topics should not be required nor should they be banned; they should simply be available options that people have a right to choose. I also agree with Singer that
these procedures should be carried out under strict guidelines and very professionally. A more specific issue I agree with Singer on is that the Nazi affairs were not acts of euthanasia. The Nazis did not kill people who asked to be killed; they killed people whom they saw as inferior. These victims were not suffering miserable lives, the
Nazi's assumed these people were inferior according to race, religion, or other factors that have nothing to do with the pain or pleasure of a person's life. I do not think this has anything to do with euthanasia, for the victims were not better off dead.

Another specific point I can comment on is that Singer explained that the feed used for raising cattle could be used to feed millions of people. I disagree, for I have heard and read that the feed used for cattle is indigestible for humans and cannot be used for anything but
raising cattle. Obviously, we could not feed this grain to humans if our digestive systems cannot handle it. Perhaps one might suggest that we use the land this grain is grown on for growing human food instead, but I am not so sure that this land is fertile enough for growing any type of food. I remember hearing this on a television special that was on one of the major networks last year that had something to do with America being "fat". I do not remember the specifics of the time, date or channel, but I do remember this information regarding cattle feed because I have often heard the argument that cattle feed could be used to feed millions of people. Regardless of if my claims are true or not, I simply wanted to raise
the issue of if it is really that easy to reallocate the food supply.

19. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:08 pm
Subject: post 13

Singer's stance on environmentalism is one of compassion and care
for the earth. He believes it is important to preserve wildlife,
including forests, rivers, and the animals that inhabit these
areas. Singer fears the day when there will be nothing left on
earth that is untouched by the human hand. He wishes to preserve
nature as best we can instead of destroying it for the gain of
economy or other human exploits. According to Singer, there are
plenty of ways to be happy without harming the environment. It is
possible to make the switch from drag racing to bicycle riding, and
the latter is much more friendly to the environment. This is just
like making the switch from meat-eating to vegetarianism; we can
make these changes without suffering any great setback. Singer
wants humans to make more of an emphasis on getting happiness from
personal relations with family and friends, healthy personal and
sexual lives, and apprecation for the very thing we destroy - the
environment. We can live very happy lives without cutting down
trees and building dams.

More importantly, Singer foresees an environmental ethic in which
there is a sort of Nietzschean revaluation of values. Instead of
valuing extravagance, we will value frugality. Instead of praising
a woman who owns the finest mink coats, we will condemn her.
Instead of paying millions of dollars to the fastest race car
driver, we will condemn him. We will look down upon those who
exploit the environment for their own benefits and will instead
praise those who recycle, bike ride, have healthy personal
relationships, eat environmentally friendly diets, and care for the
environment. We will bask in the glory of wildlife instead of
destroying it. Singer thinks this forfeit of extravagance for a
love of nature is not only possible, but necessary.

Why is this shift necessary? For that matter, why is any ethical
system necessary? Singer answers this question by attaching a value
to life. He beleives people want to look back at their lives
feeling like they have accomplished something and contributed a
great deed to the world. By being an ethical person, one gives
purpose to one's actions. What makes ethics special, however, is
that one will not grow tired of it they way one might grow tired of
stamp collecting. As much as people constantly change what they
devote their lives to, Singer believes morality is something that
will never exhaust itself. If one tries to get money all their life
and finally gets it, one will still feel empty and in want for
something. With morality, however, one will most likely not reach a
point where there are no more moral acts to commit. Singer believes
acting morally is just something that will add to the happiness and
harmony of human life. He does acknowledge, however, that not
everybody reacts the same way to the same things, so there is no
universal reason why people should act ethically.

I do agree with Singer on these topics. I think his environmental
ethic is something that would be great to see in mankind. I would
look forward to the day when we praise a love for the earth instead
of domination over it. I think we are getting farther away from
this as the years go by and the next generations rely more on
television and video games for entertainment. I would love for
people to have a shift in their values and love the universe. I
think this would be a difficult step for me, personally, for I have
not even given up eating meat. I would like to see not only myself,
but other people make a shift not only in their diets, but in all
aspects of life that have to do with the environment. I see
countless buildings being built in the only remaining space of land
for miles. Like Singer, I want people to see beauty of wildlife
instead of just wanting more apartment buildings or Staples stores.

I don't agree so much with Singer that acting morally gives a
purpose to life, but I do agree with him that the answer to "why
should we act morally" is not direct or universal. I know that many
people find meaning in reaching their personal potential, which
includes any means necessary regardless of whether it hurts the
environment or other people in the process. Since life is a very
personal endeavor, people might tend to be more selfish than Singer
suggests. He does know that his answer is not right for everyone,
so I agree with Singer that morality is something that varies in
value from person to person. I do think morality necessarily give
meaning to my life, but it does make me happy at times to care for
others. If I couple this happiness from morality with other gains
that include career goals and healthy relationships, then I would
consider my life as having meaning. Where I differ from Singer is
that I do not think any of these aspects directly posit meaning to
my life individually. I am more affected by the collective success
of many aspects of my life, and morality is just one of those
aspects.

20. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:31 pm
Subject: post 14

Cloning is a controversial issue from religious, medical, and, more
importantly for this class, ethical points of view. It involves
making an exact genetic copy of a living entity, whether it be a
molecule, cell, plant, animal or even a human being. The article
defines four main types of cloning: molecular, cellular, blastomere
and nuclear transplantation cloning. Molecular cloning pinpoints a
specific segment of DNA that produces things like insulin or other
substances that are important for medicinal purposes. Cellular
cloning is useful for testing drugs because it uses somatic cells to
clone specific body parts that can be experimented on. Blastomere
cloning artificially makes twins and implants them into surrogate
mothers. This is helpful if there is a genetically engineered animal
that possesses important biochemicals. Blastomere cloning must be
done at a specific stage in the development process, for once the
cells turn from blastomeres to blastocysts, the cloning cannot be
performed.

The process of successfully cloning something as complex as an animal
or human being is tedious and random in result. In cloning DNA,
scientists look at its totipotency, meaning the potential it has to
generate a completely new organism. Like blastomere cloning, there is
only a certain window of time in which the procedure can be performed.
In cloning the sheep Dolly, a new technique was used in which an
electric shock fused donor mammary gland cells with an enucleated egg
cell (meaning the nucleus was removed). The results are random
because out of the 277 successful fusions, only 29 of them made it to
the blastocyst stage. Of these 29, only 1 produced a live lamb. The
lamb that was produced, however, is thought to have been the genetic
equivalent to a six year old lamb because its chromosomes were
shortened. This poses one of the many questions raised by cloning.
Is it ethically moral to produce a being that is 6 years old at birth,
ages rapidly, and perhaps gives birth to more beings that are
suffering this expedited time travel?

There are obviously a number of ethical concerns in cloning animals,
let alone human beings. For one, cloning reduces genetic variation
and increases genetic disorders. Is it right to create a number of
creatures that are vulnerable to disease? Is it right to tamper with
the natural benefit of genetic variation? A more personal and
sensitive ethical concern is that of the role of reproduction in
society. Some people fear a shift in value from natural reproduction
to controlled, artificial and preferential reproduction. This concern
necessarily spreads from the simple topic of reproduction to the broad
topic of marriage, abortion, homosexuality and single parenting. If
cloning becomes acceptable, what will happen to the institution of
marriage? Homosexuals will be able to have children. Parents can
choose exactly when they want to have children and what kind of child
they want to have. Overall, babies will no longer have anything to
do with sex. There will be a whole new answer to the question, "Where
do babies come from?"

Another question raised by cloning is whether or not it will get out
of hand and end up like a science fiction movie in which artificial
beings take over the planet. Or worse yet, what if someone decides to
clone Hitler? These concerns, although dramatic, are really
unreasonable when considering the scientific implications of cloning.
If somebody were to clone Hitler, they would have to also clone his
entire social surroundings and every event that molded him into the
man he became. This, of course, would not happen, for we could not
place this clone in Berlin in the 1930's with the exact family and
societal pressures. Scientists assure us that if we were to lift any
restriction on cloning, the results would be far from a horror movie.
They emphasize their purpose, which is one of medical concern.
Scientists simply want to help people and make our options better, not
create a superspecies of clones that will wipe out the planet. The
ethical considerations lie mainly in the concern for the right of the
human being and the role of natural reproduction in society.

21. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:32 pm
Subject: PETA report

I emailed PETA asking them if they have any locations on the west
coast where I could conduct an interview. A woman named Katy Fritts
replied to my email saying that their only headquarters are in
Norfolk, VA, but that she would be happy to conduct an interview
through email. Another student and I compiled the questions we each
wanted to have answered and sent them to Katy on April 6th. Katy
replied the next day and answered our questions as best she could,
explaining the philosophy behind PETA's mission to protect animal rights.

As a little bit of background on Katy Fritts, she is the Youth
Activist Coordinator for PETA2, which is geared more towards the youth
than the main branch of PETA. She was not always a vegetarian, but
once she found out the process in which animals are killed for meat,
she made the switch and went a step further in joining PETA to support
her newfound compassion for animals. Katy is now a vegan, meaning she
does not eat any animal related products or dairy.

Katy's personal feelings are reflected in PETA as an organization.
PETA bases all of its action on the concept that "animals are not ours
to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment", according to
peta.org. Since its inception in 1980, the organization has
accumulated over 800,000 members who share this belief and fight to
get others to respect animals as well. PETA does the fighting through
public education, investigations, ad campaigns, celebrity involvement,
animal rescues, legislation and sometimes by just directly acting.
Anyone can report signs of animal cruelty to PETA and the organization
will investigate and hopefully put a stop to it. In fact, this is how
PETA started; an undercover investigation was conducted in Maryland,
resulting in the first-ever conviction of an animal investigator on
charges of animal cruelty. PETA continues to aggressively attack any
situations of animal cruelty. For example, they are targeting Beyonce
Knowles for continuing to wear real fur even though they have
repeatedly attempted to persuade her of the harm it does to innocent
animals.

Why are there some people, like Beyonce, who ignore animal rights, and
there are others, like Katy Fritts, who make life-changing decisions
in support of animal rights? In interviewing Katy, I tried to get a
better feel as to what makes some people sensitive towards the issue
and others insensitive. This is a copy of Katy's reply to my email:

1. What made the issue of animal rights go from something that was a
personal preference to something that is internationally organized
into companies like PETA?

Animal rights is no more as personal choice as is beating your spouse
or owning slaves is a personal choice. It is a matter of what is
morally right and what is morally wrong. At one point in our recent
history it was considered morally ok to own slaves, times have changed
an we now know better than that. Again times are changing and more
people are starting to realize that Animal Rights isn't a personal choice.

2. Why do you think there are people who can watch PETA's infamous
slaughter videos and remain unmoved and continue eating meat?

Often times people are indenial when they watch videos such as meat
your meat (www.meetyourmeat.com ). People do not like to realize or be
reminded that by eating meat, wearing leather, or using certain
products they are directly supporting the cruel abuse of thousand of
helpless animals.

3. Why does PETA attribute rights to animals? Are humans GIVING
animals rights or does PETA think these rights are predisposed? What
determines whether a dog or mosquito has rights?

Animals should have the right to equal consideration of their
interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not
having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We are, therefore,
obliged to take that interest into consideration and to respect the
dog's right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her.
However, animals don't always have the same rights as humans because
their interests are not always the same as ours, and some rights would
be irrelevant to animals. For instance, a dog doesn't have an interest
in voting and, therefore, doesn't have the right to vote because that
right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child. Al animals
no matter there size or capabilities have the capacity to feel pain,
we as humans have no right to inflict such harm.

4. It seems that most people engage in harming animals because these
options are so ingrained in everyday life (such as the popularity of
McDonald's or trendy fur coats). Is there one step PETA could take
that would change the average living habits of Americans, such as
starting a vegetarian food brand or a clothing line of fake fur, in
order to reduce the accessability of products that harm animals?

I guess that it would be nice to have a widespread vegan fast food
chain which would make a vegan eating easier.

5. If keeping pets indoors is "against nature"; is PETA against
owning animals as pets? What would PETA consider a happy animal? In
comparison to what?

The earliest fossils that resemble the bones of modern dogs are about
12,000 years old, so we know that humans' fascination with
domesticated wolves began at least that long ago. About 5,000 years
ago, Egyptians became the first to tame cats, whom they used to
control the rodent population. Since then, the breeding and care of
cats and dogs has exploded into a love affair, a sport, and a booming
business. This international pastime has created an overpopulation
crisis, and as a result, every year, millions of unwanted animals
suffer at the hands of abusers, languish in shelters, and are
euthanized. Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a
loving home is a small but powerful way to prevent some of this
suffering. The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to
spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or
pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis.

6. How long do you think it will be before people realize PETA's
goals and change their values according to those goals, if ever?

Everyday people are changing there values to reflect PETA's goals.
Each year in the US 1 million more people are becoming vegetarians.

7. If someone says they eat meat because it is in the stores ready to
eat, has PETA tried to target the stores so that the consumer will no
longer have an excuse? If so, what was the result of this effort?

No

8. There are millions of field animals that get killed each year
(source: http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html) in
the process of grain harvesting. Is PETA doing anything to save these
animals? A meat-eater would argue that at least they EAT the animals
killed for them and that are born strictly for that purpose. Grain
harvesting kills free-roaming animals and does nothing to utilize
their bodies. Is it right to say that field animals are less
important? Or does PETA try to avoid these deaths too?

There is no way to live a lifestyle that completely ensures the safety
of all creatures but here at PETA we try and eat only organic produce.

9. Why do you think restaurant and fast-food menus have so quickly
made the change to low-carb diets but have not made any significant
changes towards vegetarian diets?

I agree that they have all made a quick change to low carb diets but I
also believe they are starting to realize the consumer push for
vegetarian items and they are also making those changes.

10. What do you think the world would be like if everyone lived by
PETA's mission statement?

There would be less violence, a cleaner environment, less hunger.

After receiving Katy's replies, I wanted learn more about her opinion
on a couple of issues, so I asked her two follow-up questions
regarding pets and the animals killed in grain harvesting:

1. I touched on the topic of keeping animals as pets and you said
that it is nice to save animals from shelters in order to give them
happier homes and love. My question, however, is what is your
response to the belief that animals are not meant to be kept in houses
with humans? A dog has a natural want to run in open environments and
be outdoors, so wouldn't house-life and being walked on a leash
restrict a dog's freedom? Doesn't regulating what and when an animal
eats restrict its freedom and rights? Perhaps keeping an animal as a
pet is just as harmful to it as keeping it in a shelter. You also
said that it is important to spay and neuter pets in order to control
the pet population, but isn't it painful and restrictive to limit an
animal's sexual desires?

The earliest fossils that resemble the bones of modern dogs are about
12,000 years old, so we know that humans' fascination with
domesticated wolves began at least that long ago. About 5,000 years
ago, Egyptians became the first to tame cats, whom they used to
control the rodent population. Since then, the breeding and care of
cats and dogs has exploded into a love affair, a sport, and a booming
business. This international pastime has created an overpopulation
crisis, and as a result, every year, millions of unwanted animals
suffer at the hands of abusers, languish in shelters, and are
euthanized. Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a
loving home is a small but powerful way to prevent some of this
suffering. The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to
spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or
pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis.
Approximately 2,500 kittens and puppies are born each hour in the
United States.(1) Some are bred intentionally by breeders who sell
animals for a profit; some are allowed to breed by people who want
their cat or dog to have the "experience" of having a litter or who
want their children to witness the "miracle of life"; and some are the
result of fertile animals being allowed to roam freely and mate.
Whatever the reason, the number of cats and dogs far exceeds the
number of loving homes available. Unwanted animals are often treated
as a nuisance; incidents of kitten drownings and dog abandonments are
common. Many people drop off animals in rural areas thinking that
someone will take them in or that they can fend for themselves. But
the tragic results for the animals are cruel treatment, starvation,
disease, freezing, highway death, procurement for research
laboratories, and more unregulated breeding.
Even if someone can find homes for one litter of kittens or puppies,
the overpopulation cycle continues if the animals are allowed to
breed. And animals bred on purpose occupy homes that could have taken
in homeless animals already born, destined to be destroyed.
Animal control agencies and shelters receive approximately 6-10
million animals annually. Those who are not adopted within about a
week (some 4-5 million of them) are killed either by a painless
lethal injection or by undesirable methods like carbon monoxide or
decompression chambers. (2) In many areas where a practice called
"pound seizure" is permitted, unclaimed animals can be given or sold
to laboratories, where their deaths are often far from painless.
An Ounce of Prevention
Spaying and neutering helps stem the tide of overpopulation. It does
not make animals fat and lazy, harm their health, or hurt their
personalities, as some people mistakenly believe. Spaying not only
reduces the stress and discomfort females endure during heat periods,
but also eliminates the risk of uterine cancer and greatly reduces the
chance of mammary cancer. Neutering makes males far less likely to
roam or fight, and helps prevent testicular cancer.(3)
Female cats and dogs should be spayed soon after the age of eight
weeks. Males should be neutered at eight weeks of age, but both
spaying and neutering can be done safely through most of adulthood.
Some shelters are trying earlier spaying and neutering, which can be
less stressful for animals.(4) The operations require only a few days'
recuperation.
The Peninsula Humane Society, frustrated about having to euthanize
10,000 animals a year, got a county-wide ordinance passed in December
1990 requiring "that all dogs and cats over the age of nine months
must be spayed or neutered unless their guardian has a breeding
permit" or unless a veterinarian has determined that the surgery would
endanger the animal's health.(5) Other jurisdictions are considering
similar legislation. For a booklet explaining how to campaign for
similar legislation in your area, send $5 to The Fund for Animals, 808
Alamo Dr., Suite 306, Vacaville, CA 95688, or call 707-451-1306.
The one-time cost of spaying or neutering is less than the expense
involved in raising puppies or kittens (food, shots, training, time)
and is far less than the cost communities must pay toward animal
control and euthanasia. Many cities have low-cost spay/neuter clinics
to encourage owners to be responsible before they are faced with
unwanted animals and before the animals themselves must pay for the
excess with their lives.
References
§ Friends of Animals, Inc., "The Vicious Cycle."
§ Moulton, Carol, "Animal Shelters: Changing Roles," The Animals'
Agenda, May 1988, pp. 14-15.
§ Animal Welfare League of Alexandria, Alexandria, VA,"The Facts About
Spaying and Neutering."
§ Bartlett, Kim, "Early Neutering Begun by Some Shelters," The
Animals' Agenda, May 1988, p. 21.
§ Peninsula Humane Society, "Dear Friends" letter, Jan. 16, 1991.

2. I offered some information saying that millions of animals are
killed each year in grain harvesting and you replied by saying that
there is no way to live a life that is free of killing any animals at
all. My question, then, is does it make a difference how many animals
you kill if you are still killing animals? A murderer who kills 10
people is not any better than a murderer who kills 20 people.
Try saying that to the ten people who didn't get killed
What makes you want to continue to go out of your way to save animals
if you know that there are always going to be animals that are still
killed? How do you feel knowing that the animals you aren't trying to
save, such as those killed by plows used in grain harvesting, are
dying needlessly and WITHOUT having their bodies used in any
productive way (such as for food, clothing or entertainment). One
might argue that meat-eaters, fur-wearers or circus trainers at least
USE the animals they kill, whereas a vegetarian kills animals by using
plows in grain harvesting and does nothing with the bodies. Please
tell me your thoughts.

The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so much
for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time to stoop
and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of the problems
and responsibilities that an expanded ethic brings, he said, "A man is
really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid
all life which he is able to help . He does not ask how far this or
that life deserves sympathy nor how far it is capable of feeling."
We can't stop all suffering, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't
stop any. In today's world of virtually unlimited choices, there are
plenty of kind, gentle ways for us to feed, clothe, entertain, and
educate ourselves that do not involve killing animals.
Did the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer ate his victims justify his crimes?
What is done with a corpse after its murder doesn't lessen the
victim's suffering.

Katy's thoughts are representative of the PETA organization as a
whole. Basically, animals have rights and people like Katy want to do
everything in their power to respect these rights. What comes to mind
is Singer's opinion regarding poverty: we should do as much as we can
without suffering any setback to our own personal lives. People like
Katy understand that going out of their way to help animals is of no
great burden to ordinary life. Giving up meat is not as devastating
as the loss of an animal's life. Choosing a nice velvet coat over a
fur coat is not life-changing. PETA believes that if it is in our
power to help animals, we should and can. Singer's theories on pain
and interests are also reflected in Katy's answers, for Katy expresses
her concern for an animal's interests in life and the avoidance of
pain. Katy seems to be optimistic in her fight for animal rights, for
she claims that one million Americans are becoming vegetarians each
year. She also thinks vegetarian diets are just as capable of
popularity as low-carb diets.

One answer I was not impressed with was that PETA has not tried to
eliminate the excuse that consumers use, which is, "I eat meat because
it is there for me to eat". I know so many people who eat meat simply
because their parents cook it or because they are constantly given the
option to. I think if the option were eliminated, consumers would not
have that excuse anymore. According to Katy, PETA has not tried to
accomplish this, and I think it would make a big difference if they
did. In reflecting on my research and interview, I have realized that
PETA is basically just trying to do whatever is humanly possible to
protect animals. This does not mean that they must save every animal
out there, only that it does not hurt a human to help an animal, so a
human should do so. I admire their accomplishments in animal rescues
and successful investigations.

In my original set of questions, Katy's answer to the issue of owning
animals as pets was unclear for what I was trying to understand. In
the first of my two follow-up questions, Katy suggested that there are
millions of animals that suffer miserable lives, but would be saved if
someone would just take them into their homes. She said that these
stray animals are the result of overpopulation and intentional
breeding of dogs and cats. My point, however, was that it is possible
that animals are not any happier in "loving homes" than they would be
if they were left to themselves. If it is true that animals are not
meant to be kept as pets, then putting an animals from the streets
into one's home would just be switching it from one miserable life to
another. The fact that there are fossils showing the domestication of
animals thousands of years ago does not mean humans are entitled to
keep animals as pets. Humans have also eaten meat since the beginning
of their existence, but Katy would obviously not use this an excuse to
eat meat. Although I see Katy's point in saying that overpopulation
is the result of irresponsible pet owners and the fascination that
humans have for animals, I wonder if perhaps the problem would be
solved if people did not keep pets in the first place. Instead of
taking in stray animals (especially if it is possible that animals do
not want to be taken in), maybe people should not keep pets at all.
If nobody keeps pets, there will be no possibility of over-breeding
because humans will not have pets under their control in the first
place. I asked Katy this question to see if she or PETA have any
response to what was proposed in our reading assignment from the
Animal Freedom website regarding the concern of keeping animals as
pets, and Katy's reply tells me that she and PETA feel that animals
are happier in a human home and spayed or neutered, which is the
opposite of what the Animal Freedom website said. It is interesting
that two animal rights groups could have completely different concepts
of what makes an animal happy.

I asked Katy the second follow-up question just to confirm what I
figured her motivation would be to act ethically. In essence, I was
asking Katy a similar question to Singer's "Why act ethically?" Why
should we try and save certain animals when other animals get killed
for our living habits anyway? Katy is a vegetarian, but animals are
still killed in the process of harvesting the grain or soy she eats.
Katy's answer is that it is important to try and save animals,
regardless of how many are saved. When I suggested that killing 10
people is no worse than killing 20, Katy replied, "Try telling that to
the ten people who didn't get killed". Her comment does not make the
killing of 10 people any more right. If that were the case, I could
say that eating cow is okay because I don't eat dog. Does my sparing
of a dog's life justify my killing of a cow the way the lives of the
10 spared people apparently justifies the killing of the other ten
people? I think not. I wanted to understand why someone like Katy
would still feel like they are doing a good deed even when they know
they are still killing animals. Her answer is basically that she
would like to save whatever animals she can. She also said that what
happens to a corpse after its murder does not lessen its suffering.
My point, however, was that the animals killed during harvesting are
killed needlessly, whereas Jefferey Dahmer meant to kill his victims
and eat them. I wanted to know if Katy felt any differently towards
field animals that are murdered uselessly for grain as opposed to
animals that are slaughtered and eaten, for Katy and other vegetarians
obviously focus their attention on the latter and not the former.
Apparently, Katy doesn't feel that field animals suffer any more or
less than slaughtered animals since they both die regardless of their
use afterward. Yet Katy does not try and save the field animals like
she does the slaughtered animals, so she does end up having a
preference towards one and not the other.

The most important reflection on researching an organization like PETA
would be that I still eat meat. My excuse is often that my parents
cook it, so I eat it, or that I like the taste. I have watched the
"Meet your Meat" video and seen countless images of animal slaughters,
but I still choose to eat meat. Perhaps I am in denial, as Katy
suggested. Perhaps I am insensitive towards other living beings.
Perhaps I am too selfish to give up my meat eating habits for the sake
of the lives of animals. I believe I eat meat out of habit and out of
knowing that even if I become a vegetarian, there will still be
animals killed for consumption. With the rising trend of
vegetarianism proposed by Katy, however, it is very possible that my
thoughts will soon change, just as hers did. After completing this
report and realizing Katy's efforts, as well as PETA's, I have made
the consideration of becoming a vegetarian. This consideration was
made because I would really not suffer a great loss in giving up meat
and I might as well make the effort. Perhaps this would make me feel
like my life has meaning or that I can make a difference, as Singer
suggested. Regardless of the motive, I am making changes in my
lifestyle and values.

22. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Thu May 13, 2004 9:51 pm
Subject: post 15

Ghandi's ethical views are explained sufficiently through his "experiments with truth". In the course of his life, Ghandi was constantly changing and learning about himself. He stuck by his beliefs through very difficult times, regardless of the consequences. He was an honest man who had compassion for other people and admirable patience. In order to understand how these general attributes played
out specifically in Ghandi's life, one can recall different
experiments, or tests, he faced.

One of the more prevailing aspects of Ghandi's ethics was
vegetarianism (more accurately, veganism). Ghandi gave up eating meat, milk, eggs, and even spices in order to have a strict diet. He believed that such as strict diet was necessary in order to practice other modes of restraint, such as celibacy. Ghandi would eat only fruit and nuts at times and would fast at others, but he always felt that his minimalist diet was more of a cleansing and a testing of his strength than a burden. He did not believe meat was necessary for strength and heartiness, as did those who tried to convince him that health was at stake when meat was not consumed.

Ghandi was not only himself a vegan, but also raised his children to be vegans. This became important during one particular test of faith in which his son became very ill and needed nutrients. Doctors would try to convince Ghandi to give his son milk, but Ghandi refused, even if it meant his son's condition would worsen. Although he did question
himself about what it meant to make such a choice for his son, Ghandi stuck by his belief and decided to use his own methods to heal his son without the help of milk. Fortunately, his son lived and grew up to be very healthy, and Ghandi did not have to break his vow of veganism to
do so. Ghandi gave all thanks in the incident to God.

This brings up another important aspect to Ghandi's ethics: religion. Ghandi was very open to other religions and liked to meet with Christian friends to exchange information with them as a Hindu. He did not believe any one religion was right, but he tried to dedicate time
to understanding his own religion first, being born of the Vaishnava faith. He studied Sanskrit and memorized passages of the Bhagavadgita while also reading the book of Genesis, the New Testament and countless other books offered by friends that opened up his eyes to religion. Ghandi was touched deeply by the Gita and referred to it whenever in need of guidance. He was not fond of the book of Genesis,
but did find the New Testament rather appealing. Ghandi was very open to learning about religion. God remained the center of his existence and everything he did was in dedication to Him.

Yet another important aspect of Ghandi's life was brahmacharya, or self-restraint. This came in the form of his celibacy with his wife, whom he married at 13 years old. Ghandi did have two children with his wife, but he tried without fail to rid himself of any lust for her.
Ghandi did not want to be overcome with desire for his wife and struggled periodically with this project. With the strict diet came a control of carnal desires and Ghandi ended up removing the lust for his wife that he despised. He and his wife disagreed on many subjects during their marriage, but they ended up in a peaceful marriage of
friendship.

One of these subjects of disagreement was in regards to a wealth of gifts given to Ghandi. Among these gifts was jewelry intended for Ghandi's wife, Kasturbai. Kasturbai wanted to keep the gifts, not just to be greedy, but more as security for the future in case she ever needed money for herself or for their sons. Ghandi strongly disagreed.
He insisted the gifts be returned, for he did not want to take any of the gifts at all and wanted them to be saved for the community to use in emergency situations. Kasturbai did not see the logic in Ghandi's reasoning, for the gifts were for her and she wanted to have the authority to decide to keep them and have insurance for herself and the family in the future. Ghandi won the argument, however, and he
said that Kasturbai later realized his strong judgment.

Ghandi definitely struggled with his ethics from time to time. He was tempted early on to eat meat when he had just vowed to his mother to be a vegetarian. He questioned himself for possibly endangering his son's health for the sake of avoiding milk. He struggled with an incident in which he stole some gold out of his brother's armlet.
Ghandi did not always pull through; he did end up drinking goat's milk while on his sick bed, for lack of finding any other substance other than milk that is as nourishing. Ghandi's struggles were nonetheless valuable learning experiences.

What impresses me the most about Ghandi is his honesty. He was extremely honest and to the point; if he had anything to get off his chest, he simply wrote a letter. When Ghandi stole from his brother, he wrote a letter of apology to his father. When a woman was trying to set up Ghandi with another woman, he wrote a letter explaining that he was married and apologized for not informing the woman sooner. Ghandi was an honest man and did not want to hide anything from anybody. He applied this honesty to himself as well. When he was trapped in lust, he acknowledged this and did not try to make an excuse in order to allow himself to continue being trapped. When he fought with himself about the vow to his mother to be vegetarian, he did not bend the vow in order to make himself happy, but instead made sure to be true to his mother's intentions. Ghandi was true to himself and to others.

Because Ghandi was so true to his beliefs and had such respect for others, he is considered a hero by many. He dedicated his time and energy and sacrificed a lot for his fellow Indians. More importantly, he did so selflessly and without any want of compensation. He denied gifts. He denied himself of any other forms of indulgence, whether it
was food or sex. He was patient and practiced non-violence, starting an entire Satyagraha movement that many praised and respected. These qualities made Ghandi admirable for many.

Ghandi's ethics can be applied to my own life and the world in the same way he applied them to his own life. Not everything he believed in was natural to his personality. He had to work on things like brahmacharya and veganism. Likewise, all people can dedicate their full motivation to whatever they believe in. One does not necessarily need to apply Ghandi's specific beliefs, but only the dedication with which he practiced his beliefs. People can try to be as open to other religions as he was, while still trying to learn as much as they can about whichever religion they prefer. One can learn how to work out relationships as he did with Kastrubai, building friendships instead of relying on lust. One can practice non-violence and learn to be
tolerant and patient with others. If the world were to all join in Satyagraha, there would be peace and respect. There would not be any degredation, racism or prejudice. If people would look out for each other the way Ghandi looked out for Indians, we would be united and have tight connections with each other. If we give respect, we will
get the same respect that Ghandi ended up receiving.