1. NAME (your official name that is in my roll book).

Galen Hooks

2. USERNAME on the yahoo club (I want to have your exact user name on the yahoo club so as to look up posts and dates of posts if necessary)

squaww03

3. EMAIL ADDRESS

squaww03@yahoo.com

4. Offer number of posts completed and "exact dates" for each one. 1. 1/15 2. 1/15 3. 1/17 4. 1/18 5. 1/19 6. 2/3 7. 2/6 8. 2/14 9. 2/18 10. 2/18 11. 2/21 12. 2/24 13. 3/5

5. Did you complete the first field trip report? (I will read this on your site but here I want to quick glimpse of the progress you have made in this course.) When?

Yes. I went to the Museum of Tolerance on February 16th for the 11:30 a.m. tour.

6. What reading/chapters did you complete thus far in the course? be specific. Is there material/chapters that you did not read? be specific

I read all of the material for the course. I read chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 22 out of Great Traditions. Out of the online reading, I read the definition and history of ethics, the Aristotlean perspective, Christian morality, morality of world religions, ahteistic morality and spent about 20 minutes skimming through the Genealogy of Morals. I also read the entire Nietzsche packet.

7. Did you complete any extra credit so far? be specific

1. This first question is a very important one: the topic is Nietzsche. Offer a detailed description of Nietzsche's ethical views. Since we spent two full weeks on this philospher I will weigh it a little bit more than the other questions. When giving his overall ethical stance make sure that you explain what is his opposition to Christian morality. Why does he love Jesus but hate Paul (this part is found specifically in the Nietzcshe packet)? Why does Christian morality offend him? What does he envision for the height of humanity? etc... Now you may not agree with Nietzsche but my concern here is whether you understood his ideas. (Utilize both the material in Great Traditions and the reading in the Nietzsche packet).

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 constructed 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 Christian's, 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. 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 naive and provincial thinking, and it is definitely possible that we could one day use this motivation to create the Superman.


Nietzsche had plenty to say about Christianity and its influence on morality (as is evident in his "God is dead" statement). Nietzsche was an advocate of humans being able to create their own lives. Christianity, therefore, would be greatly criticized because it suggests that God controls our lives. Christians pray, believe in fate, fast, make sacrifices, abstain from sex, and incorporate a number of other actions into their morality that they believe will appease God and will therefore benefit them in life and the afterlife. Nietzsche would critique these actions because they are all in assumption that there is another life in which Christians will benefit from their morality.

Nietzsche believed that there is only this single earthly life, so such religious commitments would be fruitless. Furthermore, Nietzsche believes that the belief in an afterlife is simply a denial of the real world in which we live. Aside from critiquing the thought that Christian morals will pay off in another life, Nietzsche disagreed with the austerity of these Christian morals. He especially criticized the suppression of passion (mostly sexual) that is stressed in Christianity. Another aspect of Christianity that falls under scrutiny from Nietzsche revolves around a false notion of cause and effect. Think of it this way: Whenever somebody says, "Thank God", they might be thanking the wrong person.

Nietzsche loves Jesus for the honesty in his message, but hates Paul because he distorted Jesus' message. Jesus died on the Cross not wanting people to feel pity or guilt for him, nor so they would seek vengeance or have resentment for his murderers. Jesus simply wanted people to learn from the life he lived, for he lived exactly as he preached. Jesus followed his own beliefs and was true to himself, regardless of the consequences. He found love in even his enemies and bore no malice on his murderers. This message is all be crushed by Paul, for Paul used Jesus as a tool in creating power. Paul needed to fabricate the resurrection of Christ in order to gain power. By having a hallucination in which Paul believed he saw Christ and claimed Christ still lived, Paul would make followers think they were not believing in vain. Paul could not learn enough from Christ's life, so he used Christ's death and a resurrection to get the power he wanted. This defeats the whole purpose of Christ's teachings and is why Nietzsche loves Jesus and not Paul.

2. Explain the ethical system of Epictetus and then of Spinoza. Next compare and contrast their ethical theories. Offer specifics detailing how they are similar and how they are different. (I recommend writing this in three sections: Epictetus; Spinoza; Comparision.)

As a Stoic, Epictetus 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.

Epictetus also 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 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.

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 they 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.

Both Spinoza and Epictetus encourage humans to look at the world objectively. There is no point in getting upset at the inevitable. Epictetus thinks people should react indifferently and Spinoza thinks people should just suppress their feelings. They both realize that everything
has a place in life (or, for Spinoza, in Nature). Both philosophers also agree that transient pleasure, such as money and fame, should be avoided. However, they differing in their reasoning. Epictetus thinks we should avoid material pleasures because one should not desire what one
has no control over. By desiring the unattainable, we reap depression. Spinoza, on the other hand, thinks we should avoid material pleasures because they feed on themselves. For example, if I have a strong desire for money, I will never be happy no matter how much money I obtain. Spinoza thinks that the only thing that is eternal and worth desiring is the knowledge of God, whereas Epictetus makes no such claim. Basically, both Spinoza and Epictetus see the troubles of life as unavoidable and, as such, these troubles should just be accepted. Spinoza suggests using reason to overcome emotion and Epictetus suggests indifference.

Spinoza does not think God has a divine plan set out for us, but that we should act in accordance with him in order to have free will. Epictetus thinks the roles of life serve a purpose, as if we are actors in God's play, and so we should not fight the roles we are given. Another difference between the two is that Spinoza sees the main virtue in life as self-preservation. He thinks the most important thing is for humans to maintain their existence and remain living. Epictetus, however, has accepted the fact that we are all going to die and does not stress so
much the importance of fighting this. Although Epictetus does not necessarily devalue human life, he does not encourage people as much as Spinoza to try and preserve it.

3. What does Marx mean when he says "morally is essentially
ideology?" Furthermore, what is his criticism of Mill's
utilitarianism (explain what this is)? Next compare Marx to Hobbes. What is Marx's view of human nature and an ideal society and compare this to Hobbes's view of human nature and an ideal society. Who do you agree with and why? (again, it may be helpful to write this in sections so that each philosopher is given his due.)

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). This control that the upper class has on institutions like religion or morality is what Marx calls ideology. Morality is ideology because it is something constructed out of the ideas of the ruling class. It is a product of their thoughts and is used to further their dominance. Morality is placed on the lower classes based on what the ruling class has developed, but people ignore this because they think morality is just something that is known.

Obviously, Marx would disagree with Mill's utilitarianism because utilitarianism suggests that morality aims towards the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This goes against Marx's view that morality is constructed as an ideology from the ideas of society's rulers. Marx's view is that the greatest good only goes towards those who make up the ideology. We do not have an inherent love for others, as Mill's utilitarianism entails, but instead morals are made up to serve mainly those who have the power to make them up.

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. Hobbes thinks people are born evil and selfish, with nobody on their minds but themselves. 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. Hobbes 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.

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 would 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. Yet, the reason for this opinion differs. Marx thinks humans have no natural morality, but instead go by whatever the leaders of society construct. This makes an ideal society because it is based on the ideology of the ruling class. Hobbes, however, thinks humans have natural moral judgements and an ideal society is made when authority is used to control the natural selfish ways of humans.

I agree with Marx. The masses of a given society tend to have their moralities posed upon them by their leaders. For example, President Bush is trying to change the Constitution based on his own moral feelings about homosexuals. If homosexual marriage is outlawed, it is obviously not a utilitarian choice, for the greatest good will not be distributed to a great number of people. Homosexual Americans would be very unhappy, but utilitarianism is supposed to bring happiness. Furthermore, President Bush's decision is not in accordance with Hobbes' views because not all people think homosexuality is "wrong". Thus, President Bush is not organizing a natural morality that is shared by all people, but is instead trying to enforce his own personal morality on the rest of the nation. The dispute of gay marriage also goes with Marx's theory that things are relative to particular times and places. Gay marriage is an issue that is particular to America right now and would have different consequences than if it were to come up in a different time period with a different leader. This is just one example of how a leader can project his or her morals onto followers and create morality based on ideology, which is what Marx suggests.

4. Aquinas is said to be a Christian with an Aristotlian bent. Explain how he is similar to Aristotle and how he is very different. Explain each philosopher and then compare/contrast them (write in three sections).

Aquinas believes all human actions are means towards an end. Everything we do is in hopes of reaching a higher goal and there is ultimately one single goal that is highest (namely, 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 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 an 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. 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 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.

Moving on to Aristotle. Aristotle 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.

Both Aquinas and Aristotle suggest that humans choose actions in life as means to ends. According to Aristotle, this goal is happiness, but according to Aquinas, happiness does not come until we have true knowledge of God. Aristotle is more focused on acting on our knowledge than
simply having knowledge. He uses reason as a vehicle for happiness, which leads to the greatest good. Aquinas does not put so much of an emphasis on reason, but instead concentrates more on God. Aristotle also has the three specific qualities of passion, faculties and the state of
character that he strives to balance in a moral person. Aquinas has no such tripartite because he thinks a balance will come from simply living in accordance with God. One last difference between the two is that although they both see our actions as means to ends, Aristotle wishes to suppress this tendency because then we are using our actions to get some sort of further satisfaction. Instead, Aristotle suggests we choose actions that are satisfying in and of themselves instead of using them as means. Aquinas thinks life is all oriented towards an end, but because his end is God, he encourages people to work towards this end.

5. Augustine and Sartre may seem like radically different
philosophers. Highlight these differences (explain the main ideas of each) but also point out in what way they are similar.

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 one 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.

Jean-Paul Sartre focused on the condition of the absolute freedom that is possessed by every man. 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 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. 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.

Augustine and Sartre have some obvious differences. For one, Augustine's principles revolve entirely around the Old and New Testaments, whereas Sartre is an existentialist. Augustine believes our fates are predestined by God, whereas Sartre believes every human has compete responsibility and control over their actions. Augustine believes we will face either heaven or hell according to our earthly actions, but Sartre makes no acknowledgment of any type of punishment or reward for our actions. Augustine believes that our fortunes and misfortunes are dealt by
God and are part of a divine plan that we are incapable of grasping, whereas Sartre sees each person as responsible for their own fortunes or misfortunes. Augustine believes we make choices according to God's laws and his will, but Sartre believes we make choices according to common societal goal that would work for all people. Augustine believes our earthly lives will effect an afterlife in which we will either eternally suffer or thrive, whereas Sartre believes everything in our lives happen in the present and should be taken as is.

One similarity between the two is that they both see some sort of purpose in each human role. Although Augustine thinks our roles are part of God's plan and Sartre believes our roles are necessary to each particular time and place, they do still agree that humans have specific roles that need to be fulfilled. They also both think humans are striving to reach common goals, but Augustine thinks this goal all works with God's plan, wheras Sartre things the goal is more societal than religious.

6. In what ways is Kant similiar to Kierkegaard? And, more importantly, in what ways is he different? Why does Kierkegaard critique Kant's duty based morality. Make sure you explain each philosopher's view of ethics here (separate sections).

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. 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. 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. 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 (which is illegal) 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. Kant suggests that reason should merely be used to produce good will and that happiness comes from good will.

Kant also thinks 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.

Kierkegaard differs a little in his theories. He believes 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 difference between Kant and Kierkegaard is that Kant thinks it is morally worthy when a person acts out of duty, but Kierkegaard thinks the institutions that define such duties are pernicious. Kierkegaard thinks each person has a personal set of values that should subjectively be followed, whereas Kant thinks we should set aside these personal inclinations in order to perform our duties. Kant and Kierkegaard are similar, however, in their views that reason gets in the way sometimes. However, Kant thinks good will is the result of reason, whereas Kierkegaard thinks we should follow God's path instead getting caught up in reason.

In critiquing Kant's view of duty in morality, Kierkegaard would say that one should act morally because one wants what is best for others, not because one wants to follow the law. Kierkegaard thinks the law can be surpassed if one has good faith. After all, Abraham would not have sacrificed his son if he was following Kant's rule of acting in accordance with the law. Kierkegaard thinks there is more to a decision than simply acting through hypothetical imperatives that fear punishment by law. One should not act because one wants to follow duty. Instead, one should base one's actions on good faith and benevolence.

7. Discuss the philosophy of Mill's utilitarianism and
compare/contrast it with Epicurus' hedonism. While they both speak of pursuing pleasure explain how each one means it.

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.

Mill would suggest that authority is used as a mediator and as judgement between two desires or pains. Mill would assume that people are nice because they have a conscience that tells them that it is good to treat others with respect. Mill thinks happiness comes from morality and a natural want for others' happiness. 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.

Epicurus views the life of an ethical person in terms of the pleasures and pains that 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 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 tight knit 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.

Although both Mill and Epicurus emphasize the importance of pleasure, they differ in their thoughts of who the pleasure should be gained for. Mill thinks the purpose is to have all of society happy, whereas Epicurus sees pleasure more as a personal endeavor. If anything, Epicurus only thinks a small, tight group of friends is worth joining, instead of an entire society, as Mill suggests. Mill tries to get away from the isolated searches for pleasure that Epicurus endorses. Both philosophers see pleasure as a balance of pleasure and pain, but Epicurus thinks that certain pleasures actually arise out of undergoing certain pains. Mill only focuses on avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure, but does not touch upon the importance of pains as vehicles for pleasure. Both philosophers also acknowledge that pleasure can be measured in quality and quantity. However, Epicurus thinks it is more important to choose pleasures that are long lasting and durable, whereas Mill thinks it is more important to choose pleasures that are of good quality, no matter how long they last for.

8. Offer a summary of Hume's ethical theory. What would Kant say to Hume about his ethical theory? Explain.

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 would tell Hume that we do not need to go through the whole process of gathering facts and discerning right from wrong, we just know. There is no need for reason to get in the way so much. Instead, Kant would tell Hume to just use reason to promote good will. Kant would also tell Hume that if a he was in a world of starving people and saw everybody stealing bread, it would not be an excuse to go ahead and steal the bread as well. Instead, it would be morally worthy if I suppressed my desire to steal the bread in order to obey what my conscience tells me. Kant would agree with Hume, however, on the concept that morality does change in different circumstances. Kant would attribute this to a change in consciousness, however, instead of what Hume sees as an external change.

9. Can an atheist be moral? Is a theist notion of ethics superior to an atheist notion of ethics? Explain either way. Support your position with "material from the reading" (see Pain internet article hyperlinked on syllabus in week six, Sartre, Kierkegaard and many other philosophers can fit here).

An atheist can definitely be moral. Although some people base morality on theistic rules, there are plenty of moral concepts that can be followed regardless of a person's theism. For example, Sartre sees moral acts as those that are acceptable for the whole of humanity. An atheist can obviously act morally, then, if he or she chooses for the unit of humanity and not just for his or her self. Existentialism also sees moral virtue in taking responsibility for actions. An atheist who knows that their life is based on their own choices and takes responsibility for those choices would be moral.

If anything, theism has actually contributed to more immorality than atheism. According to Paine, it was destructive to humanity to think that God had spoken to man, for this revelation grounded a person's reasons for violence. In regards to the assassinations and crusades in the name of religion, Paine says, 'whence arose they, but from this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man?" Religion has inflicted its own perils on humanity. Paine also suggests that the concept of loving thine enemy is preposterous. For one, how can somebody voluntarily love someone who they previously hated? Is it that easy to just switch our feelings because moral law says so? Paine does not think so, for he knows that "to say that we can love voluntarily, and without a motive, is morally and physically impossible."

Not only that, but to love thin enemy goes against the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This would mean we would want others to love us if we are their enemy. Does this mean that we can commit a crime and expect to be loved for it? Surely not. Religion poses moral laws upon us that are irrational and impossible, which makes the atheist actually better prepared for moral life. Paine lets the reader know that it is not necessary to follow these religious doctrines in order to be moral. After all, Paine has eliminated from his personal doctrine the concept of loving his enemy, yet he has never laid a hand on any of his adversaries. The presence of absurd moral laws does not guarantee moral actions, for one might possibly find it easier to act morally without them. Paine emphasizes his point in noting that "it is not incumbent on man to reward a bad action with a good one, or to return good for evil; and wherever it is done, it is a voluntary act, and not a duty."

Thus, an atheist could very well be moral. Even if Kierkegaard thinks one can only be moral if they act according to God's plan, who is to say what God's plan is? One could kill one's mother and say God told them to do it. God's plan, then, is not set in stone and should not be the basis of all moral actions. An atheist can act morally according to his or her own set of values, and if it is in accordance with the supposed plan of God, does that make it even more moral? God's plan is not a reliable judge of moral acts, therefore one does not need to believe in God to be moral.

10. Altogether we have studied 15 ethical theorists thus far. Who is your favorite ethical theorist among the 15? Explain in depth why. APPLY their ideas to the modern world and/or your own personal life. Explain in depth.

My favorite ethical theorist so far is Nietzsche. He is my favorite not because I necessarily agree with all of his theories, but because of his brutally honest approach. Nietzsche does not care what anybody else thinks, for he thrives off of nothing but life itself. I like that he embraces the intense sensations of life, even though he was brought up in the European ideal of suppressing these sensations. Nietzsche lived an isolated, lonely and physically painful life, yet his entire philosophy encouraged the embracement of existence. I find this admirable and inspiring. Nietzsche realized the full potential of man and what was holding man back from this potential. Not only that, but he was not in the least bit afraid to let people know that we are somewhat the "B" version of humanity, inferior to the Superman. I also like that Nietzsche wants people to say "yes!" to life. This encompasses a very exciting approach to life that I find appealing.

I could apply Nietzsche's theories to my personal life in many ways. One theory of his I could apply is the acceptance of my physical body. I could free myself from the suppression of a lot of sensations. For example, instead of avoiding dessert, I could just eat whatever I want and be happy with it. I tend to avoid dessert because I feel like it is wrong to eat so many sweets or gain weight, but if I would just give in to my natural inclinations, I would be much more satisfied. Who cares if I gain weight? What's more, who cares if I am unhealthy because of it? I might as well eat what I want, for I shall die regardless of if I have high cholesterol or not.

By satisfying my own natural want for sweets, I would also be playing into the eternal recurrence. If I were to relive my life, I would want to just let go and eat whatever I want. I would be so annoyed with having to play it safe and avoid the food I love. By enjoying myself, I would make the quality of my life much more enjoyable, regardless of its duration. What if I were to get hit by a truck tomorrow and die? I will have been avoiding heart disease for nothing. Not only that, but if Nietzsche could have such a zealous approach to life even with syphilis, I could surely enjoy life regardless of high cholesterol or extra weight.

I could also apply Nietzsche's theory that humanity is constantly evolving. If I see myself as a being that will change throughout my life, I will realize that my values will also change. I will have to undergo a revaluation of values. What is good for me one minute might not be good the next. The more I learn about life, the more I can determine what is good for my standards. My involvement in various philosophy courses helps me come across different theories that help me understand more about myself. I do not have a specific doctrine I follow in life. I do not even know my exact theistic view of the world, but the more theories I read, the more I know what I do and don't agree with. Each time I learn something new about myself, I reevaluate my values. This will prevent me from looking at either myself or humanity as a stagnant object that is final and unchanging.

Enter content here