Comments for good (gŏŏd) (adj.): This blog.

Comment on The Categorical Imperative by kate walston

kate walston — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:24:57 +0000

very very very well put, i also like how you didn’t use the example we did in class, it really shows you know whats going on.

Comment on Mill’s Moral Fiber Argument by arteaga2872

arteaga2872 — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:56:09 +0000

I disagree with this theory, because the fact that overall happiness is the purpose of life. It is the consequence of the action what matter. Therefore, moral fabric it is supposed to achieve the overall happiness. I believed that the act of moral fabric is good and bad depending in the situation you are confronting.

Comment on The Case of Jojo by kellymarie

kellymarie — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:00:33 +0000

“According to Utilitarianism, it would be moral to kill one person as long as it benefited enough people so that the happiness caused by the person’s death is greater than that caused by the person’s sustained life. ”

What I find interesting about this comment is from the convo we had the other night in class about can utalitarianisim satisfy everyone without exception in the world. I obviously disagree with this because it is virtually impossible to satify everyone by your action because different values and morals come into play across the world. I think this plays as a perfect example. You would think the whole orld would be happy by the action of killing JOJO but we have to remember his family. Even though he made them throw up evryday I ams ure they would still be sad if we killed him. Prof that an action can not make all happy.

Comment on The Case of Jojo by Boone B. Gorges

Boone B. Gorges — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:06:43 +0000

I’m glad someone made this argument. I didn’t push it too hard in class, but I think that ultimately this is the most plausible response that the steadfast utilitarian has against the case of JoJo. We simply have to get used to the fact, the utilitarian will say, that in these exceedingly rare and extreme cases our moral intuitions will be misguided.

Comment on Mill’s Moral Fiber Argument by palermo11

palermo11 — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:37:19 +0000

Good examples. I agree with you 100% on Mill not presenting proof to suggest the moral fiber exists. I don’t think that lying is always wrong and that means the moral fabric in maintained in my eyes. Some things might not look so good in the short term but they pay off in the long term and that’s basically why I disagree with Mill and the moral fiber theory.

Comment on Problem of Evil by titias

titias — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 04:54:46 +0000

I think that you can define evil in a way of course. You acknowledge this situation so you know that it exist. Many philosophers gave definition of evil in correlation with God. If your atheist Nietzche is saying that there is not evil only “schlecht” which means bad but not evil.

Comment on National Sovereignty vs. Civil Rights by dunit

dunit — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:18:17 +0000

I agree with you, Rishi, for the most part. However, what determines that the US should invade another country for any reason at all? Certainly if another country poses a threat to the USA, and the UN doesn’t take action, we must do something. But we didn’t fight in WWII to free the Jewish people from demise. We did it in retaliation to an attack on us. The genocide taking place in Darfur and the Holocaust took place in Nazi Europe, are catastrophes, but they do not pose a threat to us. Yes, something should be (have been) done about this, and that is why the UN exists today. But why send the US? Send a coalition army. Send UN troops. Or is it our culture to meddle in other countries’ affairs?
Cultural relativists would argue that if the US were to go to Darfur, we’d be doing the same thing as going to Iraq. Look, I oppose the whole “weapons of mass destruction” theory and I feel that the US had it’s own personal agenda for going into Iraq – I’m down with you on that. But why is it OUR or any other nation’s responsibility to save victims of another nation’s malice? Is it our culture to say “Oh look a fight! Let’s get in on that!”? It can’t be. The US goes to war for the US’s interests. We are not an international savior. If we were, we’d be in Colombia, South America fighting Guerillas. Why? The whole “War on Terror” thingy that we’re supposedly fighting. Cultural relativism doesn’t matter. We would go to Darfur, we would go to Colombia, but we only intervene in the US’s intere$t$, not humanitarian reasons.

Comment on National Sovereignty vs. Civil Rights by Boone B. Gorges

Boone B. Gorges — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:51:57 +0000

Nice sketch of the issue. Your post calls to mind a distinction that must always be kept in mind when we think about issues like CR. There is a difference between (a) maintaining that there exists universal ethical truths and (b) acting to enforce those truths. You can do (a) without doing (b). In this case, as you suggest, it would be possible for one country to disapprove (even very vocally) of another country’s actions, without taking any action to impose these moral beliefs on that culture. There will be cases, like the Holocaust, where we ought to move from (a) to (b), but certainly this will not be in the majority of cases.