Thursday, December 16, 2010

Oh you philosophers, you

So as I'm up, yet again, before a final exam, I am re-evaluating what it has taught me. You may say I am ignorant, and, well, I agree. Before this course, I didn't know what a utilitarian was... Kind of sounded like a big form of elephant to me, honestly... And I found out it pretty much was! utilitarians are massive elephants on peoples shoulders, demanding for the utility that produces the greatest number of goods. That means, if you promised to pay your lawn mower a set amount, but you can do something better with that money, you needn't pay him.. What's more, if you find yourself walking in the forest and you happen to come across some European colonizers and they ask you to choose between killing one indian man versus twenty, you choose the one Indian man. Why? Because it's the greatest number... One of them is bound to become a doctor or something!

The next one I learned about was Kant. Hm, the only other word I know that sounds like that is an offensive term used to call people... Or the word "can't"... But I digress. I guess this guy is a tiny bit better because he's not calculating what would give you the greatest amount of pleasure all the time... But he's also the most difficult to understand. His ideology pretty much summed up in a few words is that you can't use people as an ends to your means, but always the means to your ends. Confused? I know I am. He wants people to employ his categorical imperatives, which is the test to find out if the action you are doing is the right one, and an action is only right if you will it to be a part of law. So you're going to tell your best friend you'll pay back her money, and not pay back at all? How would you feel if that was allowed into law? That's right, you wouldn't. Banks would no longer lend us monies, which would suck for people wanting houses. More than that, you're not allowed to lie. Hey, a murderer shows up at your door and asks for Smith? Well, you damn right give him where Smith is.

Oh, and Aristotle. Aristotle was a tricky fellow to read because of his general premise. People and thngs have functions. Those functions are a part of human life, so since they are necessary, you do the things that would most satisfy their functions. If you keep repeatedly doing those acts, you become virtuous... Granted they aren't killing people. What makes an action right is if you've used your ability to logically reason and you've expressed your biological capacity by exercising those rights. You want virtue? Keep being brave and always be brave. Be consistent with your actions! No matter how difficult it is. You'll receive eudaimonia, which is ultimate happiness in th long run. Ps. Women in aristole's world should stay in the kitchen.

Then comes the contract theories. There's two different people who can be associated to this theory: Thomas Hobbes and James Rawls. Personally, think Hobbes is the more logical of the two. Hobbes' main premise is that what is right is satisfying a persons self preservation. Yes, people aree paranoid beings, so to help people less paranoid, let's set up a state to help govern them. These rules are necessary for a persons self preservation, so they don't just go walking down the street and killing everyone they meet because they are mot sure of the other persons character. These laws of nature help to preserve human life. Rawls on the other hand, says that people mustdoright actions that benefit other people... So he set up what would really be the basis for communism. Everyone has equal rights, and everyone must be the same economically. He wants tor redistribute the money people have to make sure that everyone is equal and thief is justice for all. Again, out of those two, I think the most appealing one is Hobbes... I don't want my money being redistributed and my talents not being recognized... I'm just egoistic like that.

Nietzsche... Well let's compare him to a football team. He would tellt he football team that they're only good if they're better than everyone else. That is whats considered as a master morality. You are better than everyone, and people are your slaves, you can use them to your advantage. Then comes in slave morality which is all of the other morality views vie described, and including Christianity, this slave morality contests between good and evil, unlike master morality's comparison between good and bad. For th

1 comment: