Chiara’s Awesome Blog

December 9, 2008

Homework for 12/9

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Chiara @ 8:29 pm

Aristotle looks individually at people and their actions.  He does not rely so much on the action itself (as the way government is judged) but by the person.  He chooses to judge the person.  When it comes to murder Aristotle would look at the person.  He would say that the crime has no value, murder has no value, it only hurts the persons reputation or character.  The murderer is immoral wether they or good or bad.  This reminds me of all the cop shows on television where a cop is allowed ot fire a gun for self-defense purposes.  Well in gangs, the person who does the shooitign beelives it is in self-defense.  Now they can take another road out but choose not too.  They are still defending themselves and their group even if it is not for the same ethical reasons as a police officer would shoot a criminal threatenign his life.


Homework for 11/25

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Chiara @ 8:22 pm

A social contract involves everyone included in the contract to understand and accept the contract and what it is saying.  They must agree with it and be able to follow or abide to it.  they must know the consequences that will come out of this social contract and how it will effect them now, and in the future.  they must have the matuirty to ready themselves for any disagreements or hardships that might come their way. Children and mentally disabled people do not have the same level of understanding as higher educated or older people do.  There is reason older people are thoguth to be seen as wise.  They have had expereience and can use their former experiences and knowledge to ready themselves for any complication that may arise within the contract and they have a better understanding of what this contract means as a whole.

Homeowork for 11/20

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Chiara @ 8:16 pm

Morality and government.  I’m sure a lot of jokes could be made about this.  Hobbes brings up this excellent point and gives us these thoughts to ponder about.

A government is made up of inividuals and each individual has their own morals.  Their morals are usually based only off of actions and not seen in the eyes of their motives or will.

A group of people or organization that make an immoral decision is basing themselves all off of one individual which I think is wrong from the start.  Of course it s very difficult for each individual in a group to have the same perspective but in the final decision it is usually because one person or a group wihtin the group have swayed the no-conforming or agreeing people to agree with them.  To judge a group based on morals the individuals would have to be looked at but its the action as a whole that the group decides to do that will ultimately be judge as moral or immoral.

Governments are supposed to try to meet each individuals need in a society.  However, this is not possible seeing as there are SO many different individuals in one society alone.  Governments are not seen as moral or immoral governments but rather how successful and peaceful their countries and/or societies are.  Individuality cannot be seen in a government, the government is supposed to be seen as a whole, as one and is supposed to preside over a society or group of people and view whats best for them as a whole.

Homework for 11/18

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Chiara @ 7:00 pm

According to Hobbes each person in the world is either good or evil.  This is his “state of nature.”  he thought that without law or rule anarchy woudl rule over all and we would be in constant battle individually with each other.  Competition would be the leading factor in individual war.  The people of the world woudl focus on outdoign one another instead of helping each other in any way they could.  Helpfullness also includes the idea of rules being put upon a group of people.  Those people must then accept those rules and follow them to create a better, less anarchial society.

November 12, 2008

11/13 Homework

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Chiara @ 9:41 pm

Between Mill and Kant, I have more of a problem having to do with Kant.  He says a lie is a lie in black and white.  White lies do not exist and is held on the same level as a larger lie.  Lieing about yoru grandmother not being in the house when the murderer is downstairs askign for her and lieing about cheating is held on the same plateau and level.  I feel Mill has a non-explained area though.  Overall happiness is the most difficult to obtain, while living an ones life with no lies is not nearly as hard.  Some people in this world defend white lies while other live their life through Kants point of view.  I personally think Kants theory is more difficult for me to accept but I woudl definetily tell Mill to clean up his act and clarify some points in his utilitarian theory.

November 11, 2008

11/11 Homework

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Chiara @ 3:35 pm

According to Kant self-interest plays a big role on deciding whether an action is rational or irrational.  For example:  he says if you work and practice on a talent it is self-interest because it will help you later on in your future.   To him there is a connectino between being a rational person and improving ones self.  For that reason rationality does include self-interest when we are using self interest to better ourselves and the world too.


Filed under: Uncategorized — by Chiara @ 3:15 pm

Kant depicts the image of people cheating on a test.  He states that this is immoral because if one person did it, everyone would do it and then the teacher would knwo about it, and not count the test.  If after other tests, the teacher saw the same happenigns she woudl no longer give tests.    The maxim would not be able to be followed because cheating would be impossible for everyone to do now since there are no more tests.

Categorical Imperative means that the morality of an action depends on the extent that an action could becoem universal.  In other words, how this action coudl be applied to everyone when no one is excluded.

November 10, 2008

10/30 Homework

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Chiara @ 8:42 pm

Does happiness have any intrinsic value?

I do not beleive that happiness has any intrinsic value.  Not by itself however.  It might have intrinsic value for a certian person.   Happiness can lead to something however that has intrinsic value.  For example:  Coca Cola is world known, and has “good will”  (all corporations names have good will) but the name has no intrinsic value BUT it leads to products that with that name HAVE intrinsic value.  The name recognition leads to intrinsic value.

Hapiness however does not have intrinsic value.  It is based off of the feeling of another thing.   Happiness needs an underlying cause and cannot be given an intrinsic value, such as “oh my happiness today is worth this much money.”


Filed under: Uncategorized — by Chiara @ 8:05 pm

The question I would choose to ask Mill is how as a parent you could enstill utilitarianism in your chidren, or at least try to?  I would liek to know how one goes about raising their kids in a utilitarian way.  Most parents try to be good role models for their children or depict someone as a good role model.  Who did he think was the most utilitarian person in his life or in the past?  I’d be interested ot know this because I feel like this person would be unable to stand up for themselves these days and be walked all over in many cases.  how could someone go about being a perfect utilitarian in the modern world?

10/16 Homework

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Chiara @ 7:08 pm

Today the question is asking if happiness is attainable.  We said that morality can’t be all about increasing overall happiness because happiness is unattainable.

   I believe that when people set goals and then reach them they are happy.  I do not think that overall happiness is attainable but that goals give people a bigger and greater thign to strive for which does bring around some happiness.  Once we get a taste of happiness though we always want more.  Humans do not want to be unhappy, they wish only for happiness in their life yet they can get greedy and not be happy anymore wiht the happiness they once had.  If someone has a great girlfriend, someoen they thoguth was perfect one day, they might want more the next day because the former amount of happiness does not fill them up any longer.  It is a goal to achieve as muchhappiness as one can attain but the question is what is the limit to happiness and when is happiness fully attained?  I do not beleive that question is realistic or can be answered.  We will always want more happiness in any form we can get.  For some people happiness is materialistic, money, friends, love, sex, food etc.  Whatever makes someoen happy they will always want to most of it they can get. 

Next Page »

Blog at