The Philosopher Café Meeting

October 18, 2005

 

I.                  Book/Media Discussion – 6:00 – 6:10

o       Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle

A classic text on ethics.

o       Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill

o       Basic Writings of Kant, Edited by Allen W. Wood, The Modern Library,New York, 2001

The key essay on ethics in this is “Critique of Pure Reason”

 

Discussion Question:    Why be moral?        6:10 – 6:30 PM

 

• Who is to say what is moral?
• Maturity / Aptitude
• Are they Morals/Laws or legalized plunder?
• Moral behavior benefits you. For example, stop at a stop sign so you and others to not get injured. But this can be overridden if an emergency like a sick child necessitates it.
• What about Original Sin?
• In the end, moral come down to a gut feeling of "It's the right thing to do."

 

Are there any moral absolutes or is all contextual, i.e. relative?

 

• According to the media ethical standards keep changing.
• It is difficult to find moral absolutes, i.e. something that is always wrong for everyone.  Each culture thinks differently and different contexts need to be considered differently. Are there any moral absolutes?
• We get our ethics from what we were taught and this leads to our sense of conscience. But why do we feel something is right or wrong? It seems to come down to culture, conditioning, experience, etc.
• Ethics provides a social contract, i.e. rules for people in society to function.  Society cannot function without a set of rules of conduct.  However, these can override the individual wants.
• People have inalienable rights, i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  You also have property rights which must be protected.
• Take society away and we deteriorate back to savage behavior, e.g. Lord of the Flies.
• Is it Nature or Nurture -> Are we born with a conscience or are we just grasping and grasping to find better ways to survive? Perhaps we start as a blank slate.
• One person said the family started the moral training but that they challenged it often and at an early age. They were not locked into it so the individual will must play a role, i.e. we have a choice.
• In the end, though there are many influences and inputs, you must decide for yourself. It is a choice.  You must not only live with your decision but you must die with your decision.

 

 

 

II.               Introduction – Theme is Ethics  6:30 – 7:00 PM

 

Definition: At the heart of philosophy is the question of what is the correct behavior. How do we know it is correct? Can morality be taught? Since philosophy is concerned with individual life and society as a whole, it must come to terms with this complex issue.

Word for the day: Deontological ethics = a person has a duty to do what is right, i.e. abide by some set of moral standards, regardless of circumstances. Opposite of consequentialism which is to do what maximizes the good, i.e. based on the expect outcome.

 

Plato and Virtue

 

Aristotle

 

• The highest good and the goal to all human activity is happiness which means the continuous contemplation of eternal and universal truth.
• You attain happiness by leading a life of virtue.  To do this you must practice performing virtuous acts so it becomes a habit and this requires knowledge and self discipline.
• The golden mean

 

Immanuel Kant - The Categorical Imperative and Mom’s Wisdom

 

• Act in such a way that the maxim of your action would be instantiated as a universal law; everywhere for all time.

 

John Stuart Mill - Practical Morality

 

• Act to promote the greatest happiness.

 

Moral Relativism vs. Moral Realism

 

• Moral Relativism = there are no set moral standards. It’s whatever you learned.
• Moral Realism = there is an objective moral reality. It’s either right or wrong.

 

Discussion Question:    Does the end justify the means?  7:00 – 7:45

• Two interpretations of this were identified.  One, you could be asking that given a moral dilemma, picking the option that will harm the least, is the best way to go, i.e. the end being justified.  The other way of interpreting it is whether of not it is OK to intentionally carry out illicit actions to acquire what you believe to be a good end such as Robin Hood or Adolph Hitler; the contrast here is intentional. In other words, if the end is good, the means can be bad.
• Seemed to come up with a mixed response. Some moral constants do seem to exist but not all morals qualify.  Sometimes it really is contextual.
• For example, to save my injured child, I rush through a stop sign with him in the back seat.  I feel justified but acknowledge that I am risking the safety of myself and others.
• An example of the ends justify the means was given as follows.  An Indian man likes the British and benefits greatly under their rule in India. His grandfather hates the British because he sees them as conquerors occupying India. He does not care about the ends, working with the British is wrong and so he will not.
• Dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima was and example of the dilemma interpretation of the ends justify the means. Truman could either execute an invasion in which hundreds of thousands of civilian and military people would have died or he could drop the bomb and end the war with far less death.