Existentialism is a Humanism

Explain Sartre’s belief that we are responsible for the creation of morality and for prescribing morality for everyone else. Give your own example that demonstrates this view in addition to Sartre’s own example of marriage.

Sartre’s belief that we are responsible for the creation of morality and for prescribing morality for everyone else basically means that since our existence comes before our essence, after man has been created, he determines what exactly the definition of morality is and kind of sets the standards for other men.What I believe he means by prescribing morality for everyone is, that there was always someone who lived before us and they set the standards for us, and there are going to be people who live after us and we have to responsibility of setting the morality standards for them. What Sartre says is that we alone decide for ourselves and make decisions on our own and we are abandoned in a sense to choose our own paths. We know what others have done but we have to make our own choices. Therefore, we have to invent our own set of rules that we live by because we cannot live by anyone elses rules.

“You are free, therefore choose, that is say, invent. No rule of general morality can show you what you ought to do: no signs are vouchsafed in this world.”

What Sartre means by this quote is, no one is going to give us a sign or tell us exactly what we have to do in order to succeed. In order to learn we must take our lives in to our own control and learn from our mistakes. When something does not work out then we must find another way to achieve the goal. We are in control of our own destinies. We can observe and learn about what others have done but when it comes down to it we are alone and we must make the decisions that change our lives and make us who we are today.

Momento (Part 1)

Leonard relies upon scribbled notes to connect him to his past. He says that eyewitness testimony is worthless: “Memory can change the shape of a room…” Is he right? Do you think our memories are more reliable than his notes?

I agree with Leonard when he makes the statement about eyewitness testimony. I believe that our memory is reliable but not all the time. There is more to our minds than just our memory. We may not remember every single thing that happens to us and every single detail of every day. When we write things down its so that we do not forget that certain thing. We do this because our memories are not perfect. It would be great if we could all remember every little thing but in reality we cannot. The problem with eyewitness testimony is that sometimes the witness listens to other testimonies or the way that the question they were asked is worded and they falsely “remember” a certain event. I am not saying that we do not ever remember anything nor am I stating that we are all crazy. I am just saying that our memories are not always 100% accurate. Sometimes our minds remember certain events in the way that we want to remember them. Not how it actually happened. The human mind is very complex. That is one of the main reasons why my major is forensic psychology. The fact that our minds can do things like remember things that did not really happen, think without us knowing, and hold all of these memories is just incredible to me. I believe that notes sometimes are more reliable than our memories because when you write something down you cannot change it, unless written in pencil or something that can be erased, its pretty much set in stone. You cannot change something in a textbook but you can forget certain details of a memory that change the whole story. If our memories were written out in books right after it happened then it would be more concrete and easier to refer to and we would not have to doubt them so much. But memories change, an individual’s mind can remember something that never really happened. But once something is written down right after it happened, then its less likely to be false, compared to just a thought or a memory.

Kant’s Moral Philosophy

The Golden Rule says that you should unto others as you would have them do unto you. What is the difference between the Golden Rule and categorical imperative? Explain.

The difference between the Golden Rule and categorical imperative is that in the Golden Rule, one is treating others in the way that they themselves would want to be treated. It is not the same for categorical imperative, categorical imperative is based on doing what is right and rational for everyone. Basically categorical imperative is way more complex than the Golden Rule. With CI, you are not concerned with so much what others are doing to you, you are more concerned what is going to be the best thing to do and is the most beneficial for others.

“This formulation states that we should never act in such a way that we treat Humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself. This is often seen as introducing the idea of “respect” for persons, for whatever it is that is essential to our Humanity” (Johnson,2010)

Basically what Kant is trying to say is, do not use people to your own advantage. Each human has value and we should not take them for granted. Kant believes that we should not treat others as just an end to our means. This means that instead of just taking others for granted, we should respect other human beings not for what they do, but what they are. Other individuals play a big part in our lives and they shape the person that we become. There was a philosopher in class that we discussed that said that our lives are stories and the people around us play certain roles in our life story and influence our life decisions. At the same time we are playing a specific role in other people’s life story. We have to be aware that everyone in our lives and the people we interact with are important in our life story. So to tie it with Kant’s idea, we have to respect the people that we interact with because they are just important as we are.

The example that Professor Rodriguez gave us in class was when you are in the coffee shop and there is a long line and you start to get frustrated and annoyed at the worker because he or she is not going fast enough or she is talking to someone for a long period of time. When in that situation you have to remember that the worker is just a human just like you are. They might be having a rough day and maybe they needed to talk to that person in order to relieve some stress. Maybe they are going through a rough time and they aren’t able to fully concentrate on work that day. It would be different if instead of a person working, it was a machine making the coffee and serving it to customers. It would be acceptable to get annoyed because the machine that has only one purpose, to make coffee, is not working properly. The difference is the worker does not just have one function, they have other responsibilities just like you and I. What Kant means by respecting humanity is just to remember that humans are more than just some object that is only here to help you reach your goals.

Utilitarinanism

What is Mills principal of  utility? What does he mean by “utility”? How does Mill explain the fact that some people choose lower pleasures over higher pleasures? Do you agree with his assessment?

From reading just the first paragraph, one can infer than Mills believes that the word “utility” is misunderstood. He states that many people do not understand the true meaning of the word and they make it seem like it is worse than it really is. Many people think of the word as a bad or dirty word and give it a bad reputation. To Mills, I believe, that he thinks of the word as a positive thing. From what I got from the reading just the introduction, is that utilitarianism is about pleasure and doing the things that make you happy. Many people look at it as being selfish or degrading. And Mills purpose in writing this piece is to show people the true meaning of utilitarianism and that it really is not a bad thing at all. Basically what the whole meaning of utilitarianism, in the moral sense, is to do the things that are going to benefit the most amount of people. The example that we learned in class was, if you had to kill one person in order to save 20 other people, according to Mill, that would be morally correct. Something that would not be morally correct would be just murdering one person just because you felt like it. As long as your actions have a positive effect on more than one person, Mill sees it as acceptable.

Mill explains the fact that some people choose lower pleasures over higher pleasures because ones happiness and ones pleasure is not the same as someone else. To Mill, higher pleasures are things that are the things like education and things that open the mind. Lower pleasures are things that do not really do much for you and they just are superficial.

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” – John Stuart Mill (1863)

What Mill means by this quote, is that it is better to be educated and be unhappy with life, rather than being unaware of the truths and uneducated yet happy with life. Mill does not agree with the phrase “ignorance is bliss”. Although that may be true, Mill believes that when one is ignorant and happy with it, that this form of happiness is not as meaningful. He believes that as long as you are educated about the world around you, it is okay if you are not happy with the reality, as long as you understand the truth.

The Ethics of Belief

Do you see and fallacies in Clifford’s reasoning? Reconstruct one of his arguments in standard form. Then evaluate that argument or soundness and validity. What practical significance does Clifford’s thesis have?

I saw many fallacies in Clifford’s reasoning. Many of his examples, in my opinion, were not very clear and I did not understand them. And to be completely honest I’m not quite sure as to what the point was that we was trying to make. I guess what he was trying to get at was that one should not believe everything one hears when there is lack of reasoning behind it. One of the fallacies that stood out to me was the example that he gave about the ship owner. The example was that the ship owner had faith in his boat to make it across the sea and complete its journey, despite the fact that the ship was very old. The ship owner had no reason to believe other wise because it had been fine for all this time. The ship ended up sinking and killing men. The ship owner was guilty and held responsible for the deaths. This is the argument put into standard form:

The ship owner sent men on the faulty ship despite the fact of its old age.

the ship sank and men were killed.

The ship owner is held responsible and guily for the deaths of the men.

 

Based on this argument, I believe that it is a valid argument because all of the points are related and they lead into each other. Clifford is basically saying that although the ship owner had no reason to believe that the ship would sink because it had made it through all these years, he still is held responsible for the deaths. Clifford’s thesis has some significance in the way that he is trying to explain that we should always try to question things and prove them ourselves instead of just guessing and believing what we hear. To tie it back in with the example of the ship owner, he should have made sure that he improved the boat or purchased a new one because it was so old instead of just believing that it would be okay. He should have double checked and made sure the boat was in a good enough condition to make the long journey. What Clifford’s message is that we should not just believe everything we hear, we should have some sort of strong evidence in order to back the arguments up. I believe that Clifford would agree with the well known phrase of “seeing is believing” because in order to really tell if something is true, you have to see it for yourself.

Who’s To Judge?

What is the best objection that Pojman raises against moral relativism? Is it a good objection? Can one support both cultural diversity and moral absolutism?

The best objection that Pojman raises against moral relativism is that if each culture has their own moral and ethics and each person does what they feel is right then certain things in this world are moral just because someone believes it to be so. The example that Pojman gives is that Adolf Hitler can be just as moral as Mother Teresa just because both of them did what they thought was morally correct. I think that it is a good objection and i makes sense. I agree that cultural relativism is not true because there is no way to say that both Mother Teresa and Hitler can be on the same level of morality. I also disagree with the fact that there is are universal morals because here in America, we believe that killing or murdering another human being is immoral. But in other countries it may be a ritual or some sort of custom to kill someone else. I am kind of on the fence as to where I stand between moral relativism and moral absolutism. I believe that both make sense and they both make good arguments but I am somewhere in between those two categories.

I do believe that one can support cultural diversity and moral absolutism. One can support the idea that there are universal morals and that everyone has a general idea of what is right and wrong and at the same time agree with the fact that there are different cultures out there that do not necessarily agree with the things that they do but they acknowledge the fact that one can do what makes them happy. I agree with the example that Pojman gave about what Ernest Hemingway said about how morals is all about doing what makes you feel happy and if you feel good after doing something then its moral, if you feel bad or guilty after doing something it is immoral. But that also does tie in to the quote that Pojman used by John Donne “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of a continent”. What this quote means is that we are all part of a society and a culture. We are not alone in our actions. We can not judge one on their actions without recognizing that we are all apart of a bigger group and our culture and society shape our decisions and actions. Therefore, in my opinion, ones morals reflect the morals of ones society and culture.

Ruth Benedict, “A Defense of Ethical Relativism”

Benedict argues against moral progress. What is her argument? Do you agree with her? Why or why not?

In Ruth Benedict’s essay “A Defense of Ethical Relativism”, Benedict argues against the idea of moral progress. Her argument consists of information that she had obtained while doing anthropological research in Melanesia. Benedict believes that morality depends on one’s culture and environment. She also believes that morality is dependent on the history of the cultures. Through out this essay, what I believe she is trying to say is that she is against moral progress because no matter how hard we try, we cannot escape the type of people we become. The environment in where people were raised and the things that they learn have a huge effect on their morals. For instance, an example that Benedict used was if one grew up in a society that institutionalised homosexuality, that person will be homosexual. In other words, Benedict believes that individuals are reflections of their society and it is inevitable to become whatever the society believes is correct. Every society is different in their beliefs and their “norms”.

I agree and disagree with Benedict’s idea. I agree with the idea of people being a reflection of their society and that the type of person that you are is strongly dependent on what kind of environment you grow up in and the kind of culture that you are born into. I disagree with being completely against moral progress and saying that is impossible. I do not believe that it is impossible or there to be moral progress. I believe that ones morals can change over time and individuals may learn new morals with the different experiences they have in life. In my opinion Benedict had a lot of good ideas and she was able to back up her argument with a lot of information but I thought that they way this essay was written was confusing and it was not very easy for me to understand where she was coming from. Honestly, I had to read this essay about 3 times to fully understand what she was talking about. But other than that, she did make a lot of good points and did summarize her points very well in the concluding paragraph.

Fallacy Database

Begging the Question:”Everyone has the right to free speech and you can say what you want, but you can’t publish that in the school newspaper because it makes the principal look bad.”
Ad Hominem: “Her opinion on texting and the use of cellphones means nothing. She’s 56 years old and doesn’t understand teenagers and technology. She probably doesn’t know how to use a cellphone.”
Equivication: “The sign said “fine for speeding in school zone” , so since it was fine, I sped through the school zone.”
Slippery Slope: “Girlfriend: why haven’t you been answering my phone calls?!
Boyfriend: My phone was dead and I was busy.
Girlfriend: Busy? what were you doing?
    Boyfriend: I was just hanging out with my friends Ashley and Jamie.
Girlfriend: Friends that are girls? Those girls are known for their reputation of stealing boyfriends.
If you hang out with them then they’ll flirt with you. If they flirt with you then they’ll try to
do more and then you’ll end up cheating on me!”

Straw Man:“People who are against abortions do not respect women. They believe that they have one purpose in life, to make children and take care of them. This strips women of their equal rights to men.”
Tu Quoque: “Who are you to say that I cannot use my phone in class? You are the teacher and you use your cellphone during class more than the students! Since you don’t abide by the classroom rules neither will I.”
Non Sequitur: Child: mom can I have a cookie before dinner?” Mom: No. Child: Why not? Mom: Because I said so.
False Dichotomy: ” I want to go get something to eat. I heard that there are a few good places around here. John told me that the pizza place is really good and the diner is also the best place in town. The diner is further away. I think Ill just go to the pizza place.”
Argument From Ignorance: “Since the president has not removed the troops from over seas he must be a bad leader and not know what he’s doing.”
Red Herring: “who will be elected for class president, Danny  or Domenic? Both students are smart and determined and have great ideas to improve the school. But which one is better at sports and has a nicer car? Before you vote make sure you know who you really want as your class leader.”
Bandwagon: *advertisement* “The latest and coolest sneakers on the market! Don’t be the only kid in school without them! Be cool, be hip and get the new sketchers with wheels!”
Far Fetched Hypothesis: “I got such a bad grade on my last English test….Its probably because shes bitter because shes so old and shes hates all of her students so shes taking it out on me and my test grade.”

Philosophical Argumentation

“Informal Logic”

Many people might not know that there are many different types of arguments.  These types include, valid and invalid arguments, sound arguments and persuasive arguments. To determine whether an argument is valid or invalid, one must look at the form of the argument being presented. The premises, or the propositions do NOT necessarily need to be true in order to make a valid argument.

• A Valid Argument With A False Conclusion

All students who go to John Jay College are Police Officers

Chris goes to John Jay.

So Chris is a Police Officer.

This is an example of a valid argument with a false conclusion. Neither the premises or the conclusion are correct. Not all John Jay students are police officers and just because Chris attends John Jay does not make him a police officer. What makes this a valid argument is the form and how it is presented.

• A Valid Argument With A True Conclusion

People who wear glasses have poor vision.

My mother wears glasses.

So my mother has poor vision.

This is an example of a valid argument with a true conclusion. People who wear glasses do indeed have weak or poor vision. The fact that my mother wears glasses does imply that she needs her glasses to see because her vision is not very good. This argument is also a valid argument but its conclusion proves to be true.

A sound argument is one that is valid and all of its premises are true.

• A Sound Argument

All women are human beings.

Sophia is a woman.

So Sophia is a human.

This argument is an example of a sound argument because all of the premises are true and the conclusion is true as well.

Persuasive arguments are arguments that are based on ones opinion that overall goal is trying change another persons mind about a certain topic.

•  Persuasive Argument
  

Individuals who are 18 years of  age are allowed to join the armed forces, fight in wars and legally vote. If the government believes that people of this age are responsible enough to risk their lives for our country, then people of that age should be responsible enough to drink alcohol legally. therefore, the legal age to consume alcohol should be lowered to 18.