the end of an era Saturday, Dec 13 2008 

I, like many others in the class, really enjoyed my experiece. I took a class last year called History of Western Thought, with a teacher I adored, however I must say that although I loved that class, no one has ever put that much humor and fun into philosophy for me, at least. I was entertained, educated and concentrated all at the same time, and although I was sick for a considerable amount of classes, even listening online, was an experience for me. It’s really a shame you aren’t teaching next semester. I would have recommended your class to everyone. Hopefully it will not be the last time i sit in one of your classes!

amanda rose


Aristotle Saturday, Dec 13 2008 

We believe that murder is evil. However, Aristotle looks at the value of a person and not at the actions they make. Aristotle probably would have had mixed feelings about the idea of murder. If an action was commited in selfdefense, the person committing the act, most likely, was just acting out of self preservation, which is a basic natural instinct. Because of this, it is not fair to punish or demeen their values for the action. However, the person who kills out of greed, hatred or jealousy is acting in such a way that the murder actually becomes an outlet for the evil values they have, and so they, themselves, are flawed, making them of little worth in any community.

Social Contract Saturday, Dec 13 2008 

It is not safe to say that all parties in a community are subject to a social contract because, as we see today, there are those who think that the contract should be abandoned and replaced with anarchy. Now, any adult, whether poor or rich, can choose if they want to be a part of such a contract, however such a sacrifice would be giving up all sense of security for something they don’t know or haven’t yet experienced. Every individual has a right to make that choice. But what of a child, who doesn’t understand what kind of sacrifices they are making. The surely cannot be subject to something they don’t yet understand and have not willfully agreed to. When they are older they may decide. But while they are young, it is unfair for them to have to live under the rule of social contract.

Nietzsche Saturday, Dec 13 2008 

I think in a way, there is some merit in what Nietzsche claims, however, some of the qualities he supports, when it comes right down to it, support nothing except for greed. I think that their are some how have the will to go on and make something of themselves, and Nietzsche describes some of there qualities in his idea of the nobles, and for this they may be disliked. However, the idea that all others are slaves, seems barbaric and cruel. You cannot look at the world, as being divided in such a way. Just because i select few may believe that something is evil because a noble claims it to be good, is not taking into acount those who follow the noble, or in some cases, leader. They always have supporters, no matter who you are refering to. All in all, Nietzsche’s ideas are much too extreme and controversal to really be accepted in this day and age. No one really wants to believe that certain people are great because they have the characteristics of greatness and other’s are not because they do not and so they are weak.

Government Thursday, Nov 20 2008 

We should hold our government to the same moral standards that we value in our community. How can we possibly say that they are above moral standards? Children look up to them, we tell our youth to emulate them, yet we say that they are inherintly immoral? None of this seems right. Sure many of the politicans these days do things that we consider to be “immoral”, but should they? Government can work without corruption. Why do people think otherwise? I refuse to believe that our society is so contorted that we cannot have a working government guided by morals. If politicans are honest with the public about the financial, environmental and foriegn situations, there is nothing more anyone can ask. Provided that they continue to do whats best for the community, and not for themselves, there can be no cause for complaint.

amanda rose

A Primitive State Thursday, Nov 20 2008 

Human nature is not quite as bad as Hobbes claims. Think about why anarchy doesn’t work. Because if humans are left to govern themselves, without reguard to others, a civilization will result in a more chaotic one, but if everyone had to fend for themselves, I think we would return to a more primitive society, where family farming and home school would be more of the trend rather than murder. This subsistent lifestyle might actually improve morality because people would once again have to learn the value of working hard in order to survive on the basic elements of life, instead of being able to go to the grocery store and pick things of the shelves. If a family refuses to work hard, then they may result to stealing and killing, but isn’t that what guns were invented for.

amanda rose

KVM Thursday, Nov 20 2008 

Though this is quite an interesting predicament, I still believe that Kant is easier to swallow, for me at least. There is just something so unnatural about saying things like happiness is morally good, and an action is morally good if it makes the most people happy. Well sex makes everyone happy, but does that mean its morally good, even if it produces a child that can’t be taken care of. The sex itself still makes you happy but the reprocussions may not. I don’t know. This seems like more of an opinion question to me and there is something in my gut that churns when someone says that if something makes your happy and you are the majority it is good. I feel more comfortable with the notion that goodwill makes something morally good. If a man donates money to a cause out of goodwill, which he believes will go to starvinig children in China, and instead the money goes to execute Peruvian monkeys how eat too many banana’s. The initial action was morally good, eventhough the result was wrong. Maybe I’m too religious for this kind of arguement.

amanda rose

How does Kant leverage this idea of rationality to show that certain actions are moral or immoral? Monday, Nov 10 2008 

Mill mainly focusses on the ideas of human beings being rational creatures, who have rational qualities. He basically says that rationality is the answer to whether or not someone’s maxim can become human law. Take the example we had in class of the man commiting suicide. The reason this maxim cannot be universal is because it is an “irrational desire”, according to Prof. Boone, because there is not possibility of life after death and therefore one’s happiness is not increased by removinng the pain they may be encountering. Instead they are removing all possibility of future happiness and so this is a contradiction. Removing one’s pain is actually putting an end to happiness later on in life. According to Kant, if a maxim cannot be applicable uuniversally than that action is immoral and so, in this circumstance he links rationality to immorality.

amanda rose

Cheating and the Catergorical Imperative Monday, Nov 3 2008 

The categorical imperative is the universal law as it applies to everyone and rests on a moral foundation. The reason it is wrong to cheat, in accordance to the categorical imperative is because when one looks at an in particular act, such as cheating, it cannot be morally acceptable for an entire community. If everyone did not want to pay taxes and so they cheated the government by not paying them, then the police department, fire department, public school teachers, government officials, union workers and minimum wage workers would not be getting payed, not surfaces can be done for the public, no water or electricity will be provided and all will be in chaos. It is not applicable to an entire community, not to mention that there is no goodwill behind the act of cheating. Cheating cannot result in an intentionally negative end, according to Kant. Negative things can result from cheating that intentionally harm another. So in conclusion, the act of not cheating is a universal law.

amanda rose

Intrinsic Goodness Tuesday, Oct 28 2008 

Is happiness intrinsically good? If the question were, can happiness be an intrinsic good, I would answer yes, because happiness can have good means to it, conversely the means to it can be unethical. So to make a generalization, I would say that happiness is intrinsically neutral. You cannot say that it is good, nor can you say that it is bad, because different circumstances have different results. Say that a man finds his wife in bed with another man. He considers leaving her, but knows that he loves her and could never leave the only woman he loves. He claims to forget about it, to have moved on, but inside he is being eaten away with furry, aspiring to punish the man that defiled his marriage. Finally, not able to take the stress this issue forces on his marriage and happiness, he goes to the man’s house, breaks in and kills him in cold blood. This takes a lot of stress of the man’s mind, happy that this man will never interfere with his marriage again, however, is this good? Mill would say no because more people would be unhappy than happy, however, we aren’t talking about happiness for everyone, we’re talking about happiness, in its relation to one person. Is this happiness intrinsically good? No, it’s not because this man is happy for an immoral purpose. His happiness is not intrinsically good and, although others happiness may be for a good purpose, even one case proves that happiness cannot be intrinsically good because it is not absolutely, without exceptions a good.  

Amanda Rose

Next Page »