Combination Of Them

It's a mid-term paper I had to write for Ethics.  They deal with questions about philosopher's ideas and such. 

 


Ethics and Morality

Most people go throughout their lives in a mindless fog, accepting the rules they have lived by for years. They do not ask “why” and they do not understand the significance of their actions. They simply do what is expected of them and what they think is “right.” They follow a societal code of rules. They are the ones that follow the norm in the single file line that is the order of this country. They may be moral, but they are not ethical. The signifying difference between a moral and ethical person is the ability to question society. An ethical person can tell another person the reasons behind her or his actions without relating the reasons back to simple redundancy of “because she or he said so” or “that is how it has always been.”

One who has ethical knowledge holds the capacity to be a moral agent, but this is not true for those who are mere robots of a moral society. If one does not know the reasons behind the subject, then one cannot possibly be an “agent” of it. So, if a person cannot answer the questions posed to her or him by an ever curious three-year-old, then she or he lacks the knowledge needed to be an “agent” of her or his topic of discussion. Similarly, if someone wishes to justify her or his actions through morals, then she or he must be able to define why her or his morals are valid.


The Euthyphro

People have differing opinions. It is an obvious fact of human nature, which people have an automatic comprehension of. It provides this species with progression, evolution, and variety. It only makes sense that the idea of “gods” would be similar. While they are “superior” to humans, they still have the defining qualities that humans have. They disagree from time to time. They argue, they fight, they conflict with each other. Thus the morals become conflicted. Because of this, to say that gods’ opinions automatically formulates whether or not an action is moral or immoral, is to be an ignorant disciple of an idea that may not even exist outside of the human mind.

Atheists do not care if a “god” or multiple “gods” think something is moral or immoral. They do not trouble themselves with the whims or justifications of some mythical creature that has been created in order to give people another tight leash to choke on. Since they are not bound by such a hallucination or delusion, they would then be free to be immoral. Of course, this is not the case and atheists can be just as moral as religious people. So, to say that a deed is moral or immoral because a “god” or multiple “gods” deem it so, is to say that an imaginary hippo who reigns over another’s mind is capable of having the same power.


The Unjust Man

“The Ring of Gyges” unleashes a revealing story of the true nature of human beings. From the wreckage of an earthquake, a bronze horse is revealed and a man by the name of Gyges discovers a ring within the statue. Eventually he realizes that the ring has the ability to turn its wearer invisible. He uses the power to his greatest benefit. After successfully seducing his queen, he uses the power of the ring to aid him in manipulating her to kill her husband and become king himself. The author, Glaucon, magnificently captures the selfish desire within all humans and shows them for what they are underneath all their rules and fake comradeship.

As people exist throughout their lives, they fail to see the truth of human kind. Perhaps it is because they simply do not want to see it. Glaucon not only captures it beautifully in his story, but he shoves reality upon any bold enough to take a glimpse at the truth of this world. He understands that one can take any “moral” woman or man on the street and turn her or him into a servant of her or his own Id. He makes it as obvious as anyone can and if he is lucky, even the blinded mule will understand.

As Glaucun conveys, people are “moral” only as long as someone is watching them. They do not wish to be so, but they have little choice because of societal demands and consequences. Given the chance to live a life without watching over the shoulder though, given the chance to live a life of certain safety no matter the action, then everyone would cease to live by their superego and would exist entirely upon their ego.

While not everyone does live in such a way, there are some that do. Serial killers live a life of acceptance. They acknowledge and accept their nature. More impressively, they embrace it. There is no worry of trivial things such as morals and societal opinion. There is only the compelling desire to fulfill their wishes and live their lives how they want to. There is only a satisfying knowledge that they have cunningly deceived their neighbors into their trap. They are some of the happiest people because they live their lives with no bounds other than what must be done to escape detection.

Then you have the man who lives by all the rules. He slaves away to do what is always “right” and never asks for anything in return. Never has he done one thing “wrong,” but the public thinks otherwise. The shackles around his arms bare him no mind as he waits in his cell, awaiting his next meal. This man is not a happy man. There is no doubt that Plato is correct when he says that the immoral man is happier than the moral man. What kind of man would be happier, existing through his life chained and in control rather than living his life free and impulsively?


Aristotle

Friendship exists solely for the purpose of convenience, as does any positive relationship. Aristotle believes that friendship is based off of usefulness, pleasure, and virtue. Of course, most would disagree because it “sounds bad” the way he says is, but it is our reality and people fail to see it. It is not that they are blind and dumb, so much as it is that they are so sucked into a way of living and a certain perception, that any slight change in it would lead to some horrific obstruction of life in which they would have to redo. They are capable of learning, which is possibly what makes people so frustrating. They are capable, but for some reason, they refuse to be enlightened. They refuse to accept the clarity around them; and they insist on replacing it with some obscure, imaginary illusion that clouds their thinking. Perhaps this is why it becomes so irritating and heated when everyone reaches their differences. Some people live in the reality, while others live in their perception.

Aristotle would say that self-love is necessary in order to have a virtuous friendship, but in order to love oneself, one would have to agree that love even exists. Love is made up of three components: convenience, responsibility, and expectations. One can have one part, two parts, or all three parts of this. From it, one obtains friendship and other such deals. So, I do not believe that love is necessary in creating a virtuous friendship. I do not believe love is necessary for anything because I do not believe love is anything more than an overly-enthusiastic idea that people force on each other in hopes of obtaining some special feeling that will make their lives meaningful.

I am what one would call an atheist on many accounts: religion, ethics, and love. I may live in my head and I may be a dreamer, but I am a realist as well and I refuse to be blinded by the ignorance of human kind. It is a relief to see these philosophers are brilliant people, but it is also disappointing because when one does realize that one is not completely new in one’s findings of this topic, one realizes that perhaps one cannot open as many eyes as one thought. Perhaps, the human mind is just too set on being ignorant.

XCRevolution XCRevolution
18-21, F
5 Responses Mar 12, 2010

Both of you don't have the power to kill all of the rest of us; some things brought up touched upon reason, and smacked of universal basics of our reality; experience is the teacher of these universal basics, not of a religious god either, just guidelines of this physical existence.<br />
I remember earlier in my lifethread killing many people, getting away with it then, only to have the negative energy follow me and manifest in a later existence; experience taught me that I am in this sphere of influence(the world) over and over, my decisions of how I treat others now have long term effects upon me that I am behooved to make better than immature selfish decisions of self-aggrandisement of killing(negative, immediate, self-glorification); the longer term influence is what I now after countless lifetimes am focused upon, I did have to experience the lifetimes that i was extremely negative, and through many lifetimes after these, learn that I got my own negativity back, in ways and times later that was not fun, but extremely painful.<br />
Experience is living enough lifetimes and experiencing enough pain to figure out that each one of us is the leader of our own life, short term decisions shape long term results; choose wisely.<br />
<br />
Baal- if you are old enough to really know who I am you might want to think about some of the things I wrote about listed above... good luck!!!

Ha ha, fact of life!<br />
<br />
Agreed, we should.

I'm aware of the costs and I'd be willing to pay them, but then that would degrade serial killers and there would be no significance or awe to them. The only serial killers worth studying would be the ones who killed while society was still not free. I think the rules make it interesting. <br />
<br />
Lol, I don't either, but I think he was referring to the people who do care about it

We are decent to each other only for the sake of our safety and hopes of a mutal contract that has become social norms. We don't want to break the contract for fear of others breaking it and risking our security. And you should care because, as is the nature of all in the animal kingdom, we have a desire to see our species continue. I don't remember whose philosophy that was, but to a degree, I agree with him.<br />
<br />
We must be answerable to nobody but ourselves. If it weren't for man, "God" would not exist. That is my belief and you have yours. I do not wish to make this a religious debate. I have pointed out the reasons as to why I do not believe "God" exists outside the human mind many times, but as Ayn Rand said, "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it, cannot be conquered by it." It is a pointless argument that I have made many times and do not wish to spend my time making anymore. Your points are as repetitive and script to me as a Barney song. You can believe in your god all you want, I understand why people do, but I ask that you do not change my post into a 100 page debate about something that may or may not exist.

A good post. But if there is no G-d, if we are not answerable to a creator, why should we be decent to each other? Why should I not plunder, murder, steal and rape for my own pleasure and convenience?<br />
My relations to others will only be valid in so much as they are beneficial to me. As for global warming, why should I care? I wont be here long and probably wont come back!<br />
<br />
It is only the acceptance of the reality that the Universe was created by an all powerful intelligence, to whom we owe our allegiance, and hence must serve,and be answerable to, that provides the basis for any logical argument for acting in a way that is superior to that of an animal.