Jaida’s Blog

Feminist ethics gives an alternative prospective on morals and values that once had a singular meaning. The text talked about how western ethics was only seen from a masculine perspective with, “…male associated values of independence, autonomy, intellect, will, wariness, hierarchy, domination, culture, transcendence, product, asceticism, war and death over the supposedly feminine…” This is a very regressive and 1 dimensional way of thinking. The thing that I found the most interesting about feminist ethics, is people will have their differing views, and arrive at different conclusions. There isn’t one specific/right way to view morals. Feminist ethics is more inclusive as it explains how an emphasis on personal relationships, the suspicion of moral principles, and the rejection of impartiality. 

An emphasis on personal relationships tries to figure out how people’s actions toward one another (personal relationships) can ensure a moral life. With personal relationships, we find ourselves experiencing more with those people. The text explains, “… the place we all come from and perhaps never leave, and where we live a large part of our moral lives” Those intimate relationships and experiences we have with the people closest to us can impactful meaning on who we are as people.

Feminist ethics expresses its skepticism toward moral principles. The text talks about Kant and his views of morality from the lens of the categorical imperative, but feminist philosophers believe that it isn’t always the most understanding way of viewing morality. Feminist philosophers argue, “…principles such as autonomy, justice, and utility are too general and to unwieldy to be much use in the complicated, multifaceted arenas of the domestic, social, and personal” Feminist philosophers explain that autonomy may say that woman is free, but that ideology doesn’t accurately reflect her personal situations in life.

The rejection of impartiality explains, that we are not actually impartial when it comes to our close relationships we have with the people. The text gives a good example of the difference of treatment a person may have with the sales clerk as oppose to a spouse. I do believe it’s much harder to be impartial to the people we know personally, but it may be easier to be impartial to situations that arise in life. Impartiality is very important to moral reasoning, because it eliminates all biases and ensures fairness. I think moral reasoning is founded on just actions and attitudes. The way to attain impartiality might be difficult, because of our personal feelings, but I do think it’s possible.

Word Count: 413

Aristotle wrote a chapter on friendship in his Nicomachean Ethics book which I find very insightful. He categorized friendship into 3 different types. He believes friendships are either rooted in utility, pleasure, or virtue. A utility based friendship is a friendship where both people are gaining something beneficial for themselves. For example, a person may be getting tutored by someone, and that’s the extent of their relationship. It’s easy to think that this type of friendship is a kind where someone is being used, which makes it seem less than a virtuous form of friendship. However Aristotle states, “Now those who love each other because of utility do not love each other for themselves but in virtue of some good which they get from each other.” For my example, the person being tutored is hoping to gain a better grade, and the person doing the tutoring may be hoping for some form of extra credit. I think Aristotle’s quote is saying, the fact that people in a utility based friendship are getting something beneficial by being in the friendship is what makes the friendship good.  

Aristotle then talks about about friendships that are based on pleasure. These friendships seem pretty simple; people in these kinds of relationships are those who gain a pleasurable/pleasant feelings/experiences when they’re in them. In the lecture we discussed that people that are in a club or maybe even a sports team might qualify in being friendships rooted in pleasure. Aristotle believes young people are more susceptible to forming pleasure based friendships. I believe it’s because those kind of friendships a person experiences gratification a bit faster than any form of friendship. For example, if a person is in a book club, they already know they’re going to be talking about something they’re interested in. They won’t have to work very hard to experience that pleasurable aspect of the relationship. Aristotle also explained, “Such friendships [utility and pleasure] then, are easily dissolved…” I think it’s because people change very frequently, and what will be considered pleasurable or of utility to them. 

The friendships that are considered true friendships/virtuous are those in which people have similar virtues who also wish well unto each other. This form of friendship is the least conditional of the other two. Aristotle states, “Now those who wish well to their friends for their own nature and not incidentally; therefore their friendship lasts as long are both—and goodness is an endearing thing” This form of friendship seems as if it’s rooted in love and respect, where both people wish each other the best. This may be a friend encouraging a person to study, by supporting them through the process. This kind of friendship is the kind I believe I have with my friends. I love them all and I truly want to see them succeed in life. I’ll still remain friends with them even if I don’t agree with their actions. If it brings them happiness, then I’m happy. 

Word Count: 500

The Eightfold Path is used by those apart of the Buddhist religion as a guideline of how to conduct and live their lives the most fruitfully. The three essentials considered to be of importance in the Buddhist religion are ethical conduct (sila), mental discipline (samadhhi), and wisdom (panna). Ethical conduct is associated with universal love and compassion toward all living beings. Mental discipline is focused on transforming a person’s mind by the ways of meditation and other mental activities. Wisdom is known to be another form of intelligence or mental understanding gained, by unselfishness and the four noble truths. The particular component from the Eightfold Path that caught my attention was ethical conduct. Ethical conduct is understood to be the first portion Buddha’s teaching as it includes right speech, right action, and right livelihood. I think ethical conduct is probably the most commonly applicable practice of the Buddhist religion. I try to apply aspects of ethical conduct into my daily life, as it brings me the most happiness. 

Right speech promotes that people avoid gossip, and any sort of speech that’s negative. I don’t like wasting my time on gossip or any talk that could be considered slanderous. I would never want to hurt anyone’s feelings from the conversations I have with other people. I understand that we’re humans and we make mistakes, so there’s bound to be some slip ups. However, I think in general gossip is pretty unproductive and a waste of time. Right action encourages people to live their lives morally and peacefully. I know specifically right action mentions stealing and other dishonest actions. Stealing has always kind of made me uncomfortable. When I was younger I accidentally stole a sweater from a clothing store. I stole the sweater by keeping it on my shoulder and forgetting to place it on the counter to pay for it. As I left, the sensors didn’t detect the sweater, and I didn’t realize I hadn’t paid for it until I was in the parking lot. I didn’t go back into the store to pay for it, because I thought I would get in trouble. I felt pretty guilty about it and I haven’t stolen since. I really do connect with the peaceful conduct portion of the right action. I try to make sure all of my interactions with people are positive and not hostile. I want to make sure that people feel comfortable while they’re hanging around me, so I try to accommodate others as much as I can. Right livelihood involves people staying away from professions that can be harmful for other living things. The Noble Truths article explains, “…trading in arms and lethal weapons, intoxicating drinks or poisons, killing animals, cheating, etc…” are considered to be harmful to others, as there can be lasting effects that will affect other living things in the long run. I would not want to have a job that would negatively impact others. I think as we get older, we gain a bigger sense of responsibility to care for others. I know there’s a lot of corruption in the world that has a lot of people working in professions that negatively impact living things. I like to think there’s some people out there that don’t want to live their lives deceitfully.  

I do believe right “skillful” action would lead to less suffering in a person’s life. According to the reading right action includes, “…refraining from damaging sexual behavior (rape, intoxicated, non-consensual), harassment, cheating, or any unwise actions. I believe those kinds of actions will bring about a lot of unhappiness for a person. Unfortunately, not all of these actions are preventable. I think what matters most is how a person transitions when horrific or unfortunate events occur in their lives. 

Word Count: 628

Kant’s believes, that humans are rational beings that can think for themselves, they are dignified beings who are the “ends-in-themselves,” and are able to determine what are moral laws. Kant explains his stance on morals based from his theory of hypothetical and categorical imperatives. The hypothetical imperative states, “If an action is commanded as being necessary for bringing about some further end…” For example, if a person wants become a better singer, then that person must practice in order to improve on their singing. However, hypothetical imperatives are subjective and are not affiliated with morals. That aspect leads hypothetical imperatives to be loosely followed. For example, if there is a person who doesn’t care about improving their singing, then vocal training/practice wouldn’t be beneficial to them. The categorical imperative states, “If an action is commanded as being good without qualification…” Kant believed categorical imperatives were commands that are always to be followed regardless of a person’s thoughts, feelings, or opinions about them.

If a person is motivated solely by their sympathy to help someone in need, then they are not doing something of true moral worth. I believe what makes that statement true, is the fact that person’s motivation is based on how they feel about the condition that other person is in. This person may only be acting in service to another person to fulfill a sense of purpose that they lack within themselves; regardless of them considering what that other person needs or desires. I feel like this person’s decision to help someone wouldn’t be reflecting the basis of what categorical imperatives are based on. Kant explains that categorical imperatives emphasize, “…act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means…” Kant is saying we can’t use people to our own benefit. He continues to say, “humans, as rational ends-in-themselves, are the authors of the moral law, so that their obedience to duty is not an act of submission, but an act of autonomy” Kant saying that we are ends-in-ourselves means, that humans exist as themselves, and can work toward the things they want or need in life without having to use other people. This person’s sympathy is the driving force to why they’re helping another person in need. They’re using someone to relieve themselves of that sympathetic feeling. They’re not helping them because they feel bad about the condition they’re in, they’re helping based on purely selfish reasons.

Word Count: 423

Mill poses a new argument that those who pursue happiness/pleasure hedonistically will not be able to reap the rewards of sustainable happiness/pleasure. Mill explains, “…it is thus positively asserted to be impossible that human life should be happy…if by happiness be meant a continuity of highly pleasure excitement, it is evident enough that this is impossible…” Hedonism is known for its self indulgent ways, in which a person is pursuing life only to receive the pleasures of life through that avenue. I think Mill’s statement about those achieving the pleasures/happiness of life through a hedonistic lens, refers back to his earlier statement about the higher and lower pleasures. Mill believes that a person would pursue the lower pleasures of life over the higher pleasures, because of their easy accessibility. The higher pleasures will always be something that a person will be seeking for their entire life. The pursuit of a higher pleasures/happiness through hedonism will leave someone with unhappiness in their life. Hedonism involves a person during their own happiness/pleasures selfishly which is not in line with utilitarianism. Hedonistic pleasures seem to be a lot harder obtain and sustain, because of the many pleasures that are in the world. Living life through utility, does contain a life of happiness/pleasure, but ultimately for the majority.

I do believe that self-sacrifice is a virtue in utilitarianism. Mill states, “All honor to those who can abnegate for themselves the personal enjoyment of life, when by such renunciation they contribute worthily to increase the amount of happiness in the world…” This kind of self-sacrificing reminds me of the self-sacrifices my mother made for me and my siblings. The sacrifices that my mother made weren’t always large scale sacrifices, it could be just her cooking me and my siblings our favorite dinner; that is more tedious versus her cooking her favorite meal which is easier to prepare. I think the sacrifices that an individual makes for the greater amount of people to be happy is in line utilitarianism. Mill states, “A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted…”  I think it takes a majority of people to make a person feel good about their sacrifice. If their sacrifice affected a lesser amount of people, they probably wouldn’t feel the same amount of happiness. A person can take pleasure in knowing their sacrifices will make other people happy. I feel as if the happiness from others will received by those who are self-sacrificing.

Word: 429

Mill begins the article breaking down the true meaning of utilitarianism. He is aware the many people look at the root word ‘utility’ and assume and that utility takes upon a higher precedent than pleasure. Utilitarianism is used by people as a way to promote happiness/pleasure for the majority amount people. Mill explains, “Those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer, from Epicurus to Bentham, who maintained the theory of utility, meant by it, not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself…” Further in the article, Mill becomes is in supporter of the Greatest Happiness Principle that is an extension of utility as it “…holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wing as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” This means, from this way of living that the pursuit of life is driven by all things pleasurable. 

Mill continues on and responds to the critiques of comparing this way of living to swines. Mill feels that comparing animals to Epicurean principles as a way of degrading the principles it’s based upon. Mill explains, “…a beast’s pleasures do not satisfy a human being’s conceptions of happiness…” I agree, I don’t think utilitarianism is pig philosophy. The only reason why I could think someone would compare a way of Utility to the likes of animals is, because of the simplistic nature of this theory. When I think of the comparison between animals and human pleasures, I think of the lifestyle of a household dog or cat. Cats and dogs don’t have many responsibilities besides eating, playing, sleeping, and peeing/pooping. That might be the way in which an animal is simplistically living their life pleasurably. People who follow the utilitarian principles aim to live their lives pleasurably, but it might not always be easily attainable.

The bulk of utilitarianism is based on a person’s ability to maximize on their pleasures. Further along in the article, Mill begins to look at the differing kinds of pleasures that are experienced and pursued among people. Mill explains there are lower pleasures and higher pleasures that person can choose to have in their life. Mill states, “…no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool…the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs…” I thought this statement was very interesting, because it made me think that the intelligence of a person will determine the kind of things they deem pleasurable in life. This relates back to comparative judgement about the pleasures of human and animals. The experiences and livelihoods of those species will dictate what is considered pleasurable for them. A person may choose lower pleasures because of how easily they are attained. Mill explains, “A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it a more points, than one of an inferior type…” I think that’s a strong argument as to why a person would choose lower pleasures than higher pleasures. That way of living doesn’t follow the doctrine of utilitarianism, as it seems that higher pleasures will cause a person to experience more work and suffering in their life. 

Word Count: 554

Ethical relativism is defined as, “the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture” (www.scu.edu.com) The interesting aspect of ethical relativism is that morally right or wrong decision fluctuate from culture to culture. Meaning, once something is considered morally wrong in one culture, may be considered morally correct in another. Benedict creates an argument for ethical relativism by providing examples of catalepsy, homosexuality, and head-hunting. These specific cultures created a norm that the remaining population will follow. Benedict lightly explains that our culture wouldn’t be in support of psychic manifestations, and most people in our society would reject that phenomenon. Benedict then moves on to talk about the varying views that multiple cultures have on homosexuality. Benedict is aware of the many perspectives that homosexuality is interpreted in other societies. She explains that in Greece, “[homosexuality] is presented as one of the major means to the good life…” Benedict provides another example from an American Indian tribe where, “…men-women were men at puberty or thereafter took the dress and the occupations of women. Sometimes they married mean and lived with them” She continues to add that the men-women were so necessary to the American Indian’s tribe survival, because of their occupations (healing diseases and social organizers) Benedict talks about the head-hunting done in other culture and their motivations to do so. She explains that our culture would see head-hunting being fueled by vengeance, but for the Northwest Coast that behavior is considered honorable.  

All of these cultures follow ethical relativism by having the majority of a culture/society make the decisions for everyone else. If a society viewed capital punishment as favorable and abortion unfavorable, then that society would follow that expectation/norm. Capital punishment has many consequences, based on the severity of that action. A society/culture that doesn’t condemn capital punishment must find the possible phenomenon functional for their development. If a society/culture condemns abortion, then they must not deem it as functional for its development. I believe ethical relativism is something that is taught and nurtured for years to people at a young age. When a person grows up knowing one thing it would be very hard for them to unlearn that thing. The one flaw that’s noticeable for ethical relativism is its limited view on many other aspects in a society. I can see ethical relativism turning into ethnocentrism very quickly. When a society/culture rejects an aspect of another society/culture, they are slightly contributing to their ethnocentrism. In the examples Benedict there weren’t any instances that those cultures felt that what they were doing was wrong. I believe what is considered to be culturally acceptable is based on what has been proven successful by past generations. 

Word Count: 466

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.