Chapter 10 Q1
The concept of on the ‘self’ has been one of the major issues in philosophy. Hume held that the ‘self’ is concept that is defined by the collective experiences that one has. In this case, Hume believes one’s awareness of the ‘self’ is tied to the person’s previous experiences through perception (David Hume, 1.4.6.3). Hume notes that humans do not and cannot observe something that is beyond their transient feelings, impressions, and sensations. He further claims that there is no anyone particular impressing that can be called the ‘self’. It is imperative that that Hume believes that the ‘self’ is subjective to personal experiences and hence, determining a common definition or identity of the ‘self’ cannot be universal. In addition, no one has a predetermined impression of the ‘self’, and hence, the ‘self’ can only be defined by a person at a given instant. This explains Hume’s idea on the personal impression, sensations, and feeling since each person experiences differently. Even when different people are presented with similar stimuli, there cannot be two people experiencing exactly the same sensations the same way
I agree with Hume’s ideas on the ‘self’. It is clear that one cannot come to recognize oneself without the use of perception. For this reason, all what one experiences, or is experiencing play a critical role in the overall definition of the ‘self’. It is imperatively clear that all what humans come to know are as a result of senses. Even in imagination, one has to from a figure or shape with particular aspect derived from the immediate environment or the previous senses. Such occurs since memory extends ones realizations of the ‘self’ deferent from the immediate environment.
Chapter 11 Q1
Emmanuel Kant held that what is good is good, not because of the consequences, but the nature of the act. In this case, he asserts that the only good thing is that which is good without qualification (Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, 2000, p. 1). He notes with some keenness that there are good acts that can only be good due to consequences of the acts. Therefore, he further asserts the only good thing without qualification is the good will. The good will is the only universal good thing since the will that guides the course of action, is what determines the nature of an act. According to him, what is considered as good, such as courage, wisdom, wit, perseverance, etc. can be extremely bad if the will to use them is bad. Therefore, Kant believes that an action is good if the actor’s will is good.
The golden rule ("Do as you would be done by") holds on the basic principle of treating others as one would want to be treated. In this case, one has to examine an act as if it is being done to one before acting. For this reason, the will of the person shall always be good since it is imperative that one would repulse ideas and acts that shall cause harm to him or her. Both the moral principles of Kant and the Golden rule are subjective. The will of an actor is the main driving force of determining if an act is good or not. The individual has the direct and inherent freedom to choose to determine what is good. For example, to those who have some “disorders” might enjoy experiencing pain e.g. those who practice BDSM. In the event the person perceives the BDSM acts as good, then, the person would act, or expect the same to be done unto him or her. The case might be very different to others.
Chapter 12 Q7
Ethical egoism is the concept on morals that human do what best promotes their interests or makes them feel good. In this respect, one does not do anything that does no please him or her. Sometimes a good action may coincide with helping another person. Such means that the person was not acting with the intention of helping the person but doing what was good to him or her. On the other hand, psychological egoism asserts that humans, by nature behave in such a manner that which promotes self-interest. For psychological egoism, one is bound by nature to do what is good to the person and not what may promote the welfare of others.
Both theories surround the issues that guide the reason to the way humans behave. Both Ethical egoism and psychological egoism promotes self interest in what humans do (Ethical egoism, n.d. p. 1). In fact, Ethical egoism suggests that humans ought to act selfishly while psychosocial egoism claims that naturally, humans are selfish. Therefore, psychological egoism supports ethical egoism. The big question is, is altruism possible in respect to both ethical and psychological egoism? People volunteer to help the poor, the hospitalized, feed the destitute and clothe them. Are these acts altruistic? From the two approaches, one, before acting must have to make the decision on whether the action makes the person feel good. The fact that their actions, whether helping others or not gives the actors a certain degree of satisfaction that explain the initial desire to act. No one does what does not promote the interests either directly or not or at least, one does not give up all the self-interest.
Chapter 14 Q1
Kierkegaard points out that the logical systems of an individual; however rigorous they may be shall always have gaps. The gaps arise in the logic of the individual systems and are not easy to cover. In fact, Kierkegaard believes that attempting to cover such gaps in one logical system is an act of futility. He offers a solution to of how to cover this gap. He suggests the individual can use the leap of faith to close the gaps. The question arising is whether the leap of faith does not present a gap or be part of the gap. According to the definition of faith, whatever is known through faith may not be approved or disapproved. Such happens since there is no scientific evidence to approve or disapprove anything held as true through faith. Therefore, if one lacks evidence, or cannot explain an occurrence, and hence, the use of leap to faith comes in handy to help in understand and advancement of ideas. He held that faith is higher than reason (Kierkegaard and Faith, n.d. (all))
How easy is the leap of faith? For one to use the leap of faith to explain concepts, one has to have somewhat absolute certainty that the concept or gap cannot be filed using any scientific method. The challenge comes in that a rational being cannot entirely remove doubts in unclear issues such as gaps in his or her logic. It is imperative that humans are advancing every day and hence using the leap of faith to cover gaps in one’s logic system may mean that the individual is giving up easily. One cannot dismiss the probability of finding better solution to use faith. It is, therefore, very difficult for one to hold to faith, with possible option of finding better solutions. When used, the leap of faith offers only short term solution other than a long-tern solution.
Work cited
David Hume. A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects (1739-40).Accessed from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm on November 19, 2014.
Geoffrey Sayre-McCord. Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Very brief selective summary of sections I and II. 2000. Accessed from http://www.unc.edu/~gsmunc/phil22/Kantsum.pdf on November 20, 2014.
Ethical Egoism. N.d. Accessed from http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phl306/egoism.pdf on November 20, 2014.
Kierkegaard and Faith. N..d. retrieved from http://www.sorenkierkegaard.nl/artikelen/Engels/027.%20Kierkegaard%20and%20Faith. pdf on November 20, 2014
