Epicurus viewed death as annihilation. He observed that people fear death because they think they will have unpleasant life after death. He says this fear can be removed when a personal understands death as an annihilation since the atoms that make life disperse after death. He thinks that death is neither harmful for the people who are living nor to the dead. This, he argues, is because the living are not dead while the dead do not exist. He also thinks that when people anticipate death it is erroneous for them and irrational since there is no life after death. He only thinks that the main reason why people should take care is because living is good and that people should fear disfigurement or suffering. The thought of having unfulfilled life, he argued, is what causes irrational fear among people without proper knowledge that death is nothing since it leads to total destruction of a person.
Stoic principles
The main stoic principles are the discipline of desire where everyone has to accept their fate; there is also discipline of action where people are urged to love other people. Then there is discipline of assent which means being mindful of our judgments. People ought to live in harmony with nature as well as other persons and the environment despite their respective desires and needs.
Importance of moderation
Aristotle argued that happiness is the ultimate good in which the whole of human activities aim at. He also was of the view that these activities could in themselves be means to other ends but could also be ends in themselves. He also noted that people have exertion in identifying what makes an activity good. Given this, he argued that to gain true happiness in life, a balance must be exercised that differentiates reasons and desires. People have a tendency to go to the extremes of finding pleasure, honor and wealth which he viewed as necessary to make one happy in life but which he viewed as a threat to other people’s dignity to life. He thus argued that to lessen human conflict and oppression, moderation was important so that the highest good for all human beings and the environment would be possible. He viewed moderation as the central virtue that makes a complete human life. Moderation was the most rational thing for persons in a world contending for attention of two extremes.
Virtues and stability
Aristotle reasoned that a virtue is that trait that helps human beings to achieve a good life through proper reasoning. He viewed virtues as springing from the soul. He identified passions which are bodily appetites, emotions and feelings as part of virtues. He says that people cannot lose passions and that the virtues are not desires that drive them. He concludes by observing that virtues are states of characters which are a person’s dispositions to relate different circumstances and choosing an option suitable for that specific situation. He viewed character as being stable over time and so changes insignificantly with a person’s state of mind. However, conclusively, he viewed virtues as fixed values that do not change with situations even when the situations are bad, the moral agent will make effort to do what is right.
Hobbes’s State of nature
Hobbes was of the view that for one to understand any political society, they need to first understand people as components of that society. In a state of nature, people have a fundamental desire to exercise their own rights to power since their authority and law are held by all members of the society. The natural right of one person, however, conflicts with that of other people to exercise their power. This is ordinarily true as whenever someone exercises a right then someone else will have a duty. He thus argues that for a person to survive in such a state one has to be strong and use intelligence. This eventually could lead to a war and there will be total mess without any progress. In Hobbes’s view, in a state of nature, all people are equal and with unequal desires. There is always a constant conflict in state of nature as people exercise their freedom and power.
Laws of nature by Hobbes
Hobbes identified the law of nature as that every man must endeavor and hope to obtain peace and when they cannot get it, they must seek and use necessary help instead of seeking warfare for peace which is more advantageous. The second law that he identified is that man should be willing, just as others will to be at peace and they defend themselves when it is necessary. People are willing to forfeit the right to defend themselves so that other people can enjoy their rights too. The third law of nature that Hobbes identified is that people ought to perform to the end the varied covenants that they make right to the end. All these laws of nature are from Hobbes’s observations that in a state of nature life is miserable and that human ends are unrealized. He thus was of the view that nature provides an escape route to this condition since human beings are rational beings who seek peace. He recognizes the ability of human beings to move away from iniquity and cruelty through peaceful means.
Hobbes’ recommendations of best form of government
Hobbes recommends a government that is based on civil society. He recommends that a good government should be based on the precept that human beings come together for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from falling into a state of war. He argues that people have a duty to protect personal safety and that of their belonging. In a government based on civil society, its institutions are made to manifest the interests of citizens. The citizens are independent of the government and so does the non-governmental organizations that represents that will of the people. Decisions are made through democratic consultations and people benefit from the work of civil groups to advance their interests. This society becomes much disciplined.
Passive none giving and active non giving
In passive non-giving the affluent lack the energy and the will to give their wealth to deserving people to generate significant relevant costs beneficial to the deserving members of the society. In this case the affluent members of the society do not make enough contributions that would add up to show morally upright lives of the people. In active non-giving, the affluent members of the society do not simply make any effort to contribute their wealth to welfare of the community. The affluent of the society have no heart to take part in uplifting the poor in the society through contributions to the welfare of the society. They leave the members to the society to live in absolute poverty and lack while they can assist through contributions.
Objections by Singer
Singer suggested that affluent countries and people need to change how they perceive life and align it to morality. This he suggests can only be done when they commit to help people and countries in need. He argues that death and suffering are bad and that a person should save others in need without necessarily sacrificing their own good which is morally good. However, he raises two objections in his theory in which he is of the view that though help may save lives presently, it may not save life because of spatial distances. However he answers by saying that time and distances are irrelevant when one is making a decision to do what is good. In his second objection that he raised he thought that incase of any disaster, there are many other people who could help. He however answers that in such a situation, whoever goes ahead to save the one in need, will only do so without reducing the moral responsibility of others to assist. Here he suggests that the obligation to help only lapses for others when help is offered to those who need it.
Singer and human nature
Singer in his observation of the society, he views human nature as inherently altruistic. This he argues that, people will make all efforts to live in affluence while others in their neighborhoods live in absolute poverty and need. He in views, he observes that many suggest the moral obligation to assist is limited to distances between those who need help and where they can get this help from. He thus implies that most people will consider it unreasonable to assist those others suffering while there are others who can help in their locality. People tend to shift the responsibility to help the needy in the society to others even when it’s within their means. He views people as having a notion of having moral responsibilities to assist their close relatives and not people far off living in famine.
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism is a belief that views the right actions done by people as those that leads to greatest happiness to majority of the people it affects. The morality through which an action is judged as right or wrong is determined by the happiness it brings to most people. An action is right when it brings greater good to the majority of people but wrong if brings pain to majority of members of the society. On the other hand, rule utilitarianism views an action as morally right when it conforms with rules that will have an ultimate greater happiness to the society. Here the common belief is that when rules are followed well then greatest good is achieved and hence the action is right. In rule utilitarianism, following a rule always lead to greater good while ignoring them lead to more suffering and pain.
Rules of the road
Through his rules of the road theory, Smart attacks the restricted traditional utilitarianism as a form that worships rules. He thus concludes that rule utilitarianism is an irrational though that philosophers adopted. He describes this as a choice that favors rules even when consequences have been worked in perfect faith. He opines that there needs to be universalization of actions so that people can explain their actions and predict how to act when they are dealing with other moral agents. An action may be right by following the rules but may lead to immorality in the world.
Utility monster
A utility monster is a hypothetical being developed by philosophers that does not suffer the effects of diminishing returns. The utility monster consumes additional units of resources without having enough of them. While other beings gets less utility for additional units of utility consumed, the monster could consume all there is making utilitarianism to fail. This monster demonstrates weakens the utilitarianism assumption that human beings have a prejudged notion through which they judge a moral act as right or wrong. This is wrong since the utility monster assumes that all the goodness that are meant to benefit the whole society end up being consumed and privileged to one person inherently diminishing the possibility of greater happiness to all human beings.
Utilitarianism and Hitler’s case
Utilitarian would kill Adolf Hitler were they to go back in history. The brutality and his dictatorship lead to millions of people to be killed within a short period of time in history. In their argument a utilitarian would argue that his action led to suffering of many people than it did in securing a peaceful world and his quest to remain in power. However such a decision would be face with other moral challenges. His killing would mean end of life for another person. This is a moral dilemma for a moral agent. Killing a person no matter their evil is a debate whose answer is only solved by evaluating the consequences of such an action. The person who would kill Hitler would be immoral in taking another person’s life.
Utilitarianism and Policies
Policy’s that maximize pleasure and minimizes pain are not necessarily good. Utilitarian’s will consider such policies as appropriate and beneficial to people since it promotes their wellbeing. Critics argue that such policies may permit actions that are morally wrong even when consequences will be maximizing pleasure. With such policies and evil actions in sight, there is a likelihood that laws will be broken and thus trust among people would fail. Such policies would then lead to people having unpredictable and inconsistent behavior required to keep a society stable. Some interests of interested parties could also be overlooked and their effect may have a far reaching effect on the society.
Euthanasia and Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism attempts to maximize the prospects of happiness for an individual and the society. A utilitarian views nature as under a governance of pain and pleasure with the standards that judge right and wrong as the effects of an action. Euthanasia is considered as an effort to eliminate physical pain to the person on whom it’s done. It provides comfort to the victims having pain. In this view, a utilitarian would consider euthanasia as a moral action to the person it’s carried out on but immoral to the family of that person due to the expected grief. Euthanasia is however not viewed as bringing pleasure to a majority but only a person whom it’s done to hence leaving a majority to grief.
Categorical imperatives
Categorical Imperative is a term coined by Immanuel Kant to imply that all moral laws that are enacted by persons emanate from a reason and hence demand obedience for mare respect of that reason. Kant argued that there is no good in this world without qualification. He only cites good will as the only good which comes from duty. By categorical imperative he thus implies that laws are the sole ground of each person’s will. Law in this theory inspires respect because of its universality. Categorical imperative is important in ethics because it lays down a general formula in acting. The general strategy is simply to act with a motive of will such that such action is capable of becoming a universal law applicable to rational beings.
Kant’s Shopkeeper’s Example
Through the shopkeeper illustration, Kant demonstrates that the shopkeeper acts honestly to a customer who can easily be duped because it’s not his to be so but rather of is inherent nature to build a good reputation for him and his business. He argues that the shopkeeper acts in accordance to duty and not from duty. Acting from duty he says is acting from duty and acting in accordance to duty actually results into similar results. The difference however is the motive beyond the action. Where a person acts from duty, they perform the action because it’s their duty whether they are inclined to having to do it or it’s not in their interest. On the other and acting in accordance with duty is performing an action because there is a duty to do it.
Duties
Kant argues that duties are created because rules and laws exist. Naturally when we have laws, there is an associated civic duty to be done. The motivation for moral agent in fulfilling that duty is because it’s morally right and it helps to sustain social order. These duties motivate values in the society and as such all actions that the society does must be rational to fulfill these duties. Moral agents have universal duties that they must fulfill in acting despite the circumstance such as being moral in actions. Kant proposes that moral agents have a perfect duty not to contradict themselves in promises they make.
Objections to Categorical imperatives
Categorical Imperative theory has been criticized for giving human will undeserving position as the highest authority in giving law. Yet the same theory demands obedience to such authority by the moral being. Human beings are in no way absolute beings to obey such laws. They are judgmental and subjective and hence universalization of all laws cannot work all the time. Other times, duties from categorical imperatives may conflict especially there is need to save lives yet lying.
Prima facie duties
A Prima Facie duty one that is obligatory over other duties. It is a duty in which there is a fairly strong assumption that it’s the most important duty to carry out such as keeping a promise that was made. It is assumed that people need to keep promises they make unless there are other moral considerations that overrides it. For Ross, the existence of Prima Facie duties makes him conclude that human beings have a moral duty they must fulfill in order to be termed as evil or moral. A moral person he argues must fulfill these duties to be considered as a good person.
Ross as a deontologist
Ross is a deontologist. He assumes that for a moral agent to be termed as ether morally right or wrong, it must be by evaluating their actions. He does not consider the rightness or the wrongness of the consequences. He also does not take care in understanding the moral character and their habits. Instead, his focus is in the how a moral agent fulfills his prima facie duties in his actions provided there are no stronger moral considerations he must have to consider.
