Question/Prompt: Summarize either Virtue Ethics or the Ethics of Care.
My answer/response: Simply defined virtue is “the quality of a thing which enables it to perform its’ function well”. Taken a step further, moral virtue is “a settled and lasting disposition of character to act in excellent and praiseworthy ways, cultivated over time through habit.” In addition it is important to know that character is “the enduring state of ones person moral identity”.
Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom went through different aspects of virtue theory. It is not a new idea although there are modern applications. To understand virtue ethics more completely it is important to have an understanding of how it has been described in the past and how it is applied and carried out today. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom began his summary by describing the “Spheres of the Moral Life”. These spheres included; forming the moral conscious, making moral decisions and forming moral identity.
The situations which virtue ethics apply to have changed since its origins in ancient Greece. Virtue ethics in Ancient Greece was founded in human nature. The virtue ethics fell into the following categories: Eudemonia – human flourishing, Ethos – character, Arête – virtue, excellence AND Ethos – habituation.
The main question that is being asked in trying to figure out a lifestyle by which to live is “What is the best possible life for all human beings?” This question is quickly followed by “What does the life of one who is truly, and deeply, happy look like?”
A virtue ethicist would argue that a life of virtue would result in a life that was truly and deeply happy. To know what happiness is we can look to the wisdom of both an ancient and modern philosopher. “Happiness is some kind of activity of the soul in conformity with virtue.” (Aristotle). Stanley Hauerwas would say “Happiness is not so much the end, but the way.”
These quotes give excellent insight into what a truly happy life would be like. But these quotes are based on a set of virtues that should be carried out in everyday life. The following list of virtues are things that should be found in a person who is living a happy life: wisdom, courage, compassion, humility, purity, patience, faith, prudence, justice, mercy, simplicity, gentleness, piety, hope, temperance, generosity, gratitude, tolerance, humor, loyalty, love. (virtues in italics are associated with Greek thought, words in bold are associated with Christian thought).
It would drive you crazy trying to remember to do each of these things everyday through your typical routines. These virtues come about as a result of practice as was stated earlier moral virtue is “a settled and lasting disposition of character to act in excellent and praiseworthy ways, cultivated over time through habit.” This is what someone who desires to be happy should strive after.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Jotting #14 Applying Virtue Ethics
Question/Prompt: Evaluate case #20, page 235 of HARRIS, as a virtue ethicist or care ethicist would.
My Answer/Response:
My default view of overpaid CEO’s has never been favorable. The fact that one man or women could be paid 160 more times than the average American employee seems just plain wrong. But it is not enough to rely on the way things seem. Furthermore just because I may feel it is not right that so much money is given to this one person does not actually make it wrong. There is always an opposing view on issues even if it seems that the issue is obvious. The fact of the matter is the CEO is benefiting greatly from the high salary and could probably give good reasons justifying the amount they are paid.
Some of the arguments supporting high CEO wages are outlined in the case itself. “If highly qualified people occupy these positions everyone will benefit; even the lowest-paid worker will be better off than he or she would be otherwise, because there will be ore and better-paying jobs.”
In applying virtue ethics we must first determine what the alternative options are in the situation. One alternative is a pay cut for the CEO. In turn this money could be distributed among all of the people that work for the company. The redistributed money would bring an increased level of living for those employees. However, a paycut may bring poor results to the company as well. The lower pay of the CEO will make the job less attractive for qualified individuals. If a lesser qualified person gets the job the company may in turn suffer as a result. This suffering could manifest itself in many different ways one of which being job cuts. Job cuts are worse than a low paying job for the person.
If the CEO were in fact a virtuous person they would enjoy being virtuous. This virtue of course is not cut and dry. To the CEO it may seem virtuous to take the pay because they know that they are the only ones that can do the job that they are doing. This gets into the situation of virtue pluralism. Virtue pluralism, according to Harriss, “recognizes that different people can emphasize different virtues and that there may not be any way to establish one virtue or set of virtues as superior overall.
The best way to handle this situation is to apply the final point of the checklist Harriss provides in his book. If you do in fact feel that both options (paycut or keep the pay) are equal than you can appeal to this; “select the action that represents the most desirable virtues in the situation.”
My Answer/Response:
My default view of overpaid CEO’s has never been favorable. The fact that one man or women could be paid 160 more times than the average American employee seems just plain wrong. But it is not enough to rely on the way things seem. Furthermore just because I may feel it is not right that so much money is given to this one person does not actually make it wrong. There is always an opposing view on issues even if it seems that the issue is obvious. The fact of the matter is the CEO is benefiting greatly from the high salary and could probably give good reasons justifying the amount they are paid.
Some of the arguments supporting high CEO wages are outlined in the case itself. “If highly qualified people occupy these positions everyone will benefit; even the lowest-paid worker will be better off than he or she would be otherwise, because there will be ore and better-paying jobs.”
In applying virtue ethics we must first determine what the alternative options are in the situation. One alternative is a pay cut for the CEO. In turn this money could be distributed among all of the people that work for the company. The redistributed money would bring an increased level of living for those employees. However, a paycut may bring poor results to the company as well. The lower pay of the CEO will make the job less attractive for qualified individuals. If a lesser qualified person gets the job the company may in turn suffer as a result. This suffering could manifest itself in many different ways one of which being job cuts. Job cuts are worse than a low paying job for the person.
If the CEO were in fact a virtuous person they would enjoy being virtuous. This virtue of course is not cut and dry. To the CEO it may seem virtuous to take the pay because they know that they are the only ones that can do the job that they are doing. This gets into the situation of virtue pluralism. Virtue pluralism, according to Harriss, “recognizes that different people can emphasize different virtues and that there may not be any way to establish one virtue or set of virtues as superior overall.
The best way to handle this situation is to apply the final point of the checklist Harriss provides in his book. If you do in fact feel that both options (paycut or keep the pay) are equal than you can appeal to this; “select the action that represents the most desirable virtues in the situation.”
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Jotting #13 Utilitarianism and Consumption
Question/Prompt: Compare Utilitarianism to the approach taken by the author of the sweater essay.
My Answer/Response:
In comparing anything with Utilitarianism you must first state what Utilitarianism is. Using R.J. Snell’s lecture I will be evaluating the sweater essay and the elements of utility. Snell gave three points that give a good general idea of what Utilitarianism is.
-Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
The sweater is not an easy purchase to make for Tennant. She is obviously struggling with the purchase of the sweater. In some regards you could say that the only reason she is having any hesitation is because of the large price-tag that the sweater has with it. However, it becomes evident in the entirety of the article that she is conscious of her small purchases too. She mentions her consumption of cage free chickens and eggs as well as the consumption of fairly traded coffee. From the evidence presented in the article she is a well educated consumer. She can not simply say she will buy things based on a single rule she has concocted in her head. As a result she breaks it down into parts trying to weigh her options in some sort of “hedonic calculus” trying to decide if the pros outweigh the cons. As she goes through the different bonuses that could be found she checks it off as either beneficial or not. She is judging her actions based on the virtue of the consequences. At this point it would be easy to label her as a Utilitarian. However, the article finishes by stating that she did not in fact buy the sweater.
In the final paragraphs of the article we find Tennant struggling with the decision of whether or not to buy the sweater on a new level. She progressed from the Hedonic calculus of Utilitarianism to a more internal struggle of conceit. She recognized in her informed state that she was in danger of becoming conceited. This approach is not Utilitarian. If she had remained with her original assessment of the situation she would have been maximizing her pleasure. She could have had a fine time thinking about all of the benevolent results her purchase incurred. But the seeds of hesitancy were evident in the way she prolonged the virtue calculations. This hesitancy and deliberation is not a maximization of happiness and therefore cannot be viewed as a utilitarian method of approaching the issue.
Noticing the utility in certain situations is almost unavoidable. Most humans, particularly my American acquaintances, live life based on the utility of the situation. Though there was evidence of utilitarianistic tendencies in Tennant, it is safe to say that she is not in fact a Utilitarian.
My Answer/Response:
In comparing anything with Utilitarianism you must first state what Utilitarianism is. Using R.J. Snell’s lecture I will be evaluating the sweater essay and the elements of utility. Snell gave three points that give a good general idea of what Utilitarianism is.
-Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
The sweater is not an easy purchase to make for Tennant. She is obviously struggling with the purchase of the sweater. In some regards you could say that the only reason she is having any hesitation is because of the large price-tag that the sweater has with it. However, it becomes evident in the entirety of the article that she is conscious of her small purchases too. She mentions her consumption of cage free chickens and eggs as well as the consumption of fairly traded coffee. From the evidence presented in the article she is a well educated consumer. She can not simply say she will buy things based on a single rule she has concocted in her head. As a result she breaks it down into parts trying to weigh her options in some sort of “hedonic calculus” trying to decide if the pros outweigh the cons. As she goes through the different bonuses that could be found she checks it off as either beneficial or not. She is judging her actions based on the virtue of the consequences. At this point it would be easy to label her as a Utilitarian. However, the article finishes by stating that she did not in fact buy the sweater.
In the final paragraphs of the article we find Tennant struggling with the decision of whether or not to buy the sweater on a new level. She progressed from the Hedonic calculus of Utilitarianism to a more internal struggle of conceit. She recognized in her informed state that she was in danger of becoming conceited. This approach is not Utilitarian. If she had remained with her original assessment of the situation she would have been maximizing her pleasure. She could have had a fine time thinking about all of the benevolent results her purchase incurred. But the seeds of hesitancy were evident in the way she prolonged the virtue calculations. This hesitancy and deliberation is not a maximization of happiness and therefore cannot be viewed as a utilitarian method of approaching the issue.
Noticing the utility in certain situations is almost unavoidable. Most humans, particularly my American acquaintances, live life based on the utility of the situation. Though there was evidence of utilitarianistic tendencies in Tennant, it is safe to say that she is not in fact a Utilitarian.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Jotting #12 Utilitarianism vs. Natural Law
Question/Prompt: Compare Utilitarianism and Natural Law. Be sure to include evidence from HARRIS and Dr. Snell.
My Answer: The natural law outlines four natural inclinations of humans. This inclinations, as outlined by Harris are as follows; preserve ones life, produce children, be a part of a social group and develop ones uniquely human intellectual facilities. There is a checklist that Harris has developed in order to help apply the Natural law to certain situations. The first part of the checklist is to determine if an action agrees with the “natural inclinations” as mentioned above. From there it goes on to discuss forfeiture and the application of double effect. The final step of the process is to “make a final decision on the morality of the action”. In his lecture Snell explained that much of the natural law is based on a primary precept. This primary precept is “naturally operative and known to all human beings, do good and avoid evil”.
The Utilitarian has a different approach to the issues faced in life. First of all there are two different types of Utilitarianism as outlined by both Snell and Harris, “rule” and “applying act”. Harris provides a checklist for these as well but Snell provides a good overall description of utilitarianism as a whole. He outlines the definition in three points. -Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
Based on what I have read from Harris and heard from Snell there are many conflicts between the two school’s of thought. Also, it seems to me that the Utilitarian way of thinking is quite pervasive in my world today. The natural law tends to feel a bit outdated as Snell mentioned in his lecture. However, the utilitarian way of thinking is more friendly to living a lifestyle of doing anything you want. It is easy to justify buying a shirt made from a sweatshop because you can say that it provided the maker with income and you with a shirt. It also seems to be an easier way to live as you are better equipped to know what is painful and what gives you pleasure.
One of the major conflicts I see with the two schools of thought are with life. Natural law advocates that no life is taken. However, as an example, there are instances in which if a mother may need to abort her baby in order to preserve her own. It is much easier for a Utilitarian to justify the abortion than a natural law theorist. The contrasts go on between the two theories but nonetheless they are still used to justify and explain human behaviors and decisions in the world today.
My Answer: The natural law outlines four natural inclinations of humans. This inclinations, as outlined by Harris are as follows; preserve ones life, produce children, be a part of a social group and develop ones uniquely human intellectual facilities. There is a checklist that Harris has developed in order to help apply the Natural law to certain situations. The first part of the checklist is to determine if an action agrees with the “natural inclinations” as mentioned above. From there it goes on to discuss forfeiture and the application of double effect. The final step of the process is to “make a final decision on the morality of the action”. In his lecture Snell explained that much of the natural law is based on a primary precept. This primary precept is “naturally operative and known to all human beings, do good and avoid evil”.
The Utilitarian has a different approach to the issues faced in life. First of all there are two different types of Utilitarianism as outlined by both Snell and Harris, “rule” and “applying act”. Harris provides a checklist for these as well but Snell provides a good overall description of utilitarianism as a whole. He outlines the definition in three points. -Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
Based on what I have read from Harris and heard from Snell there are many conflicts between the two school’s of thought. Also, it seems to me that the Utilitarian way of thinking is quite pervasive in my world today. The natural law tends to feel a bit outdated as Snell mentioned in his lecture. However, the utilitarian way of thinking is more friendly to living a lifestyle of doing anything you want. It is easy to justify buying a shirt made from a sweatshop because you can say that it provided the maker with income and you with a shirt. It also seems to be an easier way to live as you are better equipped to know what is painful and what gives you pleasure.
One of the major conflicts I see with the two schools of thought are with life. Natural law advocates that no life is taken. However, as an example, there are instances in which if a mother may need to abort her baby in order to preserve her own. It is much easier for a Utilitarian to justify the abortion than a natural law theorist. The contrasts go on between the two theories but nonetheless they are still used to justify and explain human behaviors and decisions in the world today.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Jotting #11 - Utalitarianism
NOTE: Jotting#9 and 10 have been skipped on purpose. In case you are curious this is what they were on.
Question/Prompt: How would a Utilitarian ethicist approach the questions raised in Who Killed the Electric Car/ The Hummer topic discussed last week?
My Response:
There are different sides you can take on the issue of “Who Killed the Electric Car” and “The Hummer Topic”. If issues such as these were blatantly obvious then reaching a ubiquitous solution would not be as big a problem. However, there are points to be made by both sides which merit some consideration. I will look at both issues in light of utilitarianism.
The electric car was created for a number of reasons, one of them being to preserve the deteriorating environment. The preservation of the environment is an important step in protecting and furthering all life on the planet, humans and non. Thus when the EV’s where discontinued it was in violation of what a utilitarian would reason is right to do. As a result of the EV’s being discontinued the development of vehicles that do less harm to the environment are ignored and gas powered vehicles, which produce greater harm to the environment are allowed to continue.
The next issue is the Hummer. It is not as easy to determine that owning a hummer is explicitly bad. A hummer can be used to protect and provide safe transportation for not only troops but those who desire to keep their cargo as safe as possible. The Hummer vehicle is well built and able to withstand “punishment” from foreign objects whether they be bullets, out-of-control-cars or massive potholes. In this sense it is affecting the passengers who in turn provide “units of utility”. However, as was given by example in Harris book the number of people affected multiplied by the “Units of Utility per person” is overshadowed by its detrimental effects to the environment. As was outlined in the article we read about the Hummer there is very little environmentally friendly about the Hummer. The amount of gas the Hummer consumes expedites the environmental degradation process. Furthermore it is debatable whether buying a Hummer to keep your family safe on slippery roads is entirely necessary. It is more permissible from a utilitarianistic perspective to operate a hummer for military purposes than it is to keep your children safe. Nevertheless it has a high number of people it will effect in the long run making it a bad thing both in people effected and in “units of utility”.
In conclusion both the destruction of the EV’s and the purchasing of Hummers by homeowners is not permissible. A utilitarian “judges a rule by its consequences” and the consequences of these things have grave effects on not only human life but all life on earth.
- Jotting #9: Pick one of the questions at the end of The Hummer Case and give it an honest answer. (basically I ranted about the drawbacks of a Hummer)
- Jotting #10 What aspect of consumption would you like to focus on in your research paper? Use class readings and discussions and the Brain Teasers listed above to come up with a solid topic.
Question/Prompt: How would a Utilitarian ethicist approach the questions raised in Who Killed the Electric Car/ The Hummer topic discussed last week?
My Response:
There are different sides you can take on the issue of “Who Killed the Electric Car” and “The Hummer Topic”. If issues such as these were blatantly obvious then reaching a ubiquitous solution would not be as big a problem. However, there are points to be made by both sides which merit some consideration. I will look at both issues in light of utilitarianism.
The electric car was created for a number of reasons, one of them being to preserve the deteriorating environment. The preservation of the environment is an important step in protecting and furthering all life on the planet, humans and non. Thus when the EV’s where discontinued it was in violation of what a utilitarian would reason is right to do. As a result of the EV’s being discontinued the development of vehicles that do less harm to the environment are ignored and gas powered vehicles, which produce greater harm to the environment are allowed to continue.
The next issue is the Hummer. It is not as easy to determine that owning a hummer is explicitly bad. A hummer can be used to protect and provide safe transportation for not only troops but those who desire to keep their cargo as safe as possible. The Hummer vehicle is well built and able to withstand “punishment” from foreign objects whether they be bullets, out-of-control-cars or massive potholes. In this sense it is affecting the passengers who in turn provide “units of utility”. However, as was given by example in Harris book the number of people affected multiplied by the “Units of Utility per person” is overshadowed by its detrimental effects to the environment. As was outlined in the article we read about the Hummer there is very little environmentally friendly about the Hummer. The amount of gas the Hummer consumes expedites the environmental degradation process. Furthermore it is debatable whether buying a Hummer to keep your family safe on slippery roads is entirely necessary. It is more permissible from a utilitarianistic perspective to operate a hummer for military purposes than it is to keep your children safe. Nevertheless it has a high number of people it will effect in the long run making it a bad thing both in people effected and in “units of utility”.
In conclusion both the destruction of the EV’s and the purchasing of Hummers by homeowners is not permissible. A utilitarian “judges a rule by its consequences” and the consequences of these things have grave effects on not only human life but all life on earth.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Consumption Philosophy - Final Draft
Throughout my life I have been cared for. I have never been without the things that I need. Never have I had to wonder where I was going to sleep nor have I experienced a day in which I would go to bed on an empty stomach. As a result I have essentially taken for granted the fact that I can get a clean drink of water when I want it. This in turn has skewed my view as to what is necessary for me to live. Early on in my life I was taught a vivid lesson, “Be thankful for what you’ve got” and I lived my life in accordance with it. But the consumer mindset, in which happiness becomes equated with how much you own, still has its hold. It is not until recently that I realized the sayings inability to address the heart of consumption. Thankfulness for the things you have is not an excuse for consumption of the things you want.
Thankfulness, the word would always come back to me whenever I started complaining that I did not have something more or something cooler than what I already had. It was hard for me to understand why if my friend had a certain toy or got to go on a certain trip why I in turn could not. A specific incident that is forever etched in my mind illustrates this point. When I was about 9 years old I received an invitation for a play date at my friend Jeffrey Lacroix’s house. I was excited for this trip to his house and the anticipation only grew when he told me that he had a Nintendo gaming system. I spent an entire Saturday afternoon at his house and except for the snack breaks we were gaming the entire time. Soon the time for me to go drew near. I heard my mother’s car creep into the driveway like a rain cloud creeping between the sun and the earth. I knew my time with this precious gaming console was coming to an end but I could due nothing about it. Then, the words that I hoped I would never hear rang out, “Dan, its time to go home.” I remember the game was Mario and that I was in the middle of the desert. I was so attached to this little digital figure that the thought of leaving him without someone to control him and help him through all of the perilous levels was inhumane. But nonetheless, all of Mario’s lives were lost and I was forced to go.
I do not remember much of the ride home. All that consumed my mind was that I needed one of those glorious gaming systems. Unfortunately, my mother did not recognize that apparent need. Her exact words escape my memory but I know it was something to the effect of “Be thankful for what you’ve got”. The wisdom of my mother’s words were not as apparent to me then as they are now but even today I see problems with her advice. Nevertheless, she succeeded in making me appreciate some of the things that I did have at home but she did not however, completely eradicate my desire for a gaming system. The result of that car ride home is the basis of the framework that I use today in my attitude towards consumerism.
As life went on, from that nine-year-old year, I continued to acquire more and more things. Whether they were gifts or things that I bought my possessions kept increasing. Until only recently have I realized that the words “Be thankful for what you’ve got” are flawed in the face of consumerism. My actions have not been perfect since I was nine but more often than not I was able to see that I was blessed and in turn was thankful for the things that I did have. But an appreciation of the things I had in no way addressed whether or not I should have those things in the first place.
My dream of owning a gaming console came true my sophomore year of high school. The Nintendo 64 came out and it was the hot gift of the year. As a side note this, of course, meant that the price of the Super Nintendo was going down. My mother would go out shopping in late December (pre Christmas) and would come home with bags full of things. We never knew what was in the bags until Christmas day but we did know what stores she had been to based on the logos of the bags she was carrying. One day she came home with a Gamestop bag in her hand and I hoped that behind that opaque plastic was the coveted Nintendo 64.
After an eternity of waiting Christmas day finally came. I tore through all of the gifts that were labeled with my name thanking my parents for each one and quickly moving on to the next one hoping it would be “the gift”. I came to the end of my presents and had not found any containing the gift I was hoping for. I quickly glanced around at my siblings gifts and noticed none of them had anything resembling Nintendo 64. Suddenly my parents brought in one final “family gift”. The gift was meant to be shared among all of us. It could only be one thing. I quickly dove towards the package and attacked it frantically as my siblings quickly joined in helping me tear the paper to shreds in order to expose the gift lying beneath. Sure enough, there it was, the first console any of us were to ever own, the Super Nintendo. Though we were not as pleased as we would have been had it been a Nintendo 64 we knew it would still be fun. We all knew that we should be thankful for the Super Nintendo even if it was not the Nintendo 64 we had hoped for.
It was on this day that I can look back and realize that being “thankful for what you’ve got” may not be the best philosophy in addressing consumerism. I now owned, along with my older brother, older sister and younger sister, a Super Nintendo. It was a great little machine and though we were disappointed with it at first we soon realized the benefit of this console. While our friends only had two or three games for their N64’s we could rent and even buy many more games for low prices. So, yes, we were not just being nice, we were actually thankful for the gift we had received. However, it was thankfulness for something we did not in the least bit need.
Looking back on this incident it becomes blatantly obvious that being thankful, though a worthy mindset and admirable disposition, does not justify consumerist behavior. Yet, as mentioned before it is only until recently that I have realized the breakdown in the advice my parents had given me since I was a small child. Consequently, it has largely been the way I have viewed my consumption. There are exceptions and circumstances in which this does not hold true but more or less I have held on to these words. As long as I was thankful for a purchase or a gift it was okay. But being thankful is not the most pressing issue that an irresponsible consumer lifestyle presents. If a thankful mindset was all that was needed to justify consumption it would not be an issue. However, there are huge ramifications for consuming outside of ones means. Not only are there environmental and globalization problems but also local issues. It would be easy to say that consuming beyond your means is a bad thing but at the same time it is what has brought us into the modern age. The consumption of many powers the economy upon which we rely.
It is in this paradoxical situation that I find myself both clinging to “Be thankful for what I’ve got” as a means to justify buying more and on the other hand idealizing about living an even more simplistic lifestyle in which I do not merely buy and give thanks. Thus my consumption philosophy remains ever changing. I operate in an un-convicted state buying what I want and passively judging those that I feel consume too much.
UPDATE (2/14/08): I got an A- on this paper
Thankfulness, the word would always come back to me whenever I started complaining that I did not have something more or something cooler than what I already had. It was hard for me to understand why if my friend had a certain toy or got to go on a certain trip why I in turn could not. A specific incident that is forever etched in my mind illustrates this point. When I was about 9 years old I received an invitation for a play date at my friend Jeffrey Lacroix’s house. I was excited for this trip to his house and the anticipation only grew when he told me that he had a Nintendo gaming system. I spent an entire Saturday afternoon at his house and except for the snack breaks we were gaming the entire time. Soon the time for me to go drew near. I heard my mother’s car creep into the driveway like a rain cloud creeping between the sun and the earth. I knew my time with this precious gaming console was coming to an end but I could due nothing about it. Then, the words that I hoped I would never hear rang out, “Dan, its time to go home.” I remember the game was Mario and that I was in the middle of the desert. I was so attached to this little digital figure that the thought of leaving him without someone to control him and help him through all of the perilous levels was inhumane. But nonetheless, all of Mario’s lives were lost and I was forced to go.
I do not remember much of the ride home. All that consumed my mind was that I needed one of those glorious gaming systems. Unfortunately, my mother did not recognize that apparent need. Her exact words escape my memory but I know it was something to the effect of “Be thankful for what you’ve got”. The wisdom of my mother’s words were not as apparent to me then as they are now but even today I see problems with her advice. Nevertheless, she succeeded in making me appreciate some of the things that I did have at home but she did not however, completely eradicate my desire for a gaming system. The result of that car ride home is the basis of the framework that I use today in my attitude towards consumerism.
As life went on, from that nine-year-old year, I continued to acquire more and more things. Whether they were gifts or things that I bought my possessions kept increasing. Until only recently have I realized that the words “Be thankful for what you’ve got” are flawed in the face of consumerism. My actions have not been perfect since I was nine but more often than not I was able to see that I was blessed and in turn was thankful for the things that I did have. But an appreciation of the things I had in no way addressed whether or not I should have those things in the first place.
My dream of owning a gaming console came true my sophomore year of high school. The Nintendo 64 came out and it was the hot gift of the year. As a side note this, of course, meant that the price of the Super Nintendo was going down. My mother would go out shopping in late December (pre Christmas) and would come home with bags full of things. We never knew what was in the bags until Christmas day but we did know what stores she had been to based on the logos of the bags she was carrying. One day she came home with a Gamestop bag in her hand and I hoped that behind that opaque plastic was the coveted Nintendo 64.
After an eternity of waiting Christmas day finally came. I tore through all of the gifts that were labeled with my name thanking my parents for each one and quickly moving on to the next one hoping it would be “the gift”. I came to the end of my presents and had not found any containing the gift I was hoping for. I quickly glanced around at my siblings gifts and noticed none of them had anything resembling Nintendo 64. Suddenly my parents brought in one final “family gift”. The gift was meant to be shared among all of us. It could only be one thing. I quickly dove towards the package and attacked it frantically as my siblings quickly joined in helping me tear the paper to shreds in order to expose the gift lying beneath. Sure enough, there it was, the first console any of us were to ever own, the Super Nintendo. Though we were not as pleased as we would have been had it been a Nintendo 64 we knew it would still be fun. We all knew that we should be thankful for the Super Nintendo even if it was not the Nintendo 64 we had hoped for.
It was on this day that I can look back and realize that being “thankful for what you’ve got” may not be the best philosophy in addressing consumerism. I now owned, along with my older brother, older sister and younger sister, a Super Nintendo. It was a great little machine and though we were disappointed with it at first we soon realized the benefit of this console. While our friends only had two or three games for their N64’s we could rent and even buy many more games for low prices. So, yes, we were not just being nice, we were actually thankful for the gift we had received. However, it was thankfulness for something we did not in the least bit need.
Looking back on this incident it becomes blatantly obvious that being thankful, though a worthy mindset and admirable disposition, does not justify consumerist behavior. Yet, as mentioned before it is only until recently that I have realized the breakdown in the advice my parents had given me since I was a small child. Consequently, it has largely been the way I have viewed my consumption. There are exceptions and circumstances in which this does not hold true but more or less I have held on to these words. As long as I was thankful for a purchase or a gift it was okay. But being thankful is not the most pressing issue that an irresponsible consumer lifestyle presents. If a thankful mindset was all that was needed to justify consumption it would not be an issue. However, there are huge ramifications for consuming outside of ones means. Not only are there environmental and globalization problems but also local issues. It would be easy to say that consuming beyond your means is a bad thing but at the same time it is what has brought us into the modern age. The consumption of many powers the economy upon which we rely.
It is in this paradoxical situation that I find myself both clinging to “Be thankful for what I’ve got” as a means to justify buying more and on the other hand idealizing about living an even more simplistic lifestyle in which I do not merely buy and give thanks. Thus my consumption philosophy remains ever changing. I operate in an un-convicted state buying what I want and passively judging those that I feel consume too much.
UPDATE (2/14/08): I got an A- on this paper
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Jotting #8 - Natural Law Applied
Question/Prompt: Apply natural law ethics to the situation which Durning describes.
My response: During’s main point in his article is that there is an over consumption of natural resources by consumers, specifically Americans. In order to apply the first point of Harris’s checklist the four fundamental values should be described: biological (preserve life, protect young), procreation, pursuit of knowledge, sociability.
In the comparison of During with Harris’ checklist we can determine that the action, reducing over consumption, is in accord with the biological inclinations of the natural law. Reducing our consumption to levels that are sustainable globally is a good thing for life everywhere. He does not say that we should kill off extra people in order to decrease the overall demands on the earth but rather a better use of resources available.
The area of forfeiture is more complicated. It is possible to consider those who consume too many resources as causing the eventual death of others; whether it is directly, through sweat shop labor or indirectly, through eventual environmental damage. If you consider their actions as causing death then by the qualifying principle of forfeiture their life is no longer valuable. This of course is a highly controversial view but the reasoning can be skewed to appear this way.
However, saying that consumerism is completely bad and leads to death is not entirely correct. According to During “once people join the consumer class, their impact ceases to grow as quickly because their attention tends to switch to high-value, low-resource goods and services.” (p563 8th ed.) Therefore those who feel that a completely “non-consumer” lifestyle is the only answer are not entirely right. There is a potential that consuming can be controlled in such a way that all humans can enjoy a certain standard of living that is both sustainable and fair.
The statistics presented in During’s piece illustrate that there is a wide gap between the poorest and the richest. The rich are consuming resources at a rate that is not possible for all to achieve. It is these people that could fall into the category of forfeiture in that their actions could potentially be causing the death of others. There are some however, that are consuming at a rate that the entire world could potentially survive at. It is this group that would ideally be the norm. However, there is the final group that are consuming nearly no resources relative to the wealthier people.
My response: During’s main point in his article is that there is an over consumption of natural resources by consumers, specifically Americans. In order to apply the first point of Harris’s checklist the four fundamental values should be described: biological (preserve life, protect young), procreation, pursuit of knowledge, sociability.
In the comparison of During with Harris’ checklist we can determine that the action, reducing over consumption, is in accord with the biological inclinations of the natural law. Reducing our consumption to levels that are sustainable globally is a good thing for life everywhere. He does not say that we should kill off extra people in order to decrease the overall demands on the earth but rather a better use of resources available.
The area of forfeiture is more complicated. It is possible to consider those who consume too many resources as causing the eventual death of others; whether it is directly, through sweat shop labor or indirectly, through eventual environmental damage. If you consider their actions as causing death then by the qualifying principle of forfeiture their life is no longer valuable. This of course is a highly controversial view but the reasoning can be skewed to appear this way.
However, saying that consumerism is completely bad and leads to death is not entirely correct. According to During “once people join the consumer class, their impact ceases to grow as quickly because their attention tends to switch to high-value, low-resource goods and services.” (p563 8th ed.) Therefore those who feel that a completely “non-consumer” lifestyle is the only answer are not entirely right. There is a potential that consuming can be controlled in such a way that all humans can enjoy a certain standard of living that is both sustainable and fair.
The statistics presented in During’s piece illustrate that there is a wide gap between the poorest and the richest. The rich are consuming resources at a rate that is not possible for all to achieve. It is these people that could fall into the category of forfeiture in that their actions could potentially be causing the death of others. There are some however, that are consuming at a rate that the entire world could potentially survive at. It is this group that would ideally be the norm. However, there is the final group that are consuming nearly no resources relative to the wealthier people.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Jotting #7 Personal Summary of Natural Law
The Question/Prompt: Summarize Natural Law in your words, but quoting HARRIS and Dr. Snell’s lecture.
My Answer: Dr. Snell began his lecture with the problem. We can not get along. Typically the only reconciliation between two groups of people with conflicting ideas is force. For example, Snell explained, one candidate believes they have the best capabilities of running the country. Of course all of the candidates believe this and as a result the only way for any of them to win is have the force of the vote. This is a general example of the way one persons thoughts prevail over another. But whose ideas are truly right? It is after asking this question you must examine what natural law is.
Both Harris and Snell set out to describe what the natural law is about. Both emphasized the importance of not confusing it with the laws of nature. In turn they both came to a relatively similar basic generalization in that the natural law is applied to all regardless of sex or race.
In Harris’ book he wades through what the natural law is. He discusses where the argument for the natural law is strong and where it is weak. The natural law has biological and “characteristically human values” elements to it. By keeping in accordance with the aforemention categories, natural law promotes what those categories outline.
Snell’s descriptions were similar in that there are certain “natural inclinations” that we tends towards. These inclinations include but are not limited to self preservation and procreation. Furthermore we are beings that follow the law not out of “irrational habit, but by reason”.
My personal summary combined with the information presented in both Snell’s lecture and Harris’ book is that the natural law is an attempt at explain the things that govern human behaviour. It is a set of certain principles that have been brought out objectively and apply to all humans.
My Answer: Dr. Snell began his lecture with the problem. We can not get along. Typically the only reconciliation between two groups of people with conflicting ideas is force. For example, Snell explained, one candidate believes they have the best capabilities of running the country. Of course all of the candidates believe this and as a result the only way for any of them to win is have the force of the vote. This is a general example of the way one persons thoughts prevail over another. But whose ideas are truly right? It is after asking this question you must examine what natural law is.
Both Harris and Snell set out to describe what the natural law is about. Both emphasized the importance of not confusing it with the laws of nature. In turn they both came to a relatively similar basic generalization in that the natural law is applied to all regardless of sex or race.
In Harris’ book he wades through what the natural law is. He discusses where the argument for the natural law is strong and where it is weak. The natural law has biological and “characteristically human values” elements to it. By keeping in accordance with the aforemention categories, natural law promotes what those categories outline.
Snell’s descriptions were similar in that there are certain “natural inclinations” that we tends towards. These inclinations include but are not limited to self preservation and procreation. Furthermore we are beings that follow the law not out of “irrational habit, but by reason”.
My personal summary combined with the information presented in both Snell’s lecture and Harris’ book is that the natural law is an attempt at explain the things that govern human behaviour. It is a set of certain principles that have been brought out objectively and apply to all humans.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Paper 1 - Consumption Philosophy
-Our assignment is to discuss our consumption philosophy.
Throughout my life I have been cared for. I have never been without the things that I need. Never have I had to wonder where I was going to sleep nor have I experienced a day in which I would go to bed on an empty stomach. As a result I have essentially taken for granted the fact that I can get a clean drink of water when I want it. This in turn has skewed my view as to what is necessary for me to live. Does life in America require different basic needs as opposed to life in Jamaica? Is it ever okay to make a purchase that is not necessary to live? Early on in my life I was taught a vivid lesson, “Be thankful for what you’ve got.” By these words I lived my life only to realize their inability to address the heart of consumption. Thankfulness for the things you have is not an excuse for consumption of the things you want.
Thankfulness, the word would always come back to me whenever I started complaining that I did not have something more or something cooler than what I already had. It was hard for me to understand why if my friend had a certain toy or got to go on a certain trip why I in turn could not. A specific incident that is forever etched in my mind illustrates this point. When I was about 9 years old I received an invitation for a play date at my friend Jeffrey Lacroix’s house. I was excited for this trip to his house and the anticipation only grew when he told me that he had a Nintendo gaming system. I spent an entire Saturday afternoon at his house and except for the snack breaks we were gaming the entire time. Soon the time for me to go drew near. I heard my mother’s car creep into the driveway like a rain cloud creeping between the sun and the earth. I knew my time with this precious gaming console was coming to an end but I could due nothing about it. Then, the words that I hoped I would never hear rang out, “Dan, its time to go home.” I remember the game was Mario and that I was in the middle of the desert. I was so attached to this little digital figure that the thought of leaving him without someone to control him and help him through all of the perilous levels was inhumane. But nonetheless, all of Mario’s lives were lost and I was forced to go.
I do not remember much of the ride home. All that consumed my mind was that I needed one of those glorious gaming systems. Unfortunately, my mother did not recognize that apparent need. Her exact words escape my memory but I know it was something to the effect of “Be thankful for what you’ve got”. The wisdom of my mother’s words were not as apparent to me then as they are now but even today I see problems with her advice. Nevertheless, she succeeded in making me appreciate some of the things that I did have at home but she did not however, completely eradicate my desire for a gaming system. The result of that car ride home is the basis of the framework that I use today in my attitude towards consumerism.
As life went on, from that nine-year-old year, I continued to acquire more and more things. Whether they were gifts or things that I bought my possessions kept increasing. Until only recently have I realized that the words “Be thankful for what you’ve got” are flawed in the face of consumerism. My actions have not been perfect since I was nine but more often than not I was able to see that I was blessed and in turn was thankful for the things that I did have. But an appreciation of the things I had in no way addressed whether or not I should have those things in the first place.
My dream of owning a gaming console came true my sophomore year of high school. The Nintendo 64 came out and it was the hot gift of the year. As a side note this, of course, meant that the price of the Super Nintendo was going down. My mother would go out shopping in late December (pre Christmas) and would come home with bags full of things. We never knew what was in the bags until Christmas day but we did know what stores she had been to based on the logos of the bags she was carrying. One day she came home with a Gamestop bag in her hand and I hoped that behind that opaque plastic was the coveted Nintendo 64.
After an eternity of waiting Christmas day finally came. I tore through all of the gifts that were labeled with my name thanking my parents for each one and quickly moving on to the next one hoping it would be “the gift”. I came to the end of my presents and had not found any containing the gift I was hoping for. I quickly glanced around at my siblings gifts and noticed none of them had anything resembling Nintendo 64. Suddenly my parents brought in one final “family gift”. The gift was meant to be shared among all of us. It could only be one thing. I quickly dove towards the package and attacked it frantically as my siblings quickly joined in helping me tear the paper to shreds in order to expose the gift lying beneath. Sure enough, there it was, the first console any of us were to ever own, the Super Nintendo. Though we were not as pleased as we would have been had it been a Nintendo 64 we knew it would still be fun. We all knew that we should be thankful for the Super Nintendo even if it was not the Nintendo 64 we had hoped for.
It was on this day that I can look back and realize that being “thankful for what you’ve got” may not be the best philosophy in addressing consumerism. I now owned, along with my older brother, older sister and younger sister, a Super Nintendo. It was a great little machine and though we were disappointed with it at first we soon realized the benefit of this console. While our friends only had two or three games for their N64’s we could rent and even buy games many more games for low prices. So, yes, we were not just being nice we were actually thankful for the gift we had received. However, it was thankfulness for something we did not in the least bit need.
Looking back on this incident it becomes blatantly obvious that being thankful, though a worthy mindset and admirable disposition, does not justify consumerist behavior. Yet, as mentioned before it is only until recently that I have realized the breakdown in the advice my parents had given me since I was a small child. Consequently, it has largely been the way I have viewed my consumption. There are exceptions and circumstances in which this does not hold true but more or less I have held on to these words. As long as I was thankful for a purchase or a gift it was okay.
Here I am now, a Junior in college and only now am I reflecting on the reasons for my consumeristic behavior. I am a grateful person but have never truly put honest reflection into the fact that I can be thankful for things that I do not need. In honest reflection I recognize that I have lived a simple life. Not as simple as some but not as product filled as others. But living a simple life is something that was a consequence of being thankful for what I had. It has become ever more evident that the simplicity in which I have existed is not necessarily a result of moral superiority but a lack of appetite and exposure to things that I wanted.
Throughout my life I have been cared for. I have never been without the things that I need. Never have I had to wonder where I was going to sleep nor have I experienced a day in which I would go to bed on an empty stomach. As a result I have essentially taken for granted the fact that I can get a clean drink of water when I want it. This in turn has skewed my view as to what is necessary for me to live. Does life in America require different basic needs as opposed to life in Jamaica? Is it ever okay to make a purchase that is not necessary to live? Early on in my life I was taught a vivid lesson, “Be thankful for what you’ve got.” By these words I lived my life only to realize their inability to address the heart of consumption. Thankfulness for the things you have is not an excuse for consumption of the things you want.
Thankfulness, the word would always come back to me whenever I started complaining that I did not have something more or something cooler than what I already had. It was hard for me to understand why if my friend had a certain toy or got to go on a certain trip why I in turn could not. A specific incident that is forever etched in my mind illustrates this point. When I was about 9 years old I received an invitation for a play date at my friend Jeffrey Lacroix’s house. I was excited for this trip to his house and the anticipation only grew when he told me that he had a Nintendo gaming system. I spent an entire Saturday afternoon at his house and except for the snack breaks we were gaming the entire time. Soon the time for me to go drew near. I heard my mother’s car creep into the driveway like a rain cloud creeping between the sun and the earth. I knew my time with this precious gaming console was coming to an end but I could due nothing about it. Then, the words that I hoped I would never hear rang out, “Dan, its time to go home.” I remember the game was Mario and that I was in the middle of the desert. I was so attached to this little digital figure that the thought of leaving him without someone to control him and help him through all of the perilous levels was inhumane. But nonetheless, all of Mario’s lives were lost and I was forced to go.
I do not remember much of the ride home. All that consumed my mind was that I needed one of those glorious gaming systems. Unfortunately, my mother did not recognize that apparent need. Her exact words escape my memory but I know it was something to the effect of “Be thankful for what you’ve got”. The wisdom of my mother’s words were not as apparent to me then as they are now but even today I see problems with her advice. Nevertheless, she succeeded in making me appreciate some of the things that I did have at home but she did not however, completely eradicate my desire for a gaming system. The result of that car ride home is the basis of the framework that I use today in my attitude towards consumerism.
As life went on, from that nine-year-old year, I continued to acquire more and more things. Whether they were gifts or things that I bought my possessions kept increasing. Until only recently have I realized that the words “Be thankful for what you’ve got” are flawed in the face of consumerism. My actions have not been perfect since I was nine but more often than not I was able to see that I was blessed and in turn was thankful for the things that I did have. But an appreciation of the things I had in no way addressed whether or not I should have those things in the first place.
My dream of owning a gaming console came true my sophomore year of high school. The Nintendo 64 came out and it was the hot gift of the year. As a side note this, of course, meant that the price of the Super Nintendo was going down. My mother would go out shopping in late December (pre Christmas) and would come home with bags full of things. We never knew what was in the bags until Christmas day but we did know what stores she had been to based on the logos of the bags she was carrying. One day she came home with a Gamestop bag in her hand and I hoped that behind that opaque plastic was the coveted Nintendo 64.
After an eternity of waiting Christmas day finally came. I tore through all of the gifts that were labeled with my name thanking my parents for each one and quickly moving on to the next one hoping it would be “the gift”. I came to the end of my presents and had not found any containing the gift I was hoping for. I quickly glanced around at my siblings gifts and noticed none of them had anything resembling Nintendo 64. Suddenly my parents brought in one final “family gift”. The gift was meant to be shared among all of us. It could only be one thing. I quickly dove towards the package and attacked it frantically as my siblings quickly joined in helping me tear the paper to shreds in order to expose the gift lying beneath. Sure enough, there it was, the first console any of us were to ever own, the Super Nintendo. Though we were not as pleased as we would have been had it been a Nintendo 64 we knew it would still be fun. We all knew that we should be thankful for the Super Nintendo even if it was not the Nintendo 64 we had hoped for.
It was on this day that I can look back and realize that being “thankful for what you’ve got” may not be the best philosophy in addressing consumerism. I now owned, along with my older brother, older sister and younger sister, a Super Nintendo. It was a great little machine and though we were disappointed with it at first we soon realized the benefit of this console. While our friends only had two or three games for their N64’s we could rent and even buy games many more games for low prices. So, yes, we were not just being nice we were actually thankful for the gift we had received. However, it was thankfulness for something we did not in the least bit need.
Looking back on this incident it becomes blatantly obvious that being thankful, though a worthy mindset and admirable disposition, does not justify consumerist behavior. Yet, as mentioned before it is only until recently that I have realized the breakdown in the advice my parents had given me since I was a small child. Consequently, it has largely been the way I have viewed my consumption. There are exceptions and circumstances in which this does not hold true but more or less I have held on to these words. As long as I was thankful for a purchase or a gift it was okay.
Here I am now, a Junior in college and only now am I reflecting on the reasons for my consumeristic behavior. I am a grateful person but have never truly put honest reflection into the fact that I can be thankful for things that I do not need. In honest reflection I recognize that I have lived a simple life. Not as simple as some but not as product filled as others. But living a simple life is something that was a consequence of being thankful for what I had. It has become ever more evident that the simplicity in which I have existed is not necessarily a result of moral superiority but a lack of appetite and exposure to things that I wanted.
Jotting #6 - Conflict in Consumerism
Prompting: Try, in De Montaigne's sense of the word, any current issue (the war in iraq, using cell phones in cars, or genetic engineering, for examples) Suspend Judgment and ask "what do I know?" Play around, and take all sides.
My response: It is all to easy for me to disregard challenges and take the easy way out of situations. There are numerous head and heart challenges that I am presented with but rarely do I take on these challenges. More often than not I find myself justifying my thoughts and my apathy towards the subject. However as Harris states “Critical reflection is an essential component of being a morally responsible person.” As a result of the glaring truth of this statement it is with some hesitancy that I approach the issue of consumerism.
In reading Harris I find that the issue of consumerism, in my mind, is a conflict problem. In this situation there are “two or more relevant moral demands, both of which cannot be complied within a particular situation.”
I would like to write consumerism off as a terrible thing and something that should be frowned upon. However, the fact of the matter is that we must consume, I know this. If everyone for all of time live conservative lifestyles never pushing for more than we would have never progressed into the modern age. The effects of consumerism stimulate economies. A stimulated economy can in turn result in advancements in science and technology.
Though consumerism can cause positive results it must not go unchecked. Those who live well beyond there means are leaving, among other things, an ecological footprint that may not be able to be reversed. On the other hand it is not easy to say to that person what their specific “means” are.
The question can not be answered simply. This fact was brought up by Harris when he states that sometimes we need to “find a middle way that appeals to both sides”. The “middle way”, as he calls it, is not always agreed upon. The middle way for some is much better off than the middle way for others. The development of a universal “middle way” in turns of consumerism may never be achieved due to the mentality that “if I can and want to, I will”. The power that money makes people feel can be a powerful thing, be it for good or bad.
My response: It is all to easy for me to disregard challenges and take the easy way out of situations. There are numerous head and heart challenges that I am presented with but rarely do I take on these challenges. More often than not I find myself justifying my thoughts and my apathy towards the subject. However as Harris states “Critical reflection is an essential component of being a morally responsible person.” As a result of the glaring truth of this statement it is with some hesitancy that I approach the issue of consumerism.
In reading Harris I find that the issue of consumerism, in my mind, is a conflict problem. In this situation there are “two or more relevant moral demands, both of which cannot be complied within a particular situation.”
I would like to write consumerism off as a terrible thing and something that should be frowned upon. However, the fact of the matter is that we must consume, I know this. If everyone for all of time live conservative lifestyles never pushing for more than we would have never progressed into the modern age. The effects of consumerism stimulate economies. A stimulated economy can in turn result in advancements in science and technology.
Though consumerism can cause positive results it must not go unchecked. Those who live well beyond there means are leaving, among other things, an ecological footprint that may not be able to be reversed. On the other hand it is not easy to say to that person what their specific “means” are.
The question can not be answered simply. This fact was brought up by Harris when he states that sometimes we need to “find a middle way that appeals to both sides”. The “middle way”, as he calls it, is not always agreed upon. The middle way for some is much better off than the middle way for others. The development of a universal “middle way” in turns of consumerism may never be achieved due to the mentality that “if I can and want to, I will”. The power that money makes people feel can be a powerful thing, be it for good or bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)