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 The natural law tends to feel a bit outdated as Snell mentioned in his lecture.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.
Showing posts with label natural law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label natural law. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
