The Human Nature of Happiness

Conclusion: Human Nature is constituted as to desire nothing, which is not either a part of happiness or a means of happiness.

1.)Virtue is a part of finding happiness

            -Actions and dispositions are only virtuous because they promote another end than virtue

            -The principle of utility doesn’t mean that any given pleasure is to be looked upon as means to a collective something termed happiness, and to be desired on that account

            -They are desired and desirable in and for themselves; besides being means, they are a part of an end.

            -Virtue is desired and cherished, not as a means to happiness, but as a part of their happiness

2.)Virtue if not associated with the end result of happiness, would be indifferent.  Because of the association with the end result of Happiness, it becomes desirable in itself.

            -Money is a concept that works in a similar way

                        -Money is desired not for the sake of an end, but as a part of the end.

            -The physical aspects of money are not desirable in itself, but the concept of being able to purchase an end makes money desirable. (36)

3.)Power and Fame

-Humans desire Power and Fame partially because of the immediate pleasure annexed

-They are attractive because they give immense aid to our other wishes

-The desire for rewards such as power and fame can sometimes outweigh the power for happiness.

-What was once desired as an instrument for the attainment of happiness has come to be desired for its own sake.

-In being desired in its own sake it is desired because it is part of happiness. (37)

4.)Happiness is not an abstract Idea but a concrete whole.

-“ Life would be a poor thing if there were not this provision provided with sources of happiness associated with the satisfaction of our primitive desires.”(38)

5.)Virtue then is a product of the desire for happiness

                        -Through the association thus formed it may be felt a good in itself.

                        -Utilitarianism requires the cultivation of the love of virtue up to the greatest strength possible, as being above all things important to the general happiness.

The result is that there is nothing in reality desired except happiness

                        -Whatever is desired otherwise than as a means to some end beyond itself and ultimately to happiness.

                        -Happiness is desired in itself and is not complete until it has become complete happiness.

                        -Virtue is valued in itself because of the desire for pleasure and the hatred for pain. This mindset creates the end goal of happiness. (39)

Conclusion: Human Nature is constituted as to desire nothing, which is not either a part of happiness or a means of happiness.

Personal Liberty: For the People, By the people, and not the Government

Here is the link to the digital version of On Liberty by J.S. Mill. The citations will be from that source. http://www.bartleby.com/130/5.html

Conclusion: Government should protect and enhance the personal liberties of humans, without infringing upon them.

1. The government and its people have a limited right to infringe upon other's personal liberties

• The individual person cannot be held responsible for their actions if they are pursuing a personal liberty (3).
• The one exception is if the pursuit of the personal liberty is detrimental to another's personal liberties (6).
• We generally accept people as good, and should be proven otherwise instead of making assumptions (5).
• Can only express dislike towards conduct of another person pursuing liberty if the expressed believes it to be for their own good (2).
• Own good can refer to the stopping of a crime (5).
• Can advise when the protection of another person's rights are in danger (5).
• Can warm someone of the instability of bridge (5).
• Can tell someone that slavery will relinquish all their liberties (11).
• Trade cannot be regulated by the government, its a social act (4).
• Benefits the people, should be run by the beneficiaries (4).
• People who know trade the best should be the ones in charge (4).
• Government can step in if people are being taken advantage of (4).

2. The government can hold you accountable for the infringement of your own and other's personal liberties.

• If you have a child and cannot support the child, provide it with a good life, then you should be held responsible for not giving the child that right, and providing that burden to the community (6).
• Giving advice for one's own compensation is wrong and can be punishable by government (8).
• Helping one is okay as long as its for one's own good, but one's own good doesn't mean money (8).
• If you get drunk and hurt someone, invading their personal right, you can be held responsible (8).
• People have the right to drink, but if you show signs of repeated infringement of personal liberty, you can be properly punished (8).

3. Government intervention is necessary in beneficial situations

• Poisons and Stimulants are okay for society, government must use regulation to ensure proper use (5). 
• Cannot be completely abolished if they can be used for good, but are sometimes abused
• Taxation is a good way to regulate the use and/or consumption of poisons/stimulants (9).
• Cannot limit the amount of venues for getting a stimulant (bar, liquor store) (9). 
• That will hurt entire community for small % of wrongdoing
• All citizens should be able to go to school, government uses taxes to subsidize those who need it (13).
• All schools should be private, unless the private schooling is insufficient for citizens (13).
• If insufficient, government should supply the schooling (13). 
• Government testing for proper academia is necessary to ensure everyone receives liberty of good education (14).
• Only to a certain age (14).

Conclusion: Government protects and enhances rights and liberties, but cannot overstep that boundary and infringe upon personal liberties

Debate teams, topics

On Friday, Dec. 7th, the teams debating euthanasia will present their arguments.  On Tuesday, Dec. 11th, the teams debating "dietary restrictions" will present.

You will need to set up a meeting with your team members to prepare for your debate.  I will send out emails with the addresses of members to each team by the end of the afternoonThese will be sent to your fordham.edu address.  Please let me know if you do not receive one.

Topic: Euthanasia

Team A defends the proposition:
Elective euthanasia should be permitted.


Katherine
Steffanie
Fawziyah
Joe
Tyler
Valerie
Chris
Kiara

Team B defends the proposition: 

Elective euthanasia should be prohibited.

Alana

David

Ken

Cristina

Jakob 

Alex V.

Tom

Mairead

Tom D.

Topic: "Dietary restrictions", a.k.a., the Bloomberg soda fiasco

Team A defends the proposition:

Municipal governments have the obligation to regulate the consumption of certain foods.

Emilio

Nicolette

Mika

Jerry

Rico

Laura

Colleen

Madeleine

Team B defends the proposition:

Municipal governments have no obligation to regulate the consumption of certain foods.

Nicole

Maggie

Rebecca

Taylor

Ali A.

Dan

Alex C. 

Martin

Allie R.

The Distinction Between Combatants and Non-combatants in War

Conclusion: One of the restrictions on total war appears in the distinction between combatants and non-combatants.

1. Absolutism is not entirely separate from utilitarianism- rather, it limits utilitarianism, stating that there are certain actions we must never commit, no matter how beneficial the consequences may be. (56)

a.       It can be said that absolutism is concerned with our actions (52), whereas

b.      Utilitarianism is concerned with the results of these actions (52)

 2.  There is a certain misunderstanding of Absolutism- this is that we may never commit an act that we know may have negative consequences upon other people, such as murder

a.       However, we see sometimes, there are cases in which avoiding committing murder, or harming another person, is impossible (57)

b.      In these cases, it is important to note absolutism does not say we must “prevent” murder no matter what, but that we should “avoid” it as much as we can (60)

3. Following this logic, it is possible in some cases that we may have to hurt or even kill someone

4. Nagel makes an important distinction between who is an appropriate target of harmful actions, and who is not. In his terms, he uses the words “combatants” and “noncombatants” (68)

a.       Combatants are appropriate targets (69)

b.      Noncombatants must never be intentionally harmed, not even in order to harm a combatant indirectly (63)

5.       Whenever we attack someone, there must be something about that particular person himself that justifies our attack against him (63)

a.       Therefore, if there is not something directly about the particular person you are attacking, your actions are not morally permissible (63)

6.      A combatant is defined as someone who is “currently harmful” (69)

a.       You must not take his potential to be harmful into account. The only aspect that matters is how harmful he is in the present moment (70)

b.      In this logic, it is not permissible to kill a soldier who is already wounded, and who cannot carry out any other acts of violence against you- even if he has the potential to recover, and continue his violent acts at a later date (70)

7.       A noncombatant is anyone who is “innocent,” or not immediately dangerous (69)

a.       Nagel defines “innocence” not as someone who is morally incorrupt, but rather as someone who is not committing immediate harm (69)

b.      This means that we are not allowed to harm those who are not posing a direct threat to us (69)

8.       This line may be less distinguishable when dealing with certain types of people, such as the medical personnel who are assisting your enemy during a war. According to Nagel’s terms, we are not allowed to harm these people, regardless of the fact they are aiding the enemy. (69)

a.       This is because they are providing for the enemies needs as a “human being”, rather than providing for the enemy as a “threat” (69)

b.      The right to health and physical comfort is a right all human beings share, and thus providing someone with this right is not a reason for violence (69)

9.   The amount of harm we inflict on a combatant must be relative to the threat he represents at that time (63)

a.       We must not inflict more damage than is necessary to stop the harmful action the combatant is attempting to commit (70)

b.      For example, it is wrong to purposely shoot and kill someone if all we had to do to stop the threat was to shoot an extremity (70)

Absolutism, the Last Piece of the Utilitarianism Puzzle

Conclusion: Utilitarianism alone does not complete one’s moral reasoning, in fact in times of war is rendered completely inadequate.

1. There are two components to moral reason: Utilitarianism and Absolutism (52).

a. Utilitarianism is concerned with what the outcome (of one’s action or inaction) will be, as the first priority (52).

i. One should try to maximize the good and benefit to society, and minimize evil (53).

ii. When presented with a problem where one has to choose between two evils, one chooses the lesser of two evils (i).

iii. In war, one will do whatever it takes to defeat the enemy, if the overall outcome will save more people (i).

            b. Absolutism is focused on the action itself, instead of the outcome (52).

i. It is based on a few principles of moral judgment, which should hold in any situation (54).

ii. For example, one should not murder, kill innocent people (i).

iii. In war, one should never target civilian populations (i).

2. Utilitarianism calls for actions that are not moral and cannot be justified (i).

a. Utilitarianism accepts the notion of total war, whereas absolutism finds this completely immoral and does not (68).

i. Total war is the type of aggression where one country uses anything they can do, to break morale or cripple the enemy. This can include direct attacks on innocent civilian populations.

b. Absolutism not only finds any type of murder or torture completely immoral, but states that they are also unjustifiable (72).

3. Utilitarianism accepts “dirty fighting,” absolutism demands “clean fighting” (63).

a. Fighting dirty is when someone directs their aggression at a peripheral target, which indirectly attacks the proper object itself (63).

b. Clean fighting is directing one’s aggression and hostility directly at the true object, and the action is intended for him as a subject and he receive it as a subject (65).

i. For example, the hostility should strictly apply to him and not the situation, he should be able to identify his role as the subject (65).

c. Utilitarianism, based on its definition, accepts dirty fighting if it leads to a greater overall good (i).

i. If one has to torture a suspected terrorist with the possibility he might give up information that could save thousands of lives, Utilitarianism allows it (i).

4. Absolutism is strictly a limitation on utilitarian reasoning, not a substitute for it (56).

a. Absolutism does not mean to eliminate all type of fighting all together, just prohibit the worst types and calls to concentrate the fighting on militaries rather than civilians (70).

b. Both moral intuitions together allow for a complete moral reasoning.

i. The biggest concern for an absolutist is not to break any of the absolute prohibitions (56).

ii. When a conflict between the two moral intuitions arises, one must act accordingly to absolutism in order to be acting morally (i).

iii. Beyond that, an absolutist can practice utilitarianism and try to maximize good for as many people as possible, without any moral predicament (56).