Most recent posting: Monday, 07-Jul-03 01:32:21 EDT.
Date and time when you accessed this page: Saturday, 21-Nov-09 16:43:33 EST.
This page has been viewed 5144
times.
Welcome! This is a simple discussion board for continuing or extending conversations from class. Please keep your remarks or questions constructive and relevant. Make sure to give your name (so that you get proper credit for this form of participation), and the subject of your post.
Who wants to make a start?
Posted by Carrie Chu (email accckc@hofstra.edu)
Subject: some thoughts
I hope my input can begin a long and interesting discussion on this board. I do not agree with any of the theories provided by the philosophers we study in class in their entirety, but certainly some parts and ideas could be appreciated. Hobbes and Hume seem to be at opposing ends of the spectrum. Hobbes talks about human nature being disruptive and selfish, and therefore, a strong government is necessary to suppress the people. He acknowledges that a higher power that establishes laws do not make "good" and "moral" people, but rather that serves the crucial purpose of "keeping order". But what good are humans if simply abiding by the three laws of nature (peace, trade liberty for security, and justice) make us moral? True intentions and motives are neglected here; if Hobbes thought that humans are incapable of genuine, good-willed intentions, then perhaps humans are incapable of being moral at all. Viewed as such, the three laws of nature are not the contents of morality, they are the contents of social order. On Hobbes' view of human nature being inherently selfish and egotistic, I can't agree with the extreme extent of this thought. Example: Everyone is threatened in the state of nature. Therefore, something (laws) must keep us out of the state of nature and ensure that we do not slip back in. I believe that majority of us have higher tendency towards committing selfish, self-beneficial acts, much more than selfless and considerate acts. People do act out mostly to gain something for himself, but Hobbes should not place all the acts that are beneficial as "self-interest" and "selfish" because many acts that individuals commit ensure his happiness, health, prosperity, without harming others. If these acts do not harm others, they merely enhance our lives. A lot of things we do help us live better, happier, and we shouldn't be considered selfish or destructive or threatening. My thoughts on Hume is that he places entirely too much importance on feelings. Feelings, without the act, are worthless. One could have all the best intentions in the world, for himself and others, but without the act to complement, the feelings are of no use or good.
Posted by Dr. Singer (email phiijs@hofstra.edu)
Subject: Reply to Carrie
Carrie: thanks for contributing! You make lots of good and thoughtful points. I most appreciated the general point that, instead of either entirely accepting or entirely rejecting any of the philosophers we study, you are looking for both strengths and weaknesses in everybody, while thinking through the issues for yourself. A few responses to your particular points: (1) You are right that, for Hobbes, all of morality becomes a matter of keeping social order, and no motives are ever truly noble or altruistic. Hobbes thinks that this is simply realism. But others, including Kant (the philosopher we are about to begin discussing in class), would agree with you that "genuine, good-willed intentions" are essential for real morality. (What do other people in the class think? Is morality just about making people behave, or is it at least partly about whether people act from good and pure motives?) (2) Hobbes doesn't say that all of our self-interested actions must be other-destructive actions at the same time. In a civil society with a stable government, we will have plenty of opportunities to help ourselves without harming others, and even to help others as a by-product of helping ourselves. (Hobbes would have no problem with this; he doesn't think we are or ought to be malicious, just that we are self-interested.) Only in the anarchic State of Nature is it true that we must look to preserve our own lives by threatening and destroying others. (3) Maybe Hume does place too much importance on feelings, but he doesn't say that actions don't matter. On the contrary, Hume thinks that our moral feelings are important because they lead us to action, and without action there is no morality. (So he thinks that if you rationally and neutrally notice that someone is drowning, you will do nothing about it. Only if you have the feeling that it would be terrible for the person to drown will you be motivated to act to save her.)
Posted by (email pkaur1@hofstra.edu)
Subject:
I really liked the discussion in class today. I wasn't sure about what Mill thinks of happiness. Mill says "those only are happy who have their minds fixed on another object, whether it be person or another pursuit." If someone is focused on another person or object, how can they pay attention to their needs and their wants? It seems that happiness is placed aside and one's mind is distracted not to think about oneself but others. How is someone suppossed to reach a happier state of mind if they are busy focusing on helping others and not listening to their inner self?
Posted by Dr. Singer (email phiijs@hofstra.edu)
Subject: Reply to Pavneet about Mill
A good question. Maybe it's right that Mill got carried away in stating his point. The idea isn't that you should never listen to your inner self, or never spend any time pursuing your own happiness. Rather, the idea is that you shouldn't obsessively focus on your own happiness, because that would be a self-defeating obsession. Only if you spend some time thinking about other people for their own sakes, and only if you sometimes love what you are doing so much that you "lose yourself" in it, will you have a good chance of durable happiness. So: don't forget about or neglect yourself; but don't obsess about yourself and your own happiness either. Hope that helps clarify Mill's point.
Posted by Brad (email Nikelann1@aol.com)
Subject: stupid obsession
IM 18 years old and i am very interested in Philosophy and psychology.I like to read alot on the subject,especially for my age. I find that after several months of studying the subjects, I tend to get mad at myself for natural thoughts and intentions/motives I make .I realize that no one can be 100% pure in there thoughts and intentions and that it takes time to grow but i still find myself obsessing over it. I then find myself getting angry at myself for obsessing over it which makes it worse.Its like a never ending battle.Is this a normal process to go through while studying such subjects?
Post New Message
Return to Philosophy 14 Home Page