Ethics:Discussion, Reflection, Synthesis ( What is difference between bad and good or right and wrong)

As examined in the article, Immanuel Kant states in his own philosophy, “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes – because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end; it is good through its willing alone – that is, good in itself.” The difference between the right and the wrong actions comes within the person, due to the fact it based on the moral virtues each individual has. Why do religious concepts outline the rightness or wrongness of actions, if these concepts of right and wrong deal with moral values?

The Sicilian philosopher Gorgias believes in the following concept, “… that there can be no such thing as right and wrong because moral truths or facts do not exist. In fact, Gorgias argued that nothing exists.”Thus when applying Gorgias philosophy to Kant’s philosophy the ‘good will’ that Kant refers to, does not exist. If these philosophies were applied to the concepts of religions the right and wrong actions would not exist which would affect the religious virtues that specific belief system requires. Religion revolves around the concept of what is considered right and what is considered wrong, or what is good and what is bad. The moral values is not considered when the religious aspects are outlined, as the religious behavior consists of what should be believe and what concepts should be build in one’s mind. Thus religion does not consider a person’s moral values, as it states discipline in what should be values from the good and bad or right and wrong. 

Ethics:Discussion, Reflection, Synthesis ( What is a good person?)

The following passage regarding Confucius, “Tzu Kung asked: “Is there any one word that can serve as a principle for the conduct of life?”  Confucius said: “Perhaps the word ‘reciprocity’: Do not do to others what you would not want others to do to you.” Which can be considered as the definition and answer of the question, what is a good person? Why are the concepts of, what is a good person, differ between people and societies?

When Confucius answered Tzu Kung’s question on the principle for the conduct of life, his answer helped understand the meaning of the principles of what a good person is  and also why people do the things they do. He answered what a good person is by explaining that a person, who would not treat themselves an improper way, would not treat others the same way. However Confucius’s concept is obviously not believed by every person, because of the different level of understandings that is developed in different societies and communities. The understanding of situations and experiences can surely be practiced in a different way. For instance, if a person treats himself a certain way and others the exact same way -- it might be considered “improper” in society. Which then people will not refer to that person as a ‘good’ person. Thus the concepts of what is a good person always differs because every concept of this definition is always affected by what is taught to that person from childhood, cultural values, morals learned from experiences and many other factors. Hence, why the concepts of what a good person is always differs between people creating various conflicts and such.

Ethics:Discussion, Reflection, Synthesis ( What is the right thing to do?)

Igor Primoratz addresses the issues on capitalism as he states; “For there seems to be a certain amount of discrimination and injustice not only in sentencing people to death and executing them, but also in meting out the penalties.  If this argument were valid, it would call not only for abolition of the penalty of death, but for doing away with other penalties as well.  But it is not valid.” The right to take away one’s life is always seen as an immoral action. If the right to take away life is not accepted, why is capital punishment practiced in some regions of the world?

The immorality action of taking ones’ life is always punished when applicable in today’s world, with our strong law system which applies to almost every society and community. The responsibility of the actions we make and commute within our families, societies, lives, etc; is always outlined by the law system that applies to our everyday lives – reminding us the consequences of the various actions we decide to make. As Kongfuzi states in his philosophical studies, ““What you do not like when done to yourself, do not do to others,” can apply to the issue of capital punishment. This issue, as address in the article above, can we applied and is supported by this Chinese philosopher as  it is believe, if you commit murder ,the punishment of death will be applied to you. Thus, the right thing to do, if considering the philosophers opinion, would be applying the capital punishment. However then many ethically and inhuman questions arises. Who has the right to life? If a person does not have the right to take another persons’ life, why is the law system allowed to take away the murderer’s life? The capital punishment is therefore practiced as many legal systems do believe it is the suitable punishment for that specific person. 

Epistemology: Discussion, Reflection, Synthesis ( Rationalism vs. Empiricism)

Popper tried to distinguish between science and pseudo-science as stated, “I often formulated my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and a non-empirical or even a pseudo-empirical method – that is to say, a method which although it appeals to observation and experiment, nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards.” The knowledge we wish to know can be based on rationalism or empiricism. How can the difference between rationalism and empiricism be applied regarding humanity issues?

Both rationalism and empiricism can be used in various humanity issues, as various concepts of humanity based problems are explained through the process of rationalism, as they are based rather on theories than experiences. These are issues that are supported by theories and understandings; issues such as effects of violent nurture of a child which leads to a negative behavior at adulthood. This is a theory provided by studies rather than proven experiments and statically and scientific evidence. Moreover, humanity based issues can also be defined and proven, by empirical results effects of negative inhuman events can cause physical damage to the brain and how we function. For instance, a war can affect a person’s brain development due to the collision, violence, trauma, etc, -can be scientific seen and recorded as it’s a physical attribute. Thus the humanity based problems both viewed in rationalism and empiricism due to the circumstances. 

Epistemology: Discussion, Reflection, Synthesis (What is truth?)

Chuang address the following questions: “Suppose you and I argue.  If you beat me instead of me beating you, are you really right and am I really wrong?  If I beat you instead of you beating me, am I really right and are you really wrong?  Or are we both partly right and partly wrong?  Or are we both wholly right and wholly wrong? How does the belief and distinction of right and wrong regarding the truth lead to conflicts?

In Chinese philosophy, Chuang questions the right and wrong between certain situations. In the following passage he tries to examine the difference between the two people’s rights and wrong, and their version of truth. Since there are varies of opinions and beliefs of ‘the truth’, it concludes with conflicts among people, cultural groups, religious groups, etc. Chuang tries to tries to demonstrate in his analysis why “there is no room for arguments”, due to the fact he analysis how the difference between the right and wrong does not conclude into a belief conflict. While examining this passage, I concluded that if the right is discovered, proven, and evident and understood the wrong should be disregarded – which leaves “no room” for arguments. However then the understanding of the truth is hardly always perceived the same way. This then creates conflicts between the different faiths and knowledge distinct by the level and variety of experiences.  This examination can be applied to the concepts of religion as there are always conflicts between religions regarding the opposite belief systems – “which religion speaks the truth?” is the question often asked by the believers of followers of religions. However Chuang addresses the concept of who is really wrong and who is really right, as the truth is always different in every perception, thus there will always be a distinction which will always lead real life cultural, religious, etc, conflicts.

Epistemology: Discussion, Reflection, Synthesis (Experiential Knowledge)

George Berkly discusses knowledge as he states; “It is evident to anyone who takes a survey of the objects of human knowledge that they are either ideas actually imprinted on the sense or are perceived by attending to the operations of the mind.”Knowledge is usually gained and learns through the everyday experiences. How can the powers of the operation of the mind, affect the knowledge we gain?

         As Berkly stated, the power of our imagination or forming ideas are all formed and built in our minds. The mind is where all the information is gained and perceived as, which concludes to our very own understanding and knowledge. Thus if our minds were to identify a certain situation different from the reality’s situation, that would affect the way we process and follow through tasks negatively. Then knowledge we gain will differ from the real life situation and our reaction will affect the whole experience of things.  Berkley discusses about the power of our minds and how every imagination and thought process is created and composed in our minds from every information gained, from reality. Thus, for instance, if a situation occurred and the thoughts proceed different from the reality situation, the tasks that you would perform would collide with real life events which may create a conflict. Moreover the operations of our thought process can certainly affect the knowledge we gain from experiences and situations, which can be caused by wrong information being received. 

Metaphysics: Discussion, Reflection, Synthesis ( Supreme Being)

Confucius discusses humanity as the following: “To be able to practice five virtues everywhere in the world constitutes humanity: courtesy, magnanimity [nobility of feeling and generosity of mind], good faith, diligence, and kindness.”  The variations of virtues for humanity differ for every “belief system”. Does practicing and succeeding every believed virtue regarding humanity conclude in perfection (the Supreme Being)?

                The perception of the Supreme Being is often seen as a definition of perfection. If virtues are created depending on certain concepts, such as humanity, one might be seen as perfect for succeeding in the requirements of the practice. In Anselm’s ontological argument, he defines “God” as a supremely perfect being.  However the perception of achieving perfection differs with every being, culture, religion, etc.  Thus the definition of achieving perfection differs with the definition of the Supreme Being regarding what is the belief of that particular person.  However practicing ones meaning of humanity creates self-satisfaction which may be considered and defined as various meanings. The common ground of being humanly perfect and the Supreme Being is often seen in a similar light in most religions and cultures. Overall depending of the belief system and definition created by that person, culture, religion, precetion, etc. 

Metaphysics: Discussion, Reflection, Synthesis ( Personhood)

In Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics, Annette Baier wrote: “Persons are born to earlier persons, and learn the arts of personhood from other persons. These arts include the self-consciousness which follows from mutual recognition, along with the sort of representation that speech makes possible…. The first persons we recognize as such are those who greet us, call to us, and answer our calls. Our personhood is responsive….” Furthermore, knowledge of personhood is gained through the witnessing of others experiences of life. However, how will the various and diverse experiences and arts of personhood affect the level of common potentialities to the human species?    

As discussed in the following philosophical studies and analysis of Human nature by Mortimer Adlerl,  a specific nature that is common to all members of the human species is the level of common potentialities. However, due to diversity cultural, physical or even religious circumstances, etc  – these effects can surely play a role in that human capability or common potentialities. When referring to the statement by Baier, it explains that art and knowledge of personhood is taught by other persons, however if that very person, who is being an example of future knowledge of personhood, lacks in a particular area of common potentiality; a change in the level of human capability will differ for the group of people who are being taught the basics of personhood from this “leader”.  However due to the basic biological needs and wants (referring to the Maslow hierarchy of needs) there are various common potentialities that has to be met in order to proceed on with tasks or for basic survival skills (such as communicating).As stated in the analysis in Adlerl, there is a big difference between the potentialities of nature and nurture, however how the potentialities of nature are taught can differ as it is taught through experiences. One might lack a certain aspect of the capability and one might be an expert. Overall, the natural common potentialities are always met in order to fulfill and meet biological needs. 

Metaphysics:Discussion, Reflection, Synthesis (Self)

 As David Hume stated: “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception. When my perceptions are remov'd for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist.” A person’s perception of self is always effected by external or internal experiences which meets with reality experiences . Hence, how would the perception of self conflict with reality obstacles and expectations, if one’s self is not influenced through external experiences?   

                Our perception of self is evidently influenced and built from external experiences and awareness. However, if our own self perception and realities’ perception requirements did not have any common grounds and creates conflicts, it would be difficult for us to proceed on with daily challenges and tasks throughout our lives, as we proceed on.  In today’s society, various reality expectations are required to be met, especially in developed countries, in order to have stable and “secured” lifestyle, such as job, house, car, etc.  If one’s perception is different and not influenced by society, people, or realistic experiences, they will surely have conflicts with the lifestyle requirements and needs. When referring to the article of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, the prisoners in the cave had no real life experiences and their character and self did not relate the “outside” world. If those prisoners had to survive in the real world, their perception on life would not meet the requirements in order for them to survive as their view on life would be different from what is expected. Thus they have to be externally taught and influenced the perception of the “outside” world, in order to proceed onward. Overall, if there is a big perception between self and realistic situations – conflicts would arise regarding different situations, such as survival, “fitting in”, communicating, etc.