Is a Happy Life Synonomous with a Good Life?

This video seems to be the perfect example of The Experience Machine, and after watching it I question why I ever said "I don't think I would plug in" in class. The man enters into a beautiful house with beautiful women in an exotic location and then proceeds to party and spend time with friends. The happiness he experiences seems to be fulfilling and living an incredibly happy life. According to Hedonism, it is my moral responsibility to immediately put that helmet on because it would bring me happiness. However, Desire Satisfaction Theory would not agree because my greatest desire is not to be happy - it is to live a good life. But are a happy life and a good life synonymous? I do not believe so. To put on the helmet and experience joy, I would have to give up Kazez's list of "necessities".

Kazez lists happiness as the first necessity. She claims that happiness is always a good thing because it generally accompanies good and is consistent with one's life's current trajectory - an increase in happiness usually causes an increase in well-being. So according to Kazez, the Experience Machine really is a good thing, bringing us the undeniable goodness of happiness. But this happiness is gained at the expense of other necessities. Autonomy, self-expression, and morality all come as a byproduct of unhappiness, or from learning experiences, and the Experience Machine would render these factors obsolete.

Desire Satisfaction Critiques: Disaster Relief

We have all heard of the atrocities that took place in Nepal and the surrounding area over the weekend; a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck just outside Kathmandu. The entire country as well as neighboring Tibet and China have also been drastically impacted. The U.N. has said that eight million people have been affected by this natural disaster, with over 5,000 dead and 10,000 injured, the relief efforts necessary are extreme. The U.N. has asked for $415 million for emergency relief over the course of the next three months to help recover bodies, clear the destruction, and move Nepal out of its current state-of-emergency. The Finance Minister of Nepal, Ram S. Mahat has said that the cost to rebuild Nepal will push past $10 billion. While this is a rough estimate that will take years to implement, it is apparent that this cost cannot only be born by the Nepalese. Extreme foreign-aid campaigns will be required to raise these funds, and we have already seen support from Nepal's neighbor to the south, India, as well as other developed countries around the world. Those displaced by the earthquake are forced to live in sprawled temporary camps confining tens of thousands of people with little food and limited access to water. This disaster requires our immediate attention, but it is in a neighboring area so far away. Because of our limited access to that area, and the fact that there are so many other global actors, would desire satisfaction theorists advise for or against a large scale donation to help aid Nepal in their time of need?

Hedonistic Happiness from a Tibetan Monk

According to Matthieu Ricard, a former biochemist and now a Tibetan monk, happiness is solely dependent upon ourselves. More succinctly, he claims that happiness and pleasure are the interpretations of the brain to our exterior stimuli. Thus, if we can control the emotions produced by our brain, regardless of the circumstances, we can maintain a happy and pleasurable life just as hedonists describe. Interestingly enough though, he touches on many theories of good life and meta-ethics that we have discussed this semester. By describing how they all relate to each other, he gives a very thorough definition of happiness and well-being.

"Click" and the Experience Machine

Jack Forde

Click is a very average Adam Sandler film based on a character who suddenly acquires a magic remote that enables him to “fast forward” and through many of the tumultuous points in his life. Sandler’s character, Michael, is a very hardworking architect and often works long hours to try and advance his career and provide a very good life for his family. Michael often sacrifices time with his family for work and seems to not be able to say no to his boss. Michael is given a magical remote by a shady fellow named Morty in the “Beyond” section of a Bed, Bath, & Beyond. He soon finds that the remote allows him to control time and he is able to go back and revisit events from his past and fast-forward through parts of the future.

            This is related to Robert Nozick’s thought experiment the “Experience Machine” where individuals are able to enter a much more pleasurable simulated reality. This experiment is an attempt to refute hedonism and show that some things other than pleasure (or sheer bliss) have value and increase one’s well-being. While the thought experiment is very enticing and enables one to picture what type of life they would be able to have in this “virtual reality,” Nozick aims to refute the notion that happiness is the only thing of value by pointing out that most people will not “plug in” (or in this case, “click in”) even if they could. Nozick states that people want to actually do things, not just experience them and that these experiences are just a byproduct of one’s accomplishments. He also goes on to talk about how people want to be in control of their own life and not be held to a man-made reality. Individuals also want to be people of virtue and use the lessons learned from past experiences and hard work to result in more accomplishments.

            The movie Click relates to Nozick’s Experience Machine and helps to refute the theory of hedonism because Sandler’s character starts to realize that as he fast-forwards through time, his body is on "auto-pilot" - his mind skips ahead, while his body goes through the motions of everyday life. As the movie goes on, the remote starts to fast-forward without Michael controlling it. Michael's various attempts to dispose of or destroy the remote fail, so he resolves to change his life so that the remote can't control him. This part of the movie is in line with one of the arguments against the Experience Machine (and therefore against hedonism) in that the person “plugged in” to the machine cannot possibly change the course of the pre-set experiences, so an experience that was once seen as potentially full of happiness is now one that the person finds melancholy. The person also has no control of the future situations and is now at the mercy of the experience machine (or in this case, the magic remote).

            The theme of the movie and the underlying notion of Nozick’s idea is that all experiences in life matter and that sometimes the bad experiences in one’s life are some of the most instrumental. These experiences are not good within themselves but should not be overlooked. The “experience machine” or the magic remote cannot (in theory) be programmed to help individuals learn these lessons from tough moments or allow individuals to change preferences over time. Michael learns that while he has great ambitions to become successful professionally, it is his wife and kids that will bring him genuine happiness. The moments that he “fast-forwarded” through, often became pivotal moments in his life where he learned some valuable life lessons.  This movie is an example of how moments of “pure bliss” can be outweighed by very real, often tough moments in life. We do not always know for certain what exactly it is that we want from life and moments where we learn valuable lessons are sometimes the most valuable.

           

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOuby0cSa0I

The Experience Machine

The good life is what everyone is striving for by going to school, getting a job, having kids, and more.  But is that the actual good life?  A school of thought called hedonism makes the argument that all those things aren’t what makes up the ideal lifestyle.  Hedonism believes that “a life is good to the extent that it is filled with pleasure and free of pain” (Schafer-Landau).  The idea of happiness and only happiness provides someone with a good life.  It is extremely broad idea since for me eating jelly beans makes me happy, but so does going to the gym.

A lot of things makes us happy, but I believe that the idea of no pain is the more important part of the definition.  It makes that pain would hinder the good life since no one enjoys surgery or being turned down from their dream job.  No one enjoys those feeling, everyone would choose a happy experience in their life over a painful one. 

The idea of happiness is very luring to everyone, philosopher Robert Nozick took this into account to create a counter argument to why happiness isn’t the most important idea for a good life.  His argument is based around the idea of a machine call The Experience Machine which:

 “gives you any experience you desired. Super-duper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine for life, preprogramming your life experiences? [...] Of course, while in the tank you won't know that you're there; you'll think that it's all actually happening.”  (Nozick)

It’s a very enticing idea that you could get your wildness dreams since those would make you the happiest possible.  All you would have to do is give up your actual life for this life of technology enhanced happiness that feels real.  In this video, Richard Rowland does a great job with outlining the ideas of it, but really does a good job with asking the question if it’s better to actual feel and do amazing things in life or if by merely experiencing them is good enough for a good life. 

            Supporters of this idea have many good reasons to plug in such as: The machine allows you to become your ideal person and your wildest dreams come true.  Both are great reasons to give up your current life and allow your dream life come to you.  Plus the machine can be programmed to put barriers in your path to allow for success to make you feel even happier.  Some would say it would be irrational not to allow yourself to be the happiest possible.

            However Nozick offers several reasons why not to plug into the experience machine.  His strongest case is that “We want to be certain people – to plug in is to commit a form of “suicide” (Nozick).  Since you no longer are “living” your life you might as well be dead.  Also the idea the machine still only allows for someone to experience a reality created by humans so the limit of happiness is still what humans can do.  The real world can offer any human made happiness that a machine could in the long run.

            I personally wouldn't give up my real life for the experience machine since the thought of the mentally stimulus of an experience seems irrational to me.  I have a reason to be here and commitments to my friends and family, and by being out of touch with them—the real world—defeats the purpose of living in the first place.  I won’t lie it would be incredible to have the ability to feel happiness from winning the Olympics or graduating college with a 4.0, but that’s not truly what would make me personally feel happiness.  Helping others, seeing my dog, and doing what I love is when I personally am the happiness, and I cannot think of a reason to give up those actual events.  

            Knowing all of this, would you plug in for the ultimate form of happiness and give up your actual life?  Or resist and live your life for you and possibly accept less happiness? 

Works Cited

"Philosophy: Hedonism and The Experience Machine."YouTube. YouTube. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.       <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ1dsNauhGE>.

“Robert Nozick, ‘The Experience Machine’”

            http://www.uky.edu/~mwa229/RobertNozickTheExperienceMachine.pdf

Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals of Ethics. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

Can Money be the True Determinant of the Good Life?

Most people spend their entire lives trying to figure out exactly what the point of life is and what makes a good life. There is a good amount of people that would tell you that a good life is one with a lot of money; but does more money always coincide with a better life? The recent CEO's choice to change all of his employees' salaries says a lot about this question.

Finding Happiness

According to Shafer-Landau if something always makes us better off then it is reasonable to try and acquire it; from a hedonistic perspective, the one thing that will always make us better off is happiness. As autonomous human beings we have the right to make choices, ultimately striving to make choices that will make us happy or, for most, give our life a sense of purpose. As humans we deserve the unalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” No one should be denied the right to be happy. But what makes one person “happier” than another?

The Ethical Egoist Perspective on Marijuana Legalization

The debate for the legalization of marijuana is more than just a political one, as there are lots of questions surrounding ethical issues.  It has been medicalized in certain states since 1996 (first was California), which allows for medicinal uses of the plant, since marijuana is frequently used and highly recommended as a treatment of pain for cancer and AIDs patients among various other ailments.  However it does cause side effects such as slowed reactions, feelings of anxiousness or paranoia, and increased short-term memory loss, but proponents for its recreational use say that marijuana puts them in a happy, uplifted, spiritual, and inspirational state.  Therefore legalizing the substance for not only medical but also recreational use is an ethically responsible resolution because if the benefits will outweigh the costs and side effects then it is an optimific decision.  Many different aspects of the issue should be analyzed such as how legalization would affect the general public, how it would affect national and state economies, and what it means for our country’s youth.

The ethical egoist would greatly agree with legalization of marijuana in the United States.  Briefly, ethical egoism says that the promotion of one’s own good is in accordance with morality, and in essence it is the “me-first” philosophy (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).  Therefore ethical egoism would say individuals that choose to consume marijuana either for medical or recreational reasons should be allowed to since withholding it is a direct hindrance on their personal rights and liberties.  For individuals who don’t indulge in the substance, ethical egoism would say marijuana legalization is only bad if it personally affects their well-being.  Therefore, besides people invested in tobacco, alcohol, and beer industries (the only ones that reasonably might suffer from marijuana legalization), recreational marijuana legality should hardly infringe on non-smoking citizens’ well-being or promotion of their own good.

The ethical egoist might go even further to say that it would be immoral for marijuana-using citizens to sit back and not fight for its legalization.  While marijuana remains criminalized in the eyes of the federal government, users in the non-legal states are placing themselves at risk of getting fines, misdemeanors, and even felonies (marijuana laws are some of the strictest among all “drugs”) by using a substance with side effects no worse, and in fact much less detrimental, than alcohol or tobacco.  It shouldn’t be neglected that over half of the United States’ incarcerated population are so because of marijuana-related offenses,  which means there are countless cases of mothers and fathers removed from their family on non-violent offenses such as those related to cannabis smoking.  In essence, I believe it’s safe to say the ethical egoist would greatly agree with the concept of legalizing marijuana on the federal and state level because it would mean the promotion of personal goods for all smokers as well as the many people that will benefit from it in the medical, economic, or law-abiding sense.

Sources

• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/egoism/#SH2b
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/a3a5863f-0ead-482f-a697-81e51e81f98c

Hedonism & Eating Disorders

          Hedonists claim that increased well-being will always follow when we get what we want: happiness. Our lives only improve when we act in favor of our personal happiness. We act to fulfill, in Mill’s opinion, our attitudinal pleasure. We strive to be in a state of psychological optimism and tranquility. Happiness, however, is not formed from the immediate physical pleasures (like eating a cheeseburger to satisfy hunger and enjoy a meal.) Although seeking out our own happiness and mental tranquility is important, I see flaws in the connection between happiness and well-being.

Dispelling Psychological Egoism

Dispelling Psychological Egoism: True Altruism

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2303588/The-mother-says-having-children-biggest-regret-life.html

Psychological Egoism states that humans are always motivated by self-interest, and there are no acts of true altruism. It argues that even when the perception of an act may be selfless; there are ulterior motives that point to self-interest. Above is a link to an article about a UK mom who says that having her two children was the biggest mistake she has ever made. She thought it would be wrong to deny her husband children, so she spent thirty-three painstaking years caring for children she couldn’t have cared less about. In no way, shape, or form was Isabella Dutton acting in favor of her own self-interest when she had her two children. They may be hard to come across, but this is an example of true altruism, thus dispelling the notion of psychological egoism.

Isabella never came to love her children like she hoped she would. When describing her relationship to her newborn son, she remarks, “I heard him stir but as I looked at his round face on the brink of wakefulness, I felt no bond. No warm rush of maternal affection. I felt completely detached from this alien being who had encroached upon my settled married life and changed it, irrevocably, for the worse.” She had no self-serving motivations to have children, and no materialistic drives to raise them once born. She describes her relationship with her children as parasitic, “I resented the time my children consumed. Like parasites, they took from me and didn't give back.” A parasitic relationship, by definition, is one where one party benefits while the other is either harmed or not affected at all. Isabella Dutton took no personal pleasure in spending time with her kids, and raised them out of pure altruism – a willingness to do good for others without gaining or expecting anything in return.

            While I do believe that people act in their own self-interest a large majority of the time, it is not the case one hundred percent of the time. People do feel bad when they do something selfish, or squander an opportunity to help out another individual. That notion is why self-interest is not the sole factor regarding our moral decision-making, it is one of several inputs. People tend to sacrifice their own agendas for those they love. Isabella Dutton loved her husband, so she devoted thirty years of her life to something she did not care in order to make him happy. The human capacity to deeply care for another allows us to put another’s needs before our own. Without love, psychological egoism may be true; but as long as compassion brings forth actions of true altruism, it is a flawed theory.

The Role of Immortality in Human Evolution

In my opinion, human evolution no longer applies to our physical bodies, but rather pertains to our ability to think. Our amazing and complex mind is the barrier between humanity and the wild. In regard to physical evolution, mental evolution is a far more rapid process. By in large part to our ability to reason and create original thought, an evolutionary change can happen relatively instantaneously. Homo sapiens originated roughly 200,000 years ago. For 99.9% of the history of humankind humans enslaved other humans, unjustly subjugated half the population, and were confined to the ground. In the last mere 0.1% alone, slavery across the world has been abolished and abhorred, women have achieved the right to vote, and men have walked on the moon. Our capacity to learn, discover, and create has increased exponentially since our inception. Intellectual evolution continues to further us from our animalistic ancestors towards the greater good of all mankind. Human’s are not perfect, and will never be, but our significant strides in the right direction lend reason to think eventually all social injustice will be eradicated. 

All social injustices were originally societal norms, which through intellectual evolution were deemed unjust and eliminated or amended. The concept of cultural relativism claims that all moral standards are true in relation to a given culture. Therefore, in a culture that condones slavery, owning a slave is morally correct. Thus, an individual in such a society who condemns slavery would be considered immoral. In addition, a Middle-Eastern woman who believes she should be given the same rights as men is immoral. If blindly following societal customs is moral, immorality is the constant between all great civil rights leaders and activists. Immorality is the catalyst behind the evolution of the human thought process. In a culture where the Earth was believed to be flat, challenging such an established belief, according to cultural relativism, is morally wrong. This raises the question, is abiding by a culture’s moral standards ethical? That is a question that may never be truly answered because not all societal rules are on the same ethical playing field. I believe it is the ethical responsibility of each individual to question the moral standards of their society. Not all parts of society need to be changed to achieve a more harmonious future, but instinctively following a custom of a certain culture is the antithesis of social evolution. Those who are in power and create the rules that govern the masses must be constantly questioned and challenged to keep them accountable.  A fundamental pattern of humanity is people in power exploiting those who are not. Social evolution aims to eliminate such a pattern by subjugating those in power to the will of the people, rather than the other way around. The system will never be perfect, perfection is a myth, but will constantly inch closer to the right direction.

How practical is Ethical Egoism?

Last week in class we discussed two ethical theories focused on serving your own self interest.  The first was psychological egoism which focuses on making ourselves as well of as we can be, including helping others to ultimately do best for ourselves.  This viewpoint is a descriptive notion of the way reality works.  The second theory we discussed is ethical egoism, the theory that our own ultimate moral duty is to improve your own well being and self interest as much as possible.  This theory is prescriptive, meaning that this is how we should live our life.

Having grown up in the church, I have attended many charity fund raisers and 30 hour famines to raise awareness and money for those in need.  World Vision is a company largely focused on spearheading the project of world hunger in developing countries.  After reading about these two ethical theories, it really made me reflect and ask myself why I sat through countless hours of charity - was there really an alternative motive?

(here is a link to world vision http://www.worldvision.org/our-impact/child-protection)

Honestly, back when I was 8 & 9 I genuinely cannot think of any other reason for participating in those events except that my parents required me to be there.  I was not acting out of my own self interest, and I definitely was not acting in a way focused on the individuals we were trying to help.  I was just there.  Going through the motions.  But perhaps my cognitive abilities were not fully developed enough to appreciate and understand what is was I was doing?

Now at the age of 20, I still find myself doing charity work and donating to those in need.  But, after a lot of introspection, I think it can be tied to a good feeling I receive after I knowingly help those in need.  That even though I am donating to help others, I am still satisfying my own needs by donating and getting that good feeling.

Though this theory is an absolute theory, meaning all actions are to be carried out in a self interested way, which I simply do not think is possible.  I do believe that many of our actions are caused by self interest, but that we still can maintain to have exterior motivation for our actions besides personal gain.

The Inherent Faults of Egoism

             As we have discussed in our last few classes, psychological egoism seems 
  to have some inherent faults that lead us to believe that the theory is irrefutable 
and should be considered meaningless. Because of egoism attractiveness in
simplifying  and explaining all of our actions it is hard for me to think of it as
meaningless, yet after reading some recent articles and examples there does
seem to be a critical fault in this theory regarding its inability to have objections
to it.  
            The following link reminded me a lot of the example Shafer-Landau points  
out in chapter 7 of his book The Fundamentals of Ethics:
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO6qu5fQLHo

Although this Captain America scene is fictional in contrast to the example of Army  

Ebay commercial

This is a commercial made by Ebay almost ten years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irTolXyHzcI

I found this video very interesting, as it defies the concept of psychological egoism. Since Ebay is a platform that is mainly based on the benevolence of the sellers, the company thought that advancing a marketing campaign that would communicate the general trustworthiness of people would be beneficial to its business. From a marketing stand point I found this to be a very successful idea, in that it centers the issue of online selling platforms and conveys the humanity of people, which, as a matter of fact, I believe to be generally true.

Cultural relativism and consequentialism in Italian tardiness

Over break I was having a conversation with Nancy, a violinist in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, as well as a friend of my family. She has a house in my hometown in Italy, Spoleto, where my family and her met a couple of years ago. Nancy and her husband Terry have fallen in love with the diverse architecture of the town, presenting styles that vary from Ancient Roman times to our days. They have also fallen in love with the Italian way of life, characterized by a relaxed pace, shopping for food at local markets and stores, a pervasion in art in everyday life, and, of course, good wine. There are certain aspects about the Italian way of life, however, that she finds are frustrating. The main one is the inevitable tendency of Italians in being late.

She told me about an episode in which Terry and she were involved. They hopped on a public bus to go from the train station to their house. The bus driver had to wait one minute in order for the bus to run exactly on schedule, but a tourist couple approached the bus driver asking him where to buy tickets. The bus driver pointed at the newspaper kiosk where they could buy them, not mentioning the fact that he would have left the following minute. But, in fact, the bus driver wanted to do the couple a favor and decided that waiting for them would have been the right thing to do, the nice thing to do. As a result, the bus left five minutes late. Just a few stops later, one of the main bus stops of the town, there were six people waiting for the bus.

This is just a simple example of a common tendency in Italian culture, where being 20 minutes late for an appointment is perfectly acceptable, where classes at universities have developed the concept of the “academic 15 minutes” (i.e. a class scheduled at 9am is expected to start at 9.15am), where the average delay of trains is 7 minutes (this statistic also takes into account trains that are on time). There is actually an unofficial website that, by entering the number of the train, it will tell you its current, average, and expected delay.

I found this story interesting because it brings forward two ethical issues that we have discussed in class this semester: cultural relativism and consequentialism. The first one is concerned because I can tell you that, as a person that grew up in Italy, being late is not perceived as being late; it is perceived as a normal feature of everyday life. If my friends and I want to go out for a drink on a Friday night and wish to meet at 10.30pm, we will schedule to meet at 10pm. Being raised in a bicultural family (my mother is American), I sometimes point out to my friends how this doesn’t make any sense and, although they kind of acknowledge it, they don’t perceive as a big deal at all and continue to follow this model. Cultural relativism is involved in this issue because the conception of punctuality is perceived differently throughout different cultures.

The issue of consequentialism concerns the bus driver’s choice of waiting for the tourist couple to the detriment of the six people waiting at the next bus stop (and of all the people at the next bus stops). The bus driver thought that he did a good deed by accommodating the needs of the tourist couple, but he neglected the needs of all the people, perhaps dozens of people, that suffered from the bus delay (maybe one of these people was a train driver who consequently made the train depart late). Consequentialism looks for the best outcome for the greatest number of people. Therefore, a consequentialist bus driver would have ignored the needs of the tourist couple to favor the needs of dozens of people. 

Moral Obligation to be Green

A friend of mine recently wrote a blog post addressing the recent energy wars between major living units on campus called "Do You Have a Moral Responsibility to Go Green." During Energy Wars major living units compete to reduce the amount of electricity they use in three weeks and the housing unit that reduces the most energy wins bragging rights and a money prize they can use to contribute to a "greener campus." This resulted in some competitors reducing much of their energy use and become educated and aware of the effects of electricity use around the world. The winner is praised and the campus as a whole receives reputation on being a Green campus. However, after the competition is over most people return back to their usual habits of leaving the lights on and leaving outlets plugged. The problem with this is that we all live on this earth, and we all have ecological effect on the earth. Still, there seems as though there was no actual moral obligation or responsibility to self regulate energy use at all aside from winning the competition.

Although the result was that many people learned more about being aware of their effects on our world, looking at this from a praising aspect, was their anything that deserved moral praise? Some may argue that it is a moral obligation to be sustainable because everyone has to live on earth. Being sustainable and conscious would be the equivalent to cleaning your own room. I think people are well aware of their moral obligation to be sustainable, but they choose to not participate because they learn that the problem is too great for them to have any contributing factors in turning the situation around.

According to David Norton, those who simply participated has only barely completed the bare minimum of their moral duty. Although the participates have learned a lot from the publicity during the three weeks of Energy Wars, they do not deserve significant praise for their actions. The participates simply did something they understood to be correct but is not morally challenging in any way. Norton would ask more from the participants and argue that it is a moral obligation to continue to stay green and that they are not worthy of praise. Saying that the participates deserve some sort of moral praise would a minimalist thought therefore Norton would most likely expect more from them.
So, should we praise those who participated in energy wars?



Norton, David L. "Moral Minimalism and the Development of Moral Character." Midwest Studies in Philosophy 13.1 (1988): 180-95.

Witwer, Noelle. "Do You Have a Moral Responsibility to “Go Green”?" The Prindle Post. The Prindle Institute, 6 Mar. 2015. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. <http://www.prindlepost.org/2015/03/moral-responsibility-go-green/>.

Consequentialism in Gun Control

In class last week we discussed how Shafer-Landau describes consequentialism as choosing the most optimific act.  An optimific act is a scenario where you have weighed the pros and cons for either choice you make and picking the one with the best overall outcomes.  Following a consequentialist mindset means the optimific act is obligatory in happening regardless of how the outcome will affect your own individual life.  This notion of sacrificing your own self interest for the benefit of the aggregate tends to be the deal breaker for many philosophers, myself included.  While I absolutely value happiness outside of my own and want others to attain success and achieve their goals, at the end of the day all individuals are intrinsically motivated through their own subjective biased and that is something I find to be hard to practically overcome.

The Gap Between Good Will and Volunteer Work

Volunteers traditionally project the image of dedication, commitment, and morality. Volunteers feel as though they are performing a good deed, further, an act of good will. Kant would disagree. Kant classifies a good will as something not considered or contemplated, but as a duty both known and expected. Good will is done without analysis of outcome or weighing of possible consequences. These good wills are limitless in their intrinsic value and are established by maxims which can be universalized. Volunteer work seemingly aligns with all of these motivations based on its basic concept. However, volunteering has been socially warped into an act of self-gratification and self-benefit.

Is a Woman's Plea of Clemency an Exception to Kantian Ethics?

Immanuel Kant once wrote in his philosophical writing, Metaphysical Elements of Justice "If, however, he has committed a murder, he must die. In this case there is no substitute that will satisfy the requirements of legal justice. There is no sameness of kind between death and remaining alive even under the most miserable conditions, and consequently there is also no equality between the crime and the retribution unless the criminal is judicially condemned and put to death." Would Immanuel Kant apply this logic to the case of Kelly Gissendaner?

Shortcomings of Lex Talionis

German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, is arguably one of the most important and most widely read philosophers of morality.  However, this popularity and merit does not come without challenges in his arguments.  Two central ideas in Kant's moral philosophy are the Principle of Humanity and Lex Talionis, the theory used when prescribing justice. The principle of humanity, in short, claims it is morally obligatory to treat others never as merely an object, but rather always with respect for humanity, or anything capable of autonomy and reason.  Kant argues that humanity is infinitely valuable.  Lex talionis, on the other hand, is the law of retaliation.  Broadly, it "tells us to treat criminals as they have treated their victims" (Shafer-Landau 182). In other words, it is the eye-for-an-eye principle.  In this post, I will argue that Kant's principle of humanity and lex talionis are contradictory of each other's core principles.

Kant's Good Will

What if I were to tell you that happiness had no value? What if I were to tell you that happiness was only achieved as a result of wrongdoing? Kant states that happiness is merely one of numerous values that can be abused and misused. As a result, happiness is not consistent and therefore it is not always valuable. However, there is a value believed to be absolute and consistent. According to Kant this is the good will.

As defined by Kant, the good will “is the ability to reliably know what your duty is, and [the] steady commitment to doing [one's] duty for its own sake” (Shafer 178). In other words, the good will is doing what we know is right and expected of us without any sort of hesitation or question, regardless of the possible outcomes. The objective of the good will is not the outcome, it is the will and the intention under which the action is performed—this is what makes the action praiseworthy and moral. The intention in turn affects the moral worth of the action, this is what influences the overall praise that the action will receive. For example, a man volunteering in order to fulfill service hour requirements and for the praise is less praiseworthy and viewed as has having slightly less moral worth than the individual that volunteers in order to create more good and for the overall health and well being of the community. But, if the good will is our duty where is it that we draw the line in regards to acting on our duties that possibly infringe on the rights of others? Where does the respect and the dignity that Kant speaks of come into effect?

In the case of the “Cassandra C,” as she appears in legal documentations, the 17 year old who was mandated to undergo chemotherapy against her desires can be seen as an example of what Kant's considered the idea of the good will. Receiving statistics from her medical providers Cassandra and her mother opted to refuse chemotherapy and go about their lives. They continually missed appointments that put the terminally ill teenager at risk. In relation to the good will, the hospital was doing what they believe to be their duty and they were acting upon it. As a result, the Connecticut Department of Children and Families became involved in what appeared to be a case of medical neglect. With good will and good intentions the department was simply trying to protect Cassandra and take care of immediate and desperate medical needs.

However, Cassandra did not wish to continue to receive treatment and she preferred to discontinue it and go about her time, conscious of the consequences. Under good will where is it that we see its boundaries? Although it was in the department and the hospital's moral duty to care for the patient and see that she receive the necessary treatment in order to heal and recover, it was not what the patient deemed necessary and it was not what she wanted. Do these “wants” outweigh the necessities and the possibility of improving health? When is it acceptable to forfeit your rights in the practice of the good will in order to please and satisfy the patient and their desires? Does allowing a patient to suffer not violate the Hippocratic oath? The same general idea applies to the concept of physician assisted suicide, although the concept of such medical practices does in fact lie on a very slippery slope, when does the good will that is expected by us exceed the desires and the legal rights of the patient? When is it right to intervene, and when is it not?

Cassandra was forced to continue to receive chemotherapy despite legal attempts to halt treatment.

Is it moral to utilize the good will to do a duty that would generally be optimific if it no longer respects the human and their intrinsic dignity and rights?

Shafer-Landau, Russ.The Fundamentals of Ethics. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

"Connecticut Teen in Remission as Forced Chemo Nears End - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2015.

Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." Stanford University. Stanford University, 23 Feb. 2004. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.