Friday, September 28, 2012
Rotten Professor
For me personally I think that it is hard to take on only one view of a philosopher. I would much rather combine the thoughts of several because in different circumstances they just dont seem to be applicable. I think the symposiums have shown me especially that there are flaws for specific ideas in almost all philosophies. There are specific circumstances that come up that most right minded people would not know what to do in real life and could not just rely on a philosophy. Here are some examples of ones that I thought were outliers to Kant and Mill's philosophies.
Suppose there is a teacher that all of the students dont like and he has a small family that doesn't like him either. You are an up and coming Doctor at Lebonhaur hospital and this healthy man comes in for a checkup, he is totally healthy. There are always sick people that could use some of this professor's organs. Say if you were to take this guy back to your private office and take out all his vital organs. Also know one would know about this, only the fact that the professor stopped showing up for classes anymore. What would Kant and Mills have to say about the morality and justness of the action and the outcome?
I think that if you based your decision on utilitarianism then you would have to kill the professor. I dont know about y'all but that just doesn't seem right to kill a man merely for the fact that he isn't pleasant to be around.
Say that there is an epidemic of people smoking cigarettes around campus. You would say that these people are infringing on the free will of other Rhodes students who want clean air. Could you be a do-gooder just trying to do your duty who brings great sadness to people as well? So for example, you start going around stealing everyone's cigarettes and making them very mad with you. However, you are just trying to do good and keep people from being sick. Is this goodwill even if all of the cigarette smokers hate you now? Does that seem ethical?
I know that these scenarios are outlandish, but it just goes to show for me, that you can not strictly rely on one philosophy for everything because there will always be situations that seem wrong. I enjoy the symposiums a lot more now that I see how intriguing it can be to come up with situations that stump the opposing philosopher because it can always be done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Conner, I definitely agree that it is hard to find a philosophy that trumps all possible objections. One of the reasons I think it is so important to educate ourselves about many different philosophies is because we have more comparisons to make and then we will be better at locating the better parts of each. Also, it is helpful to keep in mind that these philosophies were all conceived in a very different time then what we are living in today. Not all of them are equally applicable to today's society. However, I think there is one significant danger to be aware of. If we only select certain parts of each philosophy that we like, we run the risk of ignoring essential components and creating scenarios that might benefit us but not be good overall.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the cigarette smokers, it seems like there are already state governed taxes and laws that do their best to coerce smokers to stop smoking, as well as to take into consideration the "freedom" of others for clean air (and to not get sick from second hand smoke). The taxes (state mandated higher taxes for things like cigarettes and sometimes alcohol) are enforced in a way to coerce smokers to think about quitting because it could break their bank. The clean air acts and laws saying that you can't smoke in certain restaurants, within x number of feet from a building, etc. is a prime example of another use of coercion as Kant would describe it, by the law in order to make sure that the freedom to smoke is compatible with the freedom to have clean air in public places. Now, if someone went around taking everyone's cigarettes, that in itself would not be just because it is impeding on their freedom to be a smoker. However could it be moral? Perhaps, if you think take into consideration all of the studies on the effects of smoking and could see it as morally wrong to be harming your self in that way.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your thoughts on the variety of philosophies, and I also agree is Esha that it is vital for us to become well educated on the variety of philosophies that are out there. In response to your discussion regarding the rotten professor, I agree that based upon Utilitarianism, killing the man for his organs could be considered justifiable. While it sounds completely immoral, according to Utilitarianism, it would result in greater amount of happiness for a greater amount of people which is the ultimate goal of Mill's Utilitarianism philosophy. However, Kant's philosophy may not agree the situation as Mill would. Kant's philosophy states that every human being has right, dignity, and moral worth/value. Based upon this, Kant would not see killing the professor as a viable means to saving these people because that would be denying the professor of his natural rights.
ReplyDelete