Social Contract

The social contract is somewhat of a law. I feel like everyone is in the social contract because it is part of society. Some people dont wanna be botheres by any of this therefore not be part of any social contract. Therefore they should nnot recieve any benefits of the contract. But tis would not work because everyone has given the right to be part of a social contract and all rules apply to each individual equally. If someone did not give up these rights then if they commited a murder then they should get charged differently?… This is is why everyone is a part of this and should be.

Government Morality

I believe that morality and goverment dont really correspond to each other for some reasons. The government is made up of hundreds of people. People speak of the governemtn like it is an object of some sort when in reality it is just a bunch of important people. the government cant really be immoral or moral because we give our rights to the government and it is the people who pretty mich decide who the government is. So how can they be moral or immoral when we the people gave out rights to them, and now we complain on how they run things? Over all i just find it amusing how people say that the government can be moral or immoral. As in kens blog he talked about the nazis and communism. was that considered immoral or no? If so then would that make the people immoral also? considering they are the ones who give their right up to them.

State of Nature

For the most part i do agree with Hobbes state of nature theory. He talks about how a government of some sort is needed in a society. That being the reason so that there is control in a society. If there was no control there would be chaos. We would be at war with each other all the time. Even though we are at war now it is for many different reasons than society and human nature. There will allways be fighting, i believe it is part of our human nature to fight in some situations. But a government is deffinately needed.

Problems with Mill and Kant

I believe that they both have equally the same amount of problems in their ideas. Any one can argue against their beliefs and the problems that go with it. For example, With Mill he beleives that an action is marally good if it increases overall happiness because he believes in utilitarianism. If you are donating to charity and and the money winds up going to a bad thing instead. Obviously the action was moral because you are donating to charity but it did not increase overall hap[piness because the mone wound up unkowingly to something else. In the exapmle of Kant, a murderer is looking for you grandmother and you obviously tell him she isnt home but she is. Lying is a bad thing to do but, only under some circumstances is it okay to lie because it will benefit others. But lying about everything all the time is immoral.

Kants theory on self love

According to Kant it seems like for an action to be moral you have to do an action out of good will be unhappy in doing it. An action performed from self love is considered to be immoral because if you get any satisfaction out of it then there is some sort of self love. i dont entirely agree with Kants belief because i think that an action whether it is based on self love or not can be moral if the overall action is good. I can see it as being somewhat selfish if you do it out of just self love. But what do people do more…Take part in a moral action based on self love? or just because its the right thing to do?

Categorical Imperative

According to kant its immoral to cheat on a test because if everyone did it obviously wouldnt work. A categorical imperative is the idea that something applies to everybody and no one is excluded. he believes that actions should be categorical imperative to increase morality and for it to be good. But cheating on a test is not so that would be considered immoral.

intrinsic value in happiness

i feel thata there is no intrinsic value in happiness. To be happy you have to rely on something else. Happiness is not an independent feeling. To be happy you need a reason for it. I dont know anyone especially me who has been happy for no reason what so ever. Allthough there are some people who think they are happy for no reason but there is allways a reason behing happiness….wheather it be a nice day outside or going to the beach with a bunch of friends. People find happiness in different things.

Question to ask Mill

If i had to ask Mill a question it would probably be for him to make some of his ideas a little bit more clear. And if he could give more examples and explain them better because some people can find some flaws in Mills theorys and may not entirely agree with Mill. I feel that Mill would somewhat agree with what my question has to ask regarding more clarity and examples but i feel he might also say that this is what i believe and feel strongly about so i can try to make you understand. Rather then just making his statements more clear and easier to understand in the text.

morality can’t be all about increasing overall happiness because happiness is unattainable

i happen to object to this statement how morality cant be all about increasing overall happiness because happiness is unatainable. Happiness is not unatainable, you just cannot be 100% happy all the time or ever be 100% happy. You can strive to achieve happiness but to feel happiness you have to experience some sort of pain. No one person can achieve happiness without experiencing pain. God does want to increase overall happiness also but, he wont do it for you. He will out it out there and let you strive for it on your own otherwise everything would just be to easy. If God just made everyone happy there would be no point because the purpose of beeing happy is to obviously be happy but you wont appreciate it as much if you dont experience some sort of pain.

Self Sacrifice and Moral Value

I believe that it all depends on what you are sacrificing yourself for. I don’t necessarily believe that ones self sacrifice can not be morally good unless the sacrifice is intended to hurt others which isn’t usually the case. In the case of 9/11 self sacrifice was intended to hurt others and was morally correct for the people who followed their religion and what they believed in but overall it wasn’t morally incorrect. It all depends on how a person views self sacrifice but i believe that if someone can actually sacrifice themselves for another then it is morally good thing.