Rights

Lincoln argued that the Civil War was not possible and that the Confederate States seceding from the Union was  impossible on the grounds that he felt that it was impossible to leave the Union. Fighting against an oppressive leadership and breaking free to form your own government. Sounds familiar right. This is what the South felt they were doing and it is exactly what the original 13 colonies did when they created the United States of America. Is Lincoln's faith in the Union blinding him from the fact that at any point a government can be toppled, just as was done with the American Revolution?

Freedom= Oppression?

Something very bizarre about the Civil War to me is that the battle is being fought by the South on hypocritical terms. The South wishes to be free from the Union in order to further oppress and enslave the African Americans. Does it seem likely that at least some of the Confederates found this to be an odd situation?

Change

Throughout the semester, we have read about Lincoln and realized some very important things about him. First, he was extremely against fighting and war. As we saw, when he was confronted with duels and other things of that nature, he turned them down in most cases. What is extremely ironic is that he wound up conducting the American Civil War, the bloodiest battle ever to be fought on American soil. Does this mean that the issues over preserving the Union were much deeper issues for Lincoln and therefore justified going to war?

England's Support

Last week in class we discussed the idea that if England had supported the Confederacy in the war,then they would have made a fool of themselves. This is entirely due to the fact that they had outlawed the slave trade there years before and if they ended up supporting the South, who's primary purpose was keeping slavery going in the United States, they would have looked ridiculous. Now the question I pose is, if England had supported the South, would there have been any stipulations, such as, they would demand gradual emancipation or eventual outlawing of slavery? Is there any signs of this in history?

Labor

The United States was not the only country to have slaves. However, a question comes to mind.Places where African Americans are not used for labor; such as on plantations, places where they are viewed in degrading terms? Or is it the same where ever slavery was?

Slavery

In the United States, slavery was an entirely different system then the world had ever seen. Sure, the United States wasn't the largest recipients of slaves during the Atlantic Slave Trade, however, their impact was much more monumental. In the US, slavery became more of a lifestyle, than an economic system. Of course it was still done for profit, but slavery was taken to much more bloody extremes in the United States than in the rest of the world. Could one argue that this is the reason that it lasted so long here compared to elsewhere?

Learning

After reading through various sources on Lincoln, we have come to learn that Abraham Lincoln had a thirst for knowledge and whenever he didn't know something, he did whatever possible to teach himself said topic. For example, with the civil war full in swing, Lincoln was realizing that he had no real military knowledge and wanted to become more familiar with the art of war. He began reading books about war strategies. He soon realized that reading a book on how to fight a war was extremely different then actually fighting the war. Is it safe to assume that for this situation hands on experience is of more value?

Technology

The Civil War was the first war in American history where the implementation of modern technology was utilized. The railroad, the telegraph and many other technologies were used in order to get fast information and move people and ideas around allot faster then they had been done in the past. Is that what made this war so bloody? Or was it the fact that family members were up against each other. Americans against Americans?

Lincoln

Yesterday in class we discussed the idea that Lincoln was a different form of radical in his time period over the issues of slavery. How is this possible? In a society where people attempt to make things so clear cut and so defined (black or white, poor or rich, etc.) is it really possible to forge a different path?

Middle Ground

We discussed yesterday in class that when it comes to the issue over slavery, there really is no middle ground. Abraham Lincoln struggled with this in attempt to appease both sides of the situation and find some middle, moderate ground. But is there really a more moderate stance when it comes to slavery. I mean there in theory could be however, in order to have a moderate stance, does one have to sacrifice all moral judgement to achieve it?

Religion

Does one have to attend a house of worship to be religious? I believe that one can find religion in their own way and their own manor. They don't have to be guided by the strict structure of organized religion. For example, I believe in Jesus and I considered myself to be Catholic. However, I have not been to church or any real religious service in about 15 years. I do believe that Jesus was the son of Christ and that he is our savior but with no real religious background. Does this make me a hypocrite?

Politics of the Possible

In Government, giving the people exactly what they want, is not always the best solution. It is also not always possible or practical. Government's have limits just as the people running them do as well. Politics of the Possible is a good alternative to giving the people exactly what they want. You can view the situation and determine what can be done from there with the available resources at hand. Is it a bad policy move to give the people exactly what they want and then asses what can be done after the fact?

Compromise

Something that occurred to me in the last class was that Lincoln was a big fan of compromise as the best means to solve a situation or problem. With the issue over slavery, Lincoln was constantly attempting to arrive at some form of a compromise in order to make both the slave states and the non-slave states happy. Being a huge fan of Henry Clay; or as he is sometimes referred to as "the Great Compromiser" for his work in the past, it is not surprising that Lincoln would attempt to solve each conflict by Compromise. Is this seen as a personal weakness of Lincolns or do you feel that Compromising is a good solution?

Mexican War

I know I have been doing allot of blogs about Lincoln's possible thoughts on other historical conflicts... but what can i say. I'm a History major. Alright next thought. The Mexican War; arguably one of, if not the most difficult war to defend. Basically, The United States saw land in Mexico, and they took it. There you go! Hard to support huh? Now we know that Lincoln was not in support of the war but was he not in support because if they U.S. won, that would mean that more slave states would be added to the Union, or was he opposed to it on other moral grounds?

Monroe

The Monroe Doctrine was created in attempt to end the influence of European Powers in the Western Hemisphere by stating that if they were to get involved in any way shape or form in American countries affairs, that would be seen as a direct attack on the United States and it would mean war. The Monroe Doctrine is not law, however many believed it to be true. If Europe did end up helping the South in the Civil War, would Lincoln see that as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine or is there no sign of his support of this document in history?

Influence

It has been said that moral behavior is something that is learned from other people by being influenced by them when they are around you. Aristotle believes this and would argue that that is the only way that moral behavior can actually be acquired. Now a question that I pose is, why did Hitler end up becoming a ruthless dictator? He grew up surrounded by the arts and knowledge and then became one of the most ruthless dictators of the 20th century.

Containment

Yesterday in class we discussed the issues that the United States faced with slavery and what was attempted to be done with it. As mentioned slavery was a pressing problem and few were sure what should be done with it. Most people agreed that they wanted it to cease to spread. Instead of outright ending it, they wanted to contain it to the South. This became impractical due to the Manifest Destiny Spirit that was sweeping the nation. The question I pose is, why; if containment didn't work with the South, did they think it would be successful to contain communism to the Soviet Union? Also, why did it work?

Wage War

It has been said that those who have seen war are less likely to wage it. This would make sense. Seeing the horrors of war and the power and destruction it can wield would scare anyone away in my opinion. This makes sense when we consider the Bush administration when Dick Cheney was one of the only members of the cabinet who wasn't in support of going to war. Now a question I pose is if someone who had gone to war before and then ended up supporting a different war after the affect, what does this say about their character?

War

Something we discussed last week in class got me thinking...
There is all this talk about evil dictators and rulers around the world killing off all these different people. It is commonly viewed as wrong but we; the United States, end up doing the same thing. If a ruler is committing murders or an extreme genocide, why do we end up going into that country and kill of people as well? Does that make us any better than the thing we are killing? Reminds me of an earlier post; an eye for an eye, does't it?

Sexism

Abraham Lincoln, one could argue was a product of his times. From his views over the institution of slavery, to his rough and rugged frontier soul, he fit the description of a man from his time and place. However, some evidence of his treatment towards women suggests that he may have even been a little bit sexist. There was a situation where he was walking with a women and when they came across some mud, instead of helping her to cross it, he just went about his way. Does it suggest that Lincoln was sexist, or considering his rather unlucky and awkward past with women, does it suggest that he was just extremely oblivious to women around him?

Difficulty of the sexes

In class we discussed the topic of Lincoln and his role with women in his younger years. We all know that Abraham Lincoln didn't have the best of luck with women and that he didn't have that naturally ability to talk to and charm them. However, one case really stands out as difficult with women. His romance ended with Mary Owens by him basically convincing her to end it with him. Do you think that he did this because he secretly didn't love her like she loved him or is that he was just so uncomfortable around women that he rather end something that could have been good before he made it bad? Thoughts?

CHAIN REACTION!

We discussed in class this past Tuesday about the problems that would have ensued had the Civil War not gone in favor of the North.
With this in mind, one can view this as a chain reaction of things that would have happened . South American and Latin America, after they became free from there Colonial rule, attempted to emulate the American model of  Democracy in their own countries. If the Civil War had gone differently and the South had won, this would have been a tremendous blow to Democracy and a chain reactions of failing governments in South America would have ensued. Thoughts on this?

State Rights vs. Slavery

While doing research for my individual paper for the midterm in class, I have come across something I feel worthy enough to discuss with you all on here. A major cause of the Civil War was the problems surrounding slavery. Also, one would argue that another major cause would be state rights. Couldn't one argue that these two causes are one in the same? Slavery is seen at this time in history that should be left up to the individual states to decide and therefore should be considered a state rights issue. Thoughts?

Popular Soverignty

Popular sovereignty is the idea in government where the people are given the power and right to basically govern themselves. Where they make all decisions for their well being on their own. This is seen in the case with the territories in the 19th century of the United States History. The question of whether popular sovereignty was the right thing for them in this case had been considered many times.

Now a question that I pose is, would popular sovereignty be seen as ideal in utilitarianism considering it could be a easy path to absolute pleasure in government? Thoughts?

Eye for an eye

Long ago, back in the times of the Great Babylonians, there was a ruler named Hammurabi. Hammurabi was a very strong ruler who instituted a common law system throughout his land. This was the first time in written history that something along these lines had ever been done. Something very crucial to this written law system was the idea of an eye for an eye, which was first codified and written down in this law form. If someone stole a chicken from one persons farm, by law that person is now allowed to steal a chicken from the farm of the man who took his chicken in the fist place. And even as the saying goes, if someone stabs one persons eye out, they can by law stab their eye out in return.

Seems almost silly right? But that was long ago! We are much more civilized now a days right? Then why back at the times of the civil war was John Brown arguing for killing off all men that killed black people during slavery. Also beating all slave owners for what they did to their slaves. How does that make sense?

Slavery

The institution of slavery is one of the worst blemishes on the face of American history. At the time of our American Civil War, most of the world had already abandoned this inhumane practice due to realizing the wrongs that are associated with it... for the most part. After careful consideration I have mad a connection with the institution of Slavery in the United States and the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

Slavery and the Holocaust were both situations were extreme racism made a particular race feel that they are naturally superior to the other. The case with slavery being African Americans and with the Holocaust being Jews, and other groups of people. Forced labor and brutality in the form of whipping and beating were both common to these institutions.

Now a question I pose is, how is it possible, at the time of the Holocaust; when Slavery is banned in the United States but racism is still very prevalent, that the United States did not draw this same parallel? And, if they did, why was nothing done to make amends for their actions?

Music

This past week in class we discussed the topic of individualism in music. People have different tastes about what they feel is good music. From Rap to Jazz to Pop to Classical, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on what they feel is the best kind of music.
With all these different opinions on music out there, there isn't allot of room for the pleasure one gets from music, to be shared with other groups. The more independent music becomes, the more popular it is becoming to like music that most other people don't actually like at all.

Therefore the question I pose is, people that get pleasure out of liking music for the simple fact that nobody else likes that kind of music, is the pleasure something that could be measured in the Utilitarian mindset of maximum pleasure?

Fist Pump, Push Up, Chapstick!

Last week in class we discussed the Utilitarian ideal of intellectual pleasures taking priority over non intellectual pleasures.
In today's world, we have all of this information and knowledge at our finger tips and we do not take advantage of it. With the computer and the internet, we are able to access information at lightning speed compared to what was done in the past, yet most people use their computers to go on Facebook rather than researching a given topic.
With this in mind, the topic of listening to Mozart and watching the television show Jersey Shore. In the Utilitarian mind set, obviously watching Jersey Shore is not as intellectually stimulating as would listening to Mozart be, however an argument can be formed in the defense of our fist pumping friends.
I; myself, can say that I find no problem with watching the television show Jersey Shore. I recognize that it is not the most quality of activities to par-take in, however I watch it for the simple fact of it is a funny show. I don't watch it in the hopes of gaining insight from it, I watch it because to me, and most of American, I find pleasure in watching this simple minded television show.
Now a question I pose is, in Utilitarian mindset, could there be a place for Jersey Shore on this heiarchy of pleasure?

Individualism

Over the past couple of weeks in class we have been discussing the ideals of Utilitarianism and what it takes to practice this ideology. We have also discussed the many flaws that come along with this ideology.

Something that is clearly over looked in Utilitarianism is the idea of individualism. The main goal of Utilitarianism is maximum pleasure. This is what individuals, governments, and over all everyone is supposed to seek to have in life. That is what makes one an effective ruler is giving their citizens or their people maximum pleasure.

However, something that is seriously overlooked is the concept of individualism with regard to pleasure. Ones definition of pleasure is completely different in reference to another. Also ones definition of maximum pleasure can be completely different from that of someone else.
Therefore, the question I pose is, can there ever be to much pleasure?

Guilt part 2!

Guilt, as mentioned in the last blog, is something that must be learned at childhood in order to be able to feel it latter on in life. However, I have a new question regarding the topic of guilt.

Sometimes guilt can be used as a motivator, as was mentioned in our last class. If someone is feeling guilty for something that they have done, this can motivate them to never do this act again. It can be out of fear of feeling that feeling of guilt again or can also be out of moral efforts to be a good person and change the error of their ways.

Now the question that I pose is, in the Utilitarian mindset, does this make them a moral person by using guilt as a motivator?

Guilt

The idea has come to me about the role that guilt can play in ones every day life. Every day people make decisions and choices that can affect they way they deal with themselves. If an action is done and the person performing said action feels a sense of guilt about what they have done, they are more inclined to not do that action again. The feeling of guilt can be too much to deal with sometimes and they will not want to feel it ever again.
Guilt isn't something that is able to be learned along the way. Guilt is something that one must learn in childhood. It is something that will stick with them all they way through their life if learned this way but it is not something that can just be learned latter on. One must be a highly impressionable age, such as in childhood to learn the feeling of guilt.
The question that arises is, if someone is able to overcome their guilt, how does that reflect on their character as a human being?

Drugs

Last week in class we discussed the idea of pleasure being the sole aim or ambition of Utilitarianism. With that in mind we started discussing the concept of pleasure from drugs. It is no secret that people get pleasure from doing drugs. That is the purpose of using drugs, sometimes to alleviate pain but to gain some form of pleasure in doing so. Taking or doing drugs however has a tremendous side effect. Some drugs end up causing allot more pain to the user by way of addiction, depression, and others. The question now is, is the pain worth it? How would a utilitarian argue for or against the use of drugs?
I feel that a Utilitarian would argue that the amount of pain received would not be considered a bad thing because initially there was pleasure received. The pleasure is the sole goal regardless of the side effects. What are your thoughts on the topic and my opinion?

Ranking

While writing these posts, something came to mind that I wanted to share and get everyone's feed back on. We discussed that pleasures can be ranked according to the Utilitarian ideology. Some pleasures are more pleasurable than others or they give one more satisfaction than others would give them. However, the question I pose is, would ranking pleasures really make sense? Yes people would find some things to be more pleasurable than others would that really matter? The fact that something is pleasurable should be enough to a Utilitarian, not necessarily how pleasurable it is in comparison to something else that is pleasurable right? What are your thoughts?

Pleasure

Last week in class, we discussed the concept of pleasure and how in the Utilitarian ideology maximizing pleasure is the ideal way of life. We discussed the idea that governments are supposed to establish a rule and a way of life that is best for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. There main mission is to make a life that has as much of the good qualities of life and very few of the bad. For example, famine and disease would have to be minimized and holidays and relaxation would need to be maximized. Obviously this is an over exaggerated and an over simplified example, however there is some truth in the matter. The things that should be maximized would be the things that people find to be the most pleasurable and the most enjoyable. Things that cause stress and pain would not be liked by any and thus would be virtually killed.

Therefore two questions come to mind when considering this. First, if all things that are considered pleasurable are to be maximized, then wouldn't that possibly lead to laziness and no ambition amongst the people of the area in which the government is exercising this power. Second, if the best government would be that in which pleasures are maximized, how would the Soviet Union and other oppressive authoritarian governments defend themselves in the Utilitarian mind set?

Social Class

Last week in class we discussed the concept of social classes with regard to the ideals and mentality of Utilitarianism. I discussed in a previous post that things that are considered to be more intellectually stimulating are considered to be better according to Utilitarianism. Basically the higher the intellect the better something is considered to be. What we discussed in class was the idea that if someone is in possession of a large quantity of money, then they are able to access a higher quality of education compared to someone with less. Therefore they are considered to be better. Therefore, a question I pose is what about Abraham Lincoln? He did not come from allot of money but he exposed himself to as much information and knowledge as possible. Is he considered to be less in the Utilitarian mind set?

Utilitarianism

Last week in class we discussed the concept that Utilitarian's hold true that intelligence reigns superior to everything. Intellectually stimulating things are more sophisticated one gains a better sense of self gratification when doing them. For example, the example we discussed in class last week is that chess is better than checkers. These two games both have their individual merits and are both fun to play but chess is better. Chess is allot more complex of a game and one must think at a more sophisticated level when playing it. Therefore, according to Utilitarian's, chess is a better game.

Therefore, when considering that chess is all around a better game, a question arises. What would a Utilitarian feel is better with regard to video games and reading a book. Most video games challenge the gamer on a very intellectually stimulating level by making them think "on their feet" and respond to things in a moments notice. However, reading also challenges the reader to create a world inside their head with each turn of the page. So what do you think?

Obligation

It has been said that compassionate people are those that feel very deeply about something. They have a deep love for whatever it is that they are doing and put the time and effort into it is not a burden for them. Compassionate people do not do things out of obligation. They actually want to do what they are doing.

Compassionate people could be considered to have good will because what they are doing they actually want to do. For example, someone that seeks out to help others with their school work because they want too and do not become a tutor to claim a pay check for their service are acting out of good will.

Now a question that I pose is what about the people that are passionate about acting on things they are obligated to do? Are they still considered compassionate and possessing good will? For example, they realize they have to do something, but they want to do it because they know that they have no other choice but to act.

Sex

While taking notes in class, something that was brought up by our professor sparked some interest in my mind.

We were discussing the act of having sexual intercourse with someone. Someone that is having sex with another person is not really acting out of good will because they are trying to obtain some pleasure from the deed and are acting entirely out of self-interest. They may be having sex in order to procreate, however, they are seeking out the pleasure they will obtain from it by doing said act.

Now the question that came to mind when taking notes was one could argue that a necessary need of human beings is to be happy. Happiness can lead to a prosperous life and an all around better disposition about things. One could argue that happiness is necessary for life, therefore it is necessary for someone to possess goodwill. Then, with all of that considered, what if you have sex to make yourself happy? Then are you acting out of goodwill even though it is entirely for ones self-interest?

Self-Regard

Last class we discussed a time in Lincoln's life when riding in a stage-coach he reveals to a colleague of his that he feels all actions done by human beings are actions done out of self-regard. Meaning, no matter how moral ones actions are, they are done with regard to ones interest. Hearing this, I began to think further into this topic.

It has been said that a truly moral person or rather a truly good person does something because they actually want to do that thing. For example; someone who has good will will do community service every weekend of every month because they really love to help people. Well that is all well and good, but how can they actually have good will when in essence they are doing the community service for themselves. If they love the feeling of helping people, in a sense they help others to get the rush or even the high of doing the act. The act may be helping others, but they are doing it to fulfill a want within themselves. Therefore, they are not actually acting out of good will, right? Let me know!

Morals

Today in class we discussed the many complex ideals of Kant. However confusing this may be, something stood out from the lecture in my mind. Our Professor stated that "there are no laws to morals, just choices." This struck as something very strange. I am the type of person who feels that everything, whether it be morals or simply just ideas or thoughts, must have a set of rules or laws that they must abide by.

Therefore a question arises in my mind. If there are no laws to morals, then when it comes to choices, what is deemed right or wrong? I feel that the law would determine what is right and wrong, so if there is no law then possibly there is no right or wrong?

Priori

Last class we discussed the term Priori, which means something that we can know through reason alone. This word basically means that when someone knows something, no amount of experience can call this into question. It is what it is, based solely off reason alone.
Thinking about this the question of slavery came into my mind. During the time prior to Lincoln freeing the slaves, and some could even say after that, owning slaves was considered to be moral or justified in some peoples minds. However, most people today; and to an extent back during this time period as well, would argue against that. The people in support could argue that slavery is okay or moral acts of people based solely on reason.
Therefore, with Priori in mind, what is the call when it comes to things; such as slavery, that are clearly wrong?

Sophrosyne?

Two classes ago we discussed the concept presented by Aristotle of Sophrosyne. We discussed that this word has the capability of having multiple definitions; like "self control", "temperance", and "chastity." We established in class that for the sake of this argument it means healthy mindedness. What we meant by this was that someone no longer is tempted by temptation. Through balance, they are able to fight the urge to give in to temptation.

When considering this, I came up with my own example of this...
Today in the dinning hall, I was confronted with temptation. I gave up on eating all foods that are fried or cooked in grease. I am doing this to become a healthier person. However, a question arises with this... I not eating these types of food and fighting the urge to eat them, am I becoming one with sophrosyne or am I just avoiding the problem? Should I eat these foods in moderation then?

Role Models

Today in class we discussed the idea presented to the class from a previous nights homework assignment. The idea was that "one can't be a good person, without having a good role model."
This idea sparked quite the conversation. I agree fully with this statement for the following reasons.
First, human beings are creatures of habit. They are constantly learning and growing as people and from their individual mistakes and efforts. Human's are not born knowing what is right and what is wrong, or what is even considered to be the right and wrong way of going about things. They must learn how to determine these things for themselves. That is where the role model comes into play. The role model can set the stage for someone to learn from and grow from. As with the main topic of this course, Abraham Lincoln, role modes are crutial to the growth and development of human beings.Abraham Lincoln openly states that his role model for many different circumstances and positions was Henry Clay. Many of Clays political decisions and mentalities would latter become the frame work for and bases for Lincoln's political decisions.
This leads into my second reason for supporting the above statement. Sometimes role models do not have to be a physical person in someones life to influence them or help them in any way shape or form. Abraham Lincoln didn't meet Henry Clay until much latter in his political career and life. Not having that physical confrontation did not hinder or even reduce the role of Lincoln's role model in his life. Learning from things that he read about Clay and allowing it to influence his every day life and mentality helped to shape him into the politician and eventual President we have all come to be familiar with.
A final note on this topic that I will discuss is the difference between a role model and a hero. Some would consider Henry Clays role in Abraham Lincoln's to be more the role of a hero instead of a role model. Heroes can be seen in sense of people that others strive to mimic or even become. They admire the work that they have done and would like to do something similar or even seen in the same light as the them. However, wouldn't one consider that to be the role of a role model as well? That is what my question is for you fellow bloggers... what is the exact concrete definition of the difference between a role model and hero?

HELLO!

My name is Brycen Waters and this will be my blog for Matthew Silliman's Course Honors Lincolns Ethics. I am 6' 1" tall and I have brown hair and brown eyes. I listen to a wide range of music but my favorite bands/musicians are A Day to Remember, Four Year Strong, and Death Cab for Cutie.
I am 20 years old and double Major History and Poltical Science major with a minor in Music and I study at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. I just started my Junior year here and I thoroughly enjoy every second I spend at this fine instituiton. I plan on going to grad school for Student Affairs and Higher Education Adminisitration at the College of St. Rose in upstate New York.
I signed up for this class for the sheer fact that I respect Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest and most influential Presidents of all time. Taking a deeper look at not just what he did as President durring and before his administration, but why he did these things. I hope to look at Abraham Lincoln in a much deeper way after succesful completion of this class.
Stay tuned for future blogs about topics in class!