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?