Ethics Finale
Choose an ethical theory we have studied and discuss how that ethic would respond to terrorism?
Quantitative Utilitarianism--that of Jeremy Bentham could respond to terrorism on several levels. However, the very idea of the original Utilitarianism, that is, the most pleasure for the most amount of people and throw it at the root idea of terrorism, i.e., inciting terror to further some means, is strange. Immediately one would say, Terror, that is not very Pleasurable. And one would be right. However, let's look at some scenarios that involve intention. Six or so men kill themselves and around five thousand people to weaken a gigantic super evil, thus coming closer to establishing freedom from it for billions of others. This, mathematically would get a big thumbs up. Of course this is from a terrorist's point of view, certainly a lot of people don't share it. Let's take another scenario. Frodo Baggins storms into Mordor and lobs the Ring (to rule them all) into the Fires of Mordor thus destroying it. Frodo is a terrorist. So is Samwise, his compatriot. In this scenario, we have not only destroyed anyone's ability to ever use the ring again (certainly a pleasure), but we have also killed/destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of orcs, and made life much harder for every evil creature in the land. Let's assume that this number is actually one greater than all the creatures and elves, dwarves and humans who would have only been enslaved by Sauron and his ilk. I'd say that Bentham would call it glorious, but numbers-wise, it goes against the actions of Frodo and Samwise for declaring a Utilitarian victory. It seems that Quantitative Utilitarianism is a good fit for terrorism as I've defined it--usually from the point of view is not shared by all, however.
"Bullshit is a form of lying. It is harmful and inevitable." Agree or disagree.
Disagree. Bullshit is not a form of lying. To say so would be a lie and would poison the meaning of the word bullshit, and the word lie. To lie, one must (at least think they) know the truth, and deliberately seek out it's opposite. To lie one must craft an alternate reality that is most assuredly not what the bullshitter conceives of as reality. Bullshit is not untrue, or true as a rule. Bullshit avoids making distinctions, it walks the gray area, and seeks only to misrepresent either the bullshitter, itself or another subject altogether; however the best (and by best I mean most reliable, easiest to craft) bullshit is the bullshit that is true, but misleading. Bullshit is harmful? No. Not as a rule. It can be completely benign, and it can also be helpful. So can lying, interestingly enough. Usually, in my experience, bullshit, and lying, are harmful--and toxic. They are planted as seeds and grow into actual people who live a life heaped upon bullshit and or lies and eventually have a hard time adjusting to reality, whether it be in the form of life in general or those stressors we call people. Single lies can stretch thin over time sandwiched between a man and his family, and one day grow as a not a lie but almost as an impassible rift over the years. But because nine thousand lies end in ruin, I don't think the one good one should go unnoticed. I don't think the bullshit that saved the day should be forgotten as the hero to the few it saved and stoned to death tied to a stake. I bullshit women, who want to know if their feet are too big (for those shoes? No. Just because your sister can fit into them doesn't mean you have big feet. As a matter of fact, she has midget feet!). I bullshit telemarketers, “Is Mr. Fancouching available?” I reply deftly “Fan couching! I haven't in months! Would you like to? I'm not sure who you are but we could simply find all sorts of fans in my couch!” These are pretty silly examples.
Bullshit is however, inevitable-at least in this culture. We are a community of polite people, who claim blunt is rude, and the truth is usually catastrophic.
Discuss the Four Noble Truths and how they apply to deciding a specific ethical problem.
It's not that I hate to poop. I love to poop! I just hate the idea of getting fat. So every time I eat, I sneak off to vomit in whatever receptacle I can find. There's a name for my affliction, I just can't think of it right now. My blood-sugar is too low. Life Means Suffering. So no matter what I was meant to suffer? There's absolutely no avoiding it? It's not just me either? The origin of suffering is attachment. I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dog-gone-it, people like me! Ha! Well not when we don't care whether you really are smart enough, good enough, or whether anyone likes you! But I do so badly. I don't want anyone to see how fat I really am. I am attached to these people, and to the idea of being attractive, and that malnutritioned equals beautiful. The cessation of suffering is attainable. The unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. I suppose I could unmake my conceptual attachments. Those attachments to my unhealthy habit and the craving for love and beauty, even the acceptance that drives it. The path to the cessation of suffering. Or the Eight Fold Path, talks of the middle road, and riding the fence between hedonism and self mortification. So maybe I can still puke a little? Just not too much? I don't really think that's the whole answer that Buddhism offers. Perhaps...perhaps it also means that, I shouldn't kill myself over these issues of mine, because in reality I am not one, but merely a part of the whole, that walks around independently but shouldn't worry about acceptance at all! Because there's really nothing in here, inside to judge. It is a nothingness of individuality, that I am only a temporary vessel for this power and I will return to the whole when I die. A part of everyone and everything that I admire. I am no better or worse and the hate I feel for myself is silly. Jeez, that's a load off my chest.
Quantitative Utilitarianism--that of Jeremy Bentham could respond to terrorism on several levels. However, the very idea of the original Utilitarianism, that is, the most pleasure for the most amount of people and throw it at the root idea of terrorism, i.e., inciting terror to further some means, is strange. Immediately one would say, Terror, that is not very Pleasurable. And one would be right. However, let's look at some scenarios that involve intention. Six or so men kill themselves and around five thousand people to weaken a gigantic super evil, thus coming closer to establishing freedom from it for billions of others. This, mathematically would get a big thumbs up. Of course this is from a terrorist's point of view, certainly a lot of people don't share it. Let's take another scenario. Frodo Baggins storms into Mordor and lobs the Ring (to rule them all) into the Fires of Mordor thus destroying it. Frodo is a terrorist. So is Samwise, his compatriot. In this scenario, we have not only destroyed anyone's ability to ever use the ring again (certainly a pleasure), but we have also killed/destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of orcs, and made life much harder for every evil creature in the land. Let's assume that this number is actually one greater than all the creatures and elves, dwarves and humans who would have only been enslaved by Sauron and his ilk. I'd say that Bentham would call it glorious, but numbers-wise, it goes against the actions of Frodo and Samwise for declaring a Utilitarian victory. It seems that Quantitative Utilitarianism is a good fit for terrorism as I've defined it--usually from the point of view is not shared by all, however.
"Bullshit is a form of lying. It is harmful and inevitable." Agree or disagree.
Disagree. Bullshit is not a form of lying. To say so would be a lie and would poison the meaning of the word bullshit, and the word lie. To lie, one must (at least think they) know the truth, and deliberately seek out it's opposite. To lie one must craft an alternate reality that is most assuredly not what the bullshitter conceives of as reality. Bullshit is not untrue, or true as a rule. Bullshit avoids making distinctions, it walks the gray area, and seeks only to misrepresent either the bullshitter, itself or another subject altogether; however the best (and by best I mean most reliable, easiest to craft) bullshit is the bullshit that is true, but misleading. Bullshit is harmful? No. Not as a rule. It can be completely benign, and it can also be helpful. So can lying, interestingly enough. Usually, in my experience, bullshit, and lying, are harmful--and toxic. They are planted as seeds and grow into actual people who live a life heaped upon bullshit and or lies and eventually have a hard time adjusting to reality, whether it be in the form of life in general or those stressors we call people. Single lies can stretch thin over time sandwiched between a man and his family, and one day grow as a not a lie but almost as an impassible rift over the years. But because nine thousand lies end in ruin, I don't think the one good one should go unnoticed. I don't think the bullshit that saved the day should be forgotten as the hero to the few it saved and stoned to death tied to a stake. I bullshit women, who want to know if their feet are too big (for those shoes? No. Just because your sister can fit into them doesn't mean you have big feet. As a matter of fact, she has midget feet!). I bullshit telemarketers, “Is Mr. Fancouching available?” I reply deftly “Fan couching! I haven't in months! Would you like to? I'm not sure who you are but we could simply find all sorts of fans in my couch!” These are pretty silly examples.
Bullshit is however, inevitable-at least in this culture. We are a community of polite people, who claim blunt is rude, and the truth is usually catastrophic.
Discuss the Four Noble Truths and how they apply to deciding a specific ethical problem.
It's not that I hate to poop. I love to poop! I just hate the idea of getting fat. So every time I eat, I sneak off to vomit in whatever receptacle I can find. There's a name for my affliction, I just can't think of it right now. My blood-sugar is too low. Life Means Suffering. So no matter what I was meant to suffer? There's absolutely no avoiding it? It's not just me either? The origin of suffering is attachment. I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dog-gone-it, people like me! Ha! Well not when we don't care whether you really are smart enough, good enough, or whether anyone likes you! But I do so badly. I don't want anyone to see how fat I really am. I am attached to these people, and to the idea of being attractive, and that malnutritioned equals beautiful. The cessation of suffering is attainable. The unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. I suppose I could unmake my conceptual attachments. Those attachments to my unhealthy habit and the craving for love and beauty, even the acceptance that drives it. The path to the cessation of suffering. Or the Eight Fold Path, talks of the middle road, and riding the fence between hedonism and self mortification. So maybe I can still puke a little? Just not too much? I don't really think that's the whole answer that Buddhism offers. Perhaps...perhaps it also means that, I shouldn't kill myself over these issues of mine, because in reality I am not one, but merely a part of the whole, that walks around independently but shouldn't worry about acceptance at all! Because there's really nothing in here, inside to judge. It is a nothingness of individuality, that I am only a temporary vessel for this power and I will return to the whole when I die. A part of everyone and everything that I admire. I am no better or worse and the hate I feel for myself is silly. Jeez, that's a load off my chest.