Lancaster 1

Michael Lancaster

Teresa Welch

Philosophy 1000

3 February 2017

Final Paper/ Critical Thinking-Class Group Paper

Socrates used questions and discussion to bring out truth in others. What a great way to

find truths for yourself as well. Having this technique in mind I sat down with three of my

classmates Kyle, Dallon and Neal on two separate occasions and we discussed some of lifes

most important questions. When we couple this with comparing our thoughts to past and present

influential philosophers you get an assignment that is actually both interesting and engaging.

Do we have ethical duties regarding what we do with our money? I believe it is quite

difficult to justify spending ones money on luxuries. I myself cannot come up with a reason that

would suffice or make me feel better about doing so. However, I do believe that you can do

things that help ease the guilt. For instance you can donate money or time to reputable charities

or organizations that you feel strongly about. I also think that this subject will be answered

differently depending on who you are talking to. Everyone has their own opinion and it can be

circumstantial. If someone isnt exposed directly to the problems of the less fortunate or needy

then it is easier to kind of shrug off the issue. If they themselves lived the less fortunate life at

some point or were affected by it somehow directly then they would be more likely to use their

supplemental income to help others. Kyle: Suggests donating five to ten percent of money to

charities. Dallon: You work for what you get. Everyone has the same opportunities in America.

Its better to help more people in third world countries that cant control circumstances. Neal:

There are a lot of different ways to give. Example: Teaching to fish rather than giving a fish.
 Lancaster 2

Neal is okay with spending some money on luxuries and donates time to organizations. In

Famine, Affluence, and Morality, philosopher Singer argued that as long as there are people

living in poverty elsewhere in the world whom we can help, then we ought to give until we

reach the level of marginal utility that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as

much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift. After hearing all this I

think you should give what you can. Until it starts to affect you negatively. I also think it is easier

said than done.

Is it unethical to eat meat? Do we have an ethical duty to be a vegetarian? In my opinion

the actual act of eating meat or animal products is perfectly ethical. However, I think it starts to

get a little murky when it comes to the mass production of said products. In a world driven by

the almighty dollar things like environmental safety and ethical treatment of animals seems to

get pushed to the side. To produce for the masses you need large operations that are speedy. In

some of these facilities the treatment of animals is atrocious. They are forced to endure horrible

living situations and even more barbaric ways of slaughter. Then there is the problem of

environmental issues that these facilities produce. The land used for these animals could be used

for growing crops. Trees are cut down and precious soil is lost, not to mention the way they deal

with the massive amounts of waste that ends up polluting water ways. Kyle: Thinks it is ethical

to eat meat but bad the way animals are treated and it is hard to change. The animals will die

anyway and he would rather not waste the meat. He also believes we shouldnt eat humans.

Dallon: Doesnt think its unethical. He enjoys meat. Doesnt support how some animals are

treated to make more money. Thinks corporations are too big for us to impact. Also thinks it is

natural to eat meat. He doesnt think you should only be a vegetarian since it is good to have a

well-balanced diet. He also thinks you should not eat domesticated pets. Neal: Thinks its okay to
 Lancaster 3

eat pets, as long as everyone in the family is okay with it which can depend on the culture. He

said he would be willing to try it. Doesnt think there is a duty to be vegetarian but thinks we

should be as humane as we can and should use animal products wisely. He thinks we shouldnt

mistreat the animals and that the situation may effect what is ethical to eat. For instance, if it is

life or death he would be okay eating a human or someone eating him. Philosopher Jay Bost

believes "eating meat raised in specific circumstances is ethical; eating meat raised in other

circumstances is unethical" in regard to environmental usage. It seems that I agree with both Jay

and my classmates for the most part.

What is truth? Opinions of truth are relative. It all depends on a persons upbringing or

personal reality. What is true for one person may not be true for another so it makes is hard to

determine what absolute truth in opinions is. For example, a person may believe Ford

automobiles are better than Chevrolet automobiles, while not everyone may share that opinion

of truth. I do believe we can find absolute truth in provable facts. Such as Ford and Chevrolet

both make automobiles. It is much easier to find absolute truth in provable facts rather than

opinion. Kyle: Thinks truth is relative but thinks there are very few absolute truths. He says

there are always two sides to a story. He thinks that it is a decision that we make ourselves. He

also thinks skeptics are half way right but hard on themselves. Dallon: Believes in logic and

science and math so he bases truth off of those. Believes what is the most logical is probably

truth but truth is subjective to change depending on testing. Agrees with Kyle that you have to

arrive at the truth yourself. He thinks it depends on the skeptics because there are different kinds

of skeptics. Neal: Thinks it is presumptuous to say what is true and what is not; Only God can.

As a society you need to agree on a set value of truth or there would be anarchy. He believes in

some absolute truths like there is a God and there are consequences after we die. He says
 Lancaster 4

everyone should mind their own damn business. Philosopher Nietzsche says there are no facts,

only interpretations, which kind of perplexed me. It made me think about my stance on absolute

truth. Are facts just interpretations that we deem facts?

How is good behavior verses bad behavior determined? Do the consequences of ones

actions define whether an action is good or bad, or is it the motivations or intentions of the actor

that matters? The difference between good and bad behavior depends on numerous factors such

as cultural influence, society, upbringing and intention. Different people in different parts of the

world will have differing opinions of good behavior verses bad behavior. For example, the act

of pointing your finger at someone can be considered just fine or extremely rude depending

where you are in the world. That being said, I think what really matters is the intent behind

your actions, not the consequence. If you have honorable or noble intentions then you can live

with the consequence. Kyle: Thinks society decides what is good and what is bad; people decide

as a group what is good and what is bad otherwise it would be anarchy. He also thinks

motivation and intention are more important than consequences. Dallon: He agrees with Kyle. It

depends how society makes laws, and one shouldnt do anything inherently bad. Thinks

consequences have a big impact, because that is all you see is the consequences, but thinks the

intentions are more important. Neal: He agrees with us all. Just intend to do your best and act on

good behavior and you can live with the consequence. But he differs thinking consequences need

accountability whether you wanted something to happen or not. He thinks its a tough balance.

Philosopher Plato suggests human behavior comes from three sources which are desire, emotion

and knowledge. My stance remains the same but Plato makes an interesting point.

If we do the right action for the wrong reason is it less moral? I say that it isnt more or

less moral. By that I mean to say that there can be different levels of morality in this
 Lancaster 5

circumstance. Someone who does it for the wrong reason may not feel the full joy of someone

who does things for the right reason. Someone who does it for the right reason can take full

comfort that their intentions are fully honorable. Where someone who does it for the wrong

reason doesnt necessarily feel guilt, but cant feel the same sense of pride felt by the person

doing it for the right reason. Since both routes produce the same result I dont have a problem

with either. Kyle: He thinks it is important to be a little rewarded when giving to charity, like Bill

Gates giving to charity and receiving write offs. He thinks it matters to the person whether they

feel good about doing what they did. If someone feels guilt then they are probably doing

something less moral. He thinks a right action is a right action either way. Dallon: He thinks its

wrong to do something for someone with the wrong reasons in mind just to help themselves

which makes it less moral. Neal: Sees both sides to the argument. Feels we shouldnt give gifts

unwillingly, there are so many things you can agree with and feel right about thats what you

should focus on. However, he doesnt feel its more or less moral. The German Philosopher Kant

believes only the intention matters, i.e. the right reason and the outcome is not important. So if

you have self-centered motives but do something good, then your action is morally worthless. I

still think that good can come from both but you would feel more joy in doing the right things for

the right reasons.

Are bad actions that are completed with good intent less moral? I believe it to be

situational. What is good and right in one context may not be in another. Now, if the corporation

had obtained its wealth by essentially robbing the poor, then I believe it would be morally sound.

However, a problem with stealing food from the corporation is that, even if the outcome is noble

(like feeding the poor), the means of attaining it may not be. But if you are stealing from

someone just as needy as you are then thats where I think it becomes less moral. All in all I
 Lancaster 6

think it is situational. Neal: There are time when taking form others or doing bad thigs are

arguably good or moral. It depends on the constructs of society. He gives the example of Robin

Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Kyle: He believes there are times that it is

acceptable but that the bad action is still a bad action. Dallon: He thinks that doing the wrong

action is kind of taking the easy route. He feels that you should teach instead. T. S. Eliot, in his

poem, "Murder in the Cathedral" called such conduct "the greatest treason - to do the wrong

thing for the right reason." I still believe it to be situational. Also, I think if the wrong action is

extreme then the ends may not justify the means.

What does living the good live consist of? Living the good life can mean something

different for everyone; living a good life depends on what matters to you. You need to take time

to determine your core values, priorities, and goals for life. You should work to fulfill the desires

you want to achieve. Living the good life is all about ones perspective. For example some people

think living the good life is all about having a loving family. For some it may mean being rich.

So I think it all depends on personal perspective. Kyle: He also thinks its about perspective. But

for him personally its about having family and security in shelter and food. Dallon: When you

decide what you want in your life you should strive for it and not half ass it. You should go for

your dreams. He thinks that everyones good life is different from others. Neal: Agrees with

everyone but thinks having people around you with the same goals is important. Also, he thinks

that it is important to learn from the other perspectives. Learning and growing and

understanding. Philosopher Aristotle says that the good life consists in the possession, over the

course of a lifetime, of all those things that are really good for us. What is really good for us

corresponds to the natural needs that are the same for all human beings; thus what is good for

one person is good for another. On this subject I pretty much feel that my classmates and I agree.
 Lancaster 7

What are the qualities of the superior individual? To say that someone is superior to

another person kind of seems wrong to me. If I had to think of some superior qualities in a

person I would say the following: One who cares for others, is kind, and is honest. But the

superior individual also depends on perspective. Some may think that someone who is rich is the

superior individual. Or someone could admire physical attributes. I dont think there is one

answer. Neal: Believes someone that thinks that they are living the good life. Qualities include

things like confidence, articulate, political and a superior manipulator. Dallon: Believes a

superior person is the one who has the most knowledge. One that can look at something and

know what is going on. They also strive to get what they want. Kyle: States that he agrees with

Nietzsche in that people create their own values. Knowing what you believe and holding fast to

it. THE central idea of Confucius is that every normal human being cherishes the aspiration to

become a superior mansuperior to his fellows, if possible, but surely superior to his own past

and present self. I really like this idea from Confucius. I think in the very least one should try to

become superior to their own past or present self.

To what extent, if any, does happiness relate to living the good/moral life? What is

happiness? I think happiness and living the good or moral life go hand in hand. To feel truly

happy in life I think you have to be in harmony with yourself. You have to be happy with the

person that you are if you are going to be truly happy. And I think if you want to be happy with

yourself then you have to live by a moral code that you have set for yourself. If you live in

harmony with the morals or values that you believe in then I think you will be happy. Kyle:

Believes focus on long term happiness is morally good. Also, he thinks happiness is security in

knowing that you arent hurting anyone. Drawing something good out of your experiences is also

happiness in his opinion. Neal: He agrees with Kyle and thinks it is a direct correlation. You get a
 Lancaster 8

lot more happiness out of sticking with what you believe in; in being true to yourself. Dallon: He

feels that happiness relates to long-term. Living a long moral life is important. Happiness comes

from things that you like to do. Be secure. Aristotle regarded virtue as necessary for a person to

be happy and held that without virtue the most that may be attained is contentment. I still think

the two go hand in hand. I dont think it is possible to live a happy life unless you feel you are

truly living according to a moral code you follow yourself.

To what extent, if any, does ones duties to society/other people relate to living the

morally good life? When it comes to living the morally good life I believe everyone has a duty to

help others if they can. To only help yourself seems kind of selfish. Again I think this comes

down to perspective. By that I mean not everyone is going to agree on what is moral and what is

immoral. But if Im speaking on what I believe to be moral then I think everyone has a moral

duty to help others if theyre able. Kyle: He thinks that you have a duty to society and that to live

the good life you have to help others. Neal: He thinks that there is no life without other people;

other people give us meaning. He is really big into spending time getting to know what you

believe in. What we do morally has an effect on other people. Living a morally good life means

there is a duty to others. Dallon: He believes as long as you are doing what you can to help then

you are living a morally good life. Dont destroy other peoples beliefs. Thinks there is a duty but

thinks the people in need should voice their needs. If you treat others well than you are living

the good life. I believe Immanuel Kant has a valid argument concerning this topic. He argues we

would be in breach of our nature as rational human beings if we claim we have no duty of care. I

believe it is in our nature to want to help others in need. Again, to live a happy morally good life

you need to help others.

 Lancaster 9

I have to admit, when I received this assignment I was not very excited. First of all I am

not too fond of group projects. And second, I thought it was going to be tough to get five pages

worth of content. But I have to say, I truly enjoyed hearing from my classmates as well as

researching well known philosophers views. And in the end this essay seemed to write itself.

Before I knew it I had too much content and had to trim it down. Plus I think when it comes to

philosophy you can only philosophize with yourself so much. It is much more entertaining to

hear the views of others. Maybe those views will end up becoming your own. All in all this

became fun and an engaging learning experience.