What does it mean to live a good life or to be well off? Does one single standard exist for everyone?

These are the question I sought to answer when I began writing this blog. 

Specifically, I said: 
"Whether you believe that you are living the good life already, or would like to know how to go about living the good life, or maybe you are indifferent- whatever the case may be, feel free to join me as I dive into a journey of contemplation. Maybe we'll find the answers to our questions. Maybe we won't. However, what I do know is that if we attempt to reflect more closely on what sort of life is worth living, then we will learn more, and therefore know more. We will surely learn more about the possibilities of what a good life could entail. To me, this only means being closer to figuring out what we ought to do to live the life that would ultimately make us best off. The idea of achieving this seems to make the contemplation and journey as a whole worthwhile. It may be the case that you find that you were already living the good life. If so, this journey could result in validation."

I am personally not quite sure whether I have any clear cut answers regarding what the good life is. 

However, as a result of my exploration of many of the different ethical theories, I can say one thing… that is, I now know more. I have been exposed to many different views and I can say that to me, it seems as though no single standard exists for everyone. If there was a single standard then it seems that there would be no disagreement in regards to morality. However, it is clear that our survey of ethical theories has shown us that there is much disagreement in ethics. Many different people, believe many different things. It is now up to you to decide which view seems most plausible. I hope that you have also learned a lot as a result of our journey and are now better equipped than when we started to formulate your own views about morality and what you take the good life to be! 

The good life is also a popular theme and topic to sing about...

Let's wrap it up with Frank Sinatra's idea's about the good life: 

http://youtu.be/Sdrg7ayezXo

However, R&B singer Robin Thicke seems to have his own idea's about the good life that he has so gracefully shared with the world:

http://youtu.be/c1yJESa5s0Q

It seems that ultimately, everyone has different idea's about THE GOOD LIFE:

Primate Ethics

In Frans De Waal’ s Chimpanzee Justice, an example is offered, which is meant to show how the principle of reciprocity prevalent among chimpanzees is governed by the same sense of moral rightness and justice as it is among humans. Later Singer presents the principle of reciprocity by way of Confucius’ , A Single Word, in order to show how humans also value this principle just like primates. However, it is not the case that ALL human communities value the principle of reciprocity. There are different cultures in the world who hold many different values from one another. It seems as though Singer makes too bold of a statement when saying that significant ethical principle carry weight in EVERY human community because it is too general of a statement. A less bold assertion would be more acceptable. If Singer could show that every single human community holds a certain ethical principle, then we can buy into this claim, but he fails to do so in the two aforementioned examples. If Singer were able to convince us that his assertion were true, then this might show us that morality transcends into beings other than humans, and that would be a huge thing to show because we could assume that the moral community might transcend to all living things. Human ethical theories might apply to other species as well. However this is a very bold claim to make and it seems hard to prove because now we could have to consider new questions. Questions such as, whether certain ethical principles are universal in all communities? Also, whether all living communities ought to follow similar principles, why or why not, amongst many other questions.  Overall, with the reading Singer offers, it does not seem that we can accept his initial assertion seeing as he does not seem justified in making such claims. 
Similarly, in the NY time article Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior by Nicholas Wade (linked below), Wade seems to suggest that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes. In addition he goes on to say that all social animals have had to constrain or alter their behavior in various ways for group living to be worthwhile. These constraints, evident in monkeys and even more so in chimpanzees, are part of human inheritance, too, and in his view form the set of behaviors from which human morality has been shaped. This is certainly an interesting and different view about the origins of ethics as compared to the views I explore in the blog's earlier posts (under the origins of ethics header). Which view do you find more convincing? 

Article referenced above: http://primates.com/morality/index.html

Ethical Relativism

Ethical Relativism is the view that advances that some moral rules really are correct, and that these determine which moral claims are true and which are false. For the ethical relatvist these standards are never objectively correct, rather, these standards are relative to each person, or each society. Thus, a moral standard is correct just because a person, or society is deeply committed to it. This means that the standards that are appropriate for some people may not be appropriate for others. Thus, morality is a human construct. In other words, we make it up.
The other day, I was reading the following article: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/opinion/l-different-cultures-have-different-values-227889.htmlThe author discusses the notion of different cultures having different values. The author discusses the Chinese culture and values and how they differ from American culture and values. More specifically he delves into the topic of meats. He ponders why it is such an issue for American's that the Chinese eat dog meat. He wonders why one culture would consider themselves more civilized based on the kind of meat they eat. He goes further to say "I am not ashamed of eating dog. I have a different color of skin, I speak a different language and I come from a different cultural background, so I sometimes eat different food (meat in this case) too." He ends his article with what to me, were truly powerful words: "In today's world, linked by common interest, it is perhaps wise and beneficial not to impose our own values on others." He displayed the views of an ethical relativist. And to be frank, his view seemed to make a lot of sense. It seems that people, and even societies ought to not be judged or chastised for  having a different value than the next person. By the ethical relativists view, however, it is okay for people to disagree and find the views of the next person or society inappropriate. This article is interesting because it seems to highlight a problem the ethical relativists deal with. That is, of embracing the notion that standards are never objectively correct, rather, these standards are relative to each person, or each society and yet being accepting to notion of the next person or society disagreeing with one's held standards/values.

The role of observation in ethics

An short analysis of our in class readings: 
The belief that scientific theories are theory-laden is not uncommon. In our readings for this week we can notice that Sturgeon agrees with Harman about the aforementioned. It seems like Sturgeon is saying that theory can be good for observation, and that the observation can justify the theory simultaneously. Essentially, unlike Harman, Sturgeon seems to think that moral theories can be tested in the way that scientific theories can be tested. He offers the hitler example, in which Hitler can be viewed as an amorally admirable person or a morally vicious person, similar to science, where we have theory choice. He believes that both science and morality are no different when it comes to the explanatory chain between them, and observation. In response to Harman, Sturgeon claims that moral beliefs can be rejected when they are not consistent with other moral beliefs and observations. For, Sturgeon this is exactly like science. We believe facts because we believe them to be true. Overall, Sturgeon accepts that ethics is scientific in that it can be a reliable source of knowledge and that moral facts can cause the world to be a certain way. He thinks that Harman does not succeed in convincing us that moral facts don't cause the world to be a certain way.
Essentially, Harman considers whether moral principles can be tested and confirmed in the way scientific principles can. He conducts a thought experiment to confirm and test a moral principle but concludes that ethics has an apparent immunity from observational testing. The more precise challenge that comes from this claim is that we can never objectively know that any moral belief or value is wrong or right because of this gap in the explanatory chain from the principle of observation to morality. Harman explains that this often is the explanation as to why moral nihilists hold their positions. If nothing can be decisively wrong or right, then morality cannot be objective. More specifically, this is a challenge because what we perceive may be dependent on preconceived notions. And so, if we attempt to justify something we observe as being morally wrong, our experiences and cultural beliefs play into our conclusions, and so though we may believe something is wrong simply because the act itself is wrong- our preconceived notions are more than likely factoring into our observations. He offers the kids burning a cat example. So many different beliefs factor into whether what we see can be deemed morally wrong or morally acceptable. For example, we hold beliefs about animals, and separate from that, beliefs about kids, and so on. Unlike in science, we cannot test our observations by objective standards, and so we can never truly justify our moral observations.  This certainly seems like a plausible view. However, people still so use justifications to explain their moral actions. This happens every day. Is it really problematic that we cannot test our observations in the same way that science does? Additionally, many claim that theory choice in science as well as the entire  process of science itself, contains subjectivity and so we cannot categorize it as privileged or as an authority to tell us how the world really works. In other words, that science cannot tell us objective truths about the world. If this is the case, it seems that Harman would need to re-think his claims, and it seems that what he conceives to be problematic, isn't really as problematic when science isn't an authority either in regards to testing our observations in search for objective truths. 

Nihilism & objective morality

Is living immorally good?

In The Origins of Herd Morality, Nietzsche presents several ideas that are similar to those advanced by Thrasymachus. He characterizes certain drives as strong and dangerous. Most of these drives, being drives that are generally found to be immoral by society as a whole. Nietzsche’s ideas seem to correlate with Thrasymachus’ idea of morality being the good of another, what is advantageous for the stronger and the ruler, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves when he calls fear the mother of morality. However, Thrasymachus suggests that he who is immoral especially on the large scale is the person who is in the grand scheme of things, considered to be stronger and with great power, freer and more masterful as compared to those who are moral.

            Additionally, Nietzsche mentions, “a superior independent intellect, a will to stand alone, even superior rationality, are felt to be dangers;” and even labeled as evil. This sounds similar to the idea advanced by Thrasymachus, which says that those who act immoral on a large scale, for example by taking the possessions of the citizens and then kidnapping and enslaving the possessors as well being thought of positively even though this is considered an immoral act by most. Essentially, this is a danger to the ones eligible to be enslaved and kidnapped and the person, by superior rationality is able to become a danger to the aforementioned weaker people. All in all, although he is viewed as evil, at the end of the day he is more powerful, freer and more masterful than someone who acts morally. In this sense, the ideas of Thrasymachus and Nietzsche are similar. By these views, it seems that living immorally is not so bad after all. However, these are views that most do not agree with. 

On the Origins of Ethics

 In Moral Virtue, How Produced, Aristotle discusses his view on virtue. He says that there are two kinds of virtue and that these two kinds of virtue come about in two different ways, neither of them through nature. Aristotle says that there exists intellectual virtue, which comes about by birth, experience, and time. This seems plausible because when someone is born, they do not know everything making it so nothing can be learned throughout the rest of their lives. In contrast, people learn, acquire knowledge, and develop intellect as time passes, and as they experience new things.  Thus, it seems that nature and intellectual virtue are separate. In addition, there exists moral virtue according to Aristotle that of which comes about through habit since “nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature.” He offers the example of fire. One cannot habituate fire to move downwards -as it naturally moves upwards. Thus, since moral virtue comes from doing things over and over, then it is also separate from nature. For Aristotle, the relationship between human nature and morality then, lies in that people are adapted by nature to receive virtues. In other words, we get morals by exercising them, and so it is important to form good habits from youth- as habit will form good moral virtue in a person.

Mencius has a view in opposition to Aristotle’s. Mencius argues that human nature and morality are intertwined. He says that human nature is naturally good similarly to how water naturally moves downward. Essentially, things like humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are not drilled into us from the outside or adapted; rather, we originally are born with these feelings already inside of us.  As Mencius explicitly says “they are within our original nature”. Consequentially, by this view if people just follow their original nature and the feelings that they are born with, then they will do good. However, it seems that Mencius isn’t too confident that this is how things actually work. He explains that the proper goodness of the mind is disturbed by everyday life; and that the natural good slowly fades.  This is similar to what deforestation does to a mountain, he says. While at first it is naturally beautiful, if it is not properly taken care of, it looses its natural beauty. Although, this does not mean that it is not naturally beautiful. Mencius mentions that with proper nourishment and care everything grows, but without it everything decays. This is the relationship between nature and morality for Mencius. Essentially they are synonymous, but for morality to flourish in a person it must be taken care of and preserved. Otherwise it will decay.

Rousseau believes that human nature is naturally “more good” than it is bad. While he acknowledges that people have both vices and virtues, he says that people have more virtues than vices. Further, Rousseau advises against coming to the same conclusions as Hobbes who says that men are naturally wicked. Rousseau believes that pity is a naturally occurring feeling and so this feeling is a part of human nature. He argues that pity is what moderates a person’s selfishness and thus contributes to the overall well being of human kind. It seems that for Rousseau, it is pity which beings about morality in humans. It seems that in this view, morality is inherently a part of human nature because if humans naturally feel pity, then they will act out of this feeling. This feeling then, is what causes people to act morally in instances where they are compelled to do so.