Assignment # 2

Four Philosophers...four ways of thinking...which would you believe?

For Immanuel Kant, universalizability is the rule. Everything you do should be applicable to all...No exceptions. No excuses.

For William David Ross, duties first is the rule. And what is moral should depend primarily on your motives, and not the end or consequence of your actions.

For John Rawls, justice rules. There should be equality among men. Everybody should have equal access to everything.

For St. Thomas Aquinas, the natural inclinations of human nature is the rule. What is morally right is based upon each one's conscience.

For one to live a morally satisfying life, should not be based solely upon these philosophers' ways of thinking. Maybe a combination of their ideas would help one get through to life in serenity. But to follow one is rather restricting and narrow-minded.

Like Kant's principle, for example...very strict and very straightforward. He didn't take into account when he was formulating his theory that certain rules applies for certain situation. There is no universalizability in this world. Because even that contradicts itself. If everybody won't tell a lie, then there would be chaos among us. Sometimes, we have to lie to protect something important to us. And there should always be exceptions. If you ask the whole city to join a marathon, what will you do for those people who are handicapped, who do not have legs, or have legs that are paralyzed?

Ross on the other hand has a fair point in his ethical principle. The motives of an individual for doing something should also be considered despite a bad result. I agree with what he said that the moral rule should be flexible at times, depending on the situation.

Rawls principle would have been very nice and ideal. Except that it is what it is just that...ideal. It is not achievable. Unless we have Utopia, we can never have a society where there is equality to all no matter what. First of all, people don't think alike. Some are selfish, while some are selfless. And our resources are always limited. If we have to divide equally our Earth among the 6 billion of us humans, and if we can achieve that, then it would be something. But would we be happy about it? Or satisfied with the share we got? Even our Earth is not homogenous in itself so even if we divide it equally, we still won't get equal shares.

St. Thomas Aquinas' views are also relative. He spoke of human nature and the natural inclinations of man as bases for morality. As a former Bio major, I learned that man's basic instincts have always been animal in nature. I mean, we are animals, but we are sophisticated and has higher intellect than the others. That's why we have formed civilizations. But if we are to base our morality on our natural inclinations, should we forget about our rational way of thinking? The natural inclination of man to self preserve is justified in itself. But should we eliminate those who challenge our existence? Should we give in to our instinct for territorial rule?

Still, everything should be based on certain situations. We should always be adaptable to the society we are in, and not rely on how we are brought up, because what is right for us might not be right in another community.

Assignment # 1

Sir William David Ross is a Scottish Philosopher who is best known for his work on ethical principles, especially The Right and the Good written in 1930. He developed a pluralist, deontological form of intuitionist ethics, that is mostly in response to G.E. Moore's intuitionism.

According to David Ross, any claim that something is good is true if it is really good. Logically, this makes sense since anything that a person perceives to be good is assumed to be good, otherwise, that person would only be lying about it. However, this is relative. Not all people have the same "taste" in life. Whatever one person thinks is good is not necessarily good in the eyes of others. Generally, this is where conflicts usually come in.

But this is not the main ethical principle that David Ross has shared to the world. For him, the good is only one of several prima facie obligations which play a role in determining what a person ought to do in any given situation. This would reject Moore's consequentialist ethics. Ross claimed that consequentialism is false because in this principle, what people ought to do can only be determined by whether their actions will bring about the most good. In short, in consequentialism, the end justifies the means. I would agree with Ross here. The consequence of one's actions should not be the sole basis in judging whether the action was right or wrong. The motives of the actions should also be taken into account so that whether the end result would not go as planned, if we know that the intentions were sincere, then we can not entirely fault the person for the way he acted.

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Ross