Hobbes`state of nature

This is a short introduction to Hobbes`state of nature often mentioned in topics such as why should I be moral and why should I be governed ?

Does it pay to be moral ?

Does it pay to be moral? This is a question that has been heavily discussed throughout history. On one side, it is argued that it pays to be moral because it enables you and others to flourish and gain peace of mind. On the other hand, it is said that there are times where it seems useless to do good.

Firstly, we may act moral because it is in our self-interest to do so. Egoism is when we desire things for our own self-interest rather than for their own sake because it is the right thing to do. We should act for our own good or in a way that furthers our happiness. So regarding this theory it pays to be moral because then we are acting in our self-interest and happiness is achieved. However, on problem is that, even if it is moral for the egoist it might not be moral for others; hence, it cannot be universalised.

In addition to this we have the social contract theory. This is when, as a part of our self-interest we form a social contract. Acting morally is to follow this contract. It will be in a person’s interest to limit any threat that other may impose by being part of a contract. As with egoism, the problem about universalising arises. A social contract making a contract assumes we have common interests, but there usually is someone who might not fit into the social contract, and it might also exclude certain groups such as animals. A social contract is a human device and since animals are not part to any covenant (at least not with humans), this would justify their exclusion from any concerns about their welfare. However, the absence of a social contract does not remove the obligation to treat animals well. If following the social contract theory it does sometimes pay to be moral, but it does not for those who are not part of this covenant.

Secondly, morality may be achieved through the virtuous life. Virtuous are those excellent traits, which enables us to act `for the right reasons, with the right feelings, to the right degree, towards the right person`. We can explain this by using one analogy of Aristotle. Imagine an archer who is able to hit the target. The moral virtues guided by reason enables us to hit the target, make us take a moderate course of action, which will be wise, prudent and just. When faced with a moral problem we should enquire how a virtuous character would respond. So, in this case, how can it pay to be moral?

Virtuous behaviour enables both the person and the community to flourish. We must recognise that we cannot have a positive future unless the welfare of the community is a part of the consideration. The more flourishing the society, the more we are able to flourish. Nevertheless, there are some problems with this theory. It is pointed out that virtue ethics does not offer clear enough guidance that enables people to make the `right` decisions. Also, the different virtues inherit differently in dissimilar cultures. So, unless some measure of agreement is reached, then the theory might slide into moral relativism. In other words, there will be no absolute moral.

It is also claimed that the virtuous theory goes together with self-interest. It is said that the ultimate end for the individual is his/her own happiness, which is only achieved through the virtuous life. So the reward for being moral in this case is that it will benefit both the community and me.

At last, we may act morally because it is our duty to do so. This is regardless of self-interest and self-interest may have to be overcome in order to fulfil your duty. According to Kant, real duties contain an `intrinsic dignity` and `command` which means you must do them regardless of how you feel. This is called the categorical imperative. Regarding whether it pays to be moral in this context is debateable. Surely, there are lots of situations where doing your duty reach the desired consequence, but there are also those situations where doing your duty may have undesired consequences. As with the thief who broke into a car and found IRA weapons. As he felt it was his duty to go to the police to tell about the weapons and admit his crime, he did so, but he still got convicted.

Also, at times it seems useless to do good. I have myself encountered situations where I ignore conventional standards of morality and not only get away with it, but also profit. Regarding society as a whole, dishonest people can flourish, become wealthy and enjoy a prosperous life, while others who appear to be virtuous do not.

So does it pay to be moral? According to theory one it is to maximise your self-interest, which may or may not lead to exploiting others, depending on the long-term benefit. Then we have the theory that argues that behaving virtuously, to create a flourishing society, also enables you to have a flourishing life. And finally we have the theory that overcomes self-interest that you act altruistic because it is the right thing to do. In addition, there are times where it pays not to be moral as well. Hence, there is no straightforward answer on whether it pays to be moral or not. It all comes down to each individual person and situation and each individual consequence that might come out of an action.

The teoligical argument

The teological argument is used both by aristotle in his explaination of why we are moral and in the topic, `The idea of god`.

The badness of death

The nature of persons: dualism vs physicalism

"What is it to be a person"?

Dualism:

-"A person is a combination of body and soul"

-"A person is a soul and body sandwich"

Physicalism:

-"A person is a body that can do a lot of things"

What does make me "me" ?

This is a really interesting! :

video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nhv56/Horizon_20092010_The_Secret_You/

You might also want to read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8314093.stm

‘All ideas derive from the sense experiences which they copy.

‘All ideas derive from the sense experiences which they copy.’ Discuss:

Hume once said; “all ideas derive from the sense experiences which they copy”. Two famous empiricists where John Locke and David Hume. They both believed that all ideas derive from sense impressions and that we all are born as “tabula rasa”. “Tabula rasa” is a Latin word which means blank slate. In other words, when we are born we have no knowledge.

Empiricists argue that experience is the only source of knowledge. That we cannot form ideas without a corresponding sense impression. Hume explained this by saying: “A blind man can form no notion of colours; a deaf man of sounds” They also argue that imagination is limited. For example, we cannot imagine infinity because we have never experienced anything like it. Hume sais though, that we can imagine for instance a golden mountain even if we haven’t experienced it. We do this by combining ideas to form another complex idea.

However, there are several flaws with the empirical view. First of all with the statement itself, because we can actually have some knowledge without experience. We can summarise this in one simple phrase: a priori. A priori is knowledge we have without experience. The opposite is a posteriori, which is knowledge we have through experience.

There are three ways in which we have a priori knowledge. One way in which we can have it, is by intuition. This is when we know things instinctive and unconsciously without reasoning. For example, where there is no property, there can be no injustice. We can also have a priori knowledge through demonstration, which means we develop conclusions through argumentation. For example, we can prove that triangle has three sides. The last way in which we can have a priori knowledge is trough innate knowledge. This means that we are not born as “Tabula rasa”, but we have some innate knowledge. When we are born we have knowledge about two things; the logical connectives and the ability to develop language.

Hume argued: “Words in their primary or immediate signification stand for nothing in the mind of him that uses them”. This is not correct because my words stand for my sense impressions (which you cannot have) and your words stand for your sense impressions (which I cannot have). So, because words track back their meaning to exclusive sense impressions, we never mean the same thing when we think we are communicating. If Lock suggestion would have been reasonable we would all be completely self-contained.

Empiricism also fails to accept that our mind actively changes how we experience things. We see things in different ways depending on how our mind processes the information. For instance, the German illustrator Ludwig Richter and some friends of him went to a Tivoli to paint a picture of the exact same motive. Nevertheless, when they compared their work afterwards they saw that every picture was different from each other. This shows that our mind plays an active role in how we experience thing.

Philosophers like Rene Descartes has proved with the rationalistic view that there are many flaws in the empirical view. Looking at the reasons above clearly proves that not all ideas derive from sense experiences; since there certainly are some ideas we have without experience.

Sociology terms

Polygyny: to have more than one wife at the same time.

Polyandry: to have more than one husband at a time.

Polygamy: is being married to multiple husbands or wives at the same time.

Monogamy: to be marriage with one person

Nuclear family: the nuclear family consist of a mother, father and dependent children. As pointed out by Robert Chester, it is still the family most people experience at some point in their lives. One reason for the strenght and appeal of the nuclear family is its geographical mobility.

Extended family: is an extended family of three generations living together. The extended family was strongest in working- class families. It is less important today because of geographical mobility, but research by Finch and Mason (1993) shows that kinship ties are still important for most. They discovered that 90 % of those researched had given or recieved financial help from their extended family. They also found that women were more actively involved with the extended family.

Cohabitation: means living with someone and having a sexual relationship with them, without marriage.

Primary Relationship: this is a relationship in which a person has ongoing intimate, personal, face-to-face contact with those who are responsible for the primary socialisation process.

Resource:

AQA AS sociology

Are Hume and Locke right?

Is Hume right about what can be imagined?

“Although it appears boundless the imagination is really confined with very narrow limits, and that all this creative power of the mind amounts to no more than the faculty of compounding, transposing, augmenting, or diminishing the materials afforded us by the senses and experience.

Yes I agree with Hume, because I can imagine for instance a golden mountain because I have experienced both gold and mountains. But I cannot imagine for example infinity, because I have never experienced anything like it.

Does Locke’s suggestion seem reasonable? Why?

“Words in their primary or immediate signification stand for nothing but the ideas in the mind that uses them”.

No I believe his suggestion is not reasonable because:

“My words stand for my sense impressions (which you cannot have) and your words stand for your sense impressions (which I cannot have). So, because words track back their meaning to exclusive sense impressions, we never mean the same thing when we think we are communicating- we cannot mean the same thing”

If Locks suggestion were reasonable we would all be completely self-contained. (“I can never share ideas with others, neither can they share with me”)

Empiricism

Some Philosophy homework about Empiricism.

Hume’s reasons for saying ”every idea is copied from a similar impression”, using his examples.

Hume said that you must experience a particular sense impression before you have an idea. To prove this Hume argued “A blind man can form no notion of colours; a deaf man of sounds”.

How Hume tells the difference between impressions and ideas.

According to Hume the difference between impressions and ideas is that ideas are faded copies of impressions. To explain this Hume said “everyone will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat, or pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation, or anticipates it by his imagination”.

Explain Hume’s account of how the imagination works. Why does Hume need to give account of the imagination?

According to Hume imagination is a mechanism of association based on passed experience. To imagine something we have never experienced Hume said that we combine things we have already experienced. To explain this Hume said “ When we think of a golden mountain, we only join two consistent ideas `gold`, and `mountain` with which we were formerly acquainted”. Hume also said that Imagination is limited.

Explain the philosophical significance Hume draws from his analysis of the origin of ideas.

The philosophical significance Hume draws from his analysis of the origin of ideas is that to prevent that your idea is confounded with other ideas you have to find out from which particular sense impression that idea arrived from. To prove this Hume said that when we are confronted with a slippery“Philosophical term…” all we need to ask is “from what impression is that supposed idea derived? And if it be impossible assign any, this will serve to confirm our suspicion. By bringing ideas into so clear a light we may reasonably hope to remove all dispute, which may arise, concerning their nature and reality”.