Ethics
PH 210
Unit 2
Farzin Sedghi

Lesson 2 1. The Utilitarianism explains that whatever we do matters if it consequently makes us happy or even unhappy. Therefore, nothing else has a part in terms of not making the individuals happy or unhappy. I say unhappy because things that we do or things that happens to us can unintentionally makes us unhappy at the end, however, if we consider the idea of causality, a chain of cause and effect can bring us a chain of happiness and unhappiness. Things that makes us as a society unhappy, we tend to avoid, and things that makes us happy we tend to do more.
But what happens if, for instance, something that was supposed to make us happy in the future has been replaced with the sense of sadness and despair. For example, if one’s dream was to fly an airplane and become a pilot was crushed after an unfortunate accident in which the individual loses his eye vision. Then we can see that in this series of cause and effect there was a cause that worked as an obstacle in front of him not to achieve his ultimate happiness which was being a pilot and therefore, not becoming an important part of a society which can, for instance, keep us safe in the sky and so make us happy. However, is it true that what was left for him was merely a sense of unhappiness? What can the individual do to prevent such accident in the future? Does that even matter since the individual already lost his eyes?
Therefore, we come to an understanding that what makes us happy is merely relevant to our surrounding and community, and possibly temporary. Which is why we are in constant battle, in life, to find some sort of permanent or long lasting happiness. Is this why we accept the possibility of life after death? Is this why we tend to believe in a place like “heaven” in which the happiness is absolute and permanent? (Text, Pg 110-113) 2. Hedonism is an inward looking of pleasure and happiness rather than looking at things as a whole. Hedonism is very much individualistic and so what matters is the happiness of the individual not the society. Hedonism asks “what course of action leads to the most pleasure for me” and a Utilitarian asks, "what causes the greatest good for all of society?”
Utilitarian gained popularity within social and political theory because it is all about society and what brings goodness and happiness for the society and the community we are living at and the happiness that is equally spreads between the citizens of that society. The idea of looking after our own happiness seems to be an act of being selfish, however, looking to bring happiness for everyone in the society seems to be an act of kindness cause not only the act itself brought happiness to the individual, it brought happiness to the others as well.
This theory very much suits the idea of democracy because in a democratic society it is the people who have the power to choose a path that potentially leads to their happiness. (Text, Chapter 8, Pgs 110-114) 3. The Text book gives several examples that are against and for the Utilitarian theory. Out of all those example the one that explains about the person who is going to see a movie in theatre seems to be questionable in terms of being against utilitarian. The author argues, by giving this example, that utilitarian is too demanding. When the person who was going to the movie was stopped and told that by donating the money to the charity for poor people in the third world instead of spending it for some movies can make lot of people happy in the world. However, that donation would not be the end of it. The person should donate almost whatever he has to be equally happy with those poor people of the third world. However, the author argues that this action is considered an act far beyond the routine generosity of an average person. It is, therefore, an act of a saint which utilitarian does not recognize. But if someone becomes a saint, isn’t that cause an ultimate happiness for the person morally and “spiritually”? I personally don’t think that the world has ever had an unhappy saint so why would the author use this example against utilitarian. We just don’t know what kind of happiness and recognition the act of super generosity would bring for us. (Text, Pg 116-117)
The author also gives examples such as lying and promises. If we lie we might possibly get a sense of satisfaction from it, however, the persons who we lied to are betrayed, even though at the moment there was no direct harm involved or maybe even it was caused some temporary happiness for the betrayed persons. However, it is the consequences that are determining whether the action was right or wrong. If we get caught lying at some point then all that happiness and satisfaction will be switched to unhappiness and un-satisfaction. Therefore, the utilitarian recognizes this and so calls the action a wrong one. Same goes with our day to day promises. If we break them for the sake of our own temporary happiness, it will have consequences that might bring far greater unhappiness than our temporary happiness for us. (Text, Pg 121-122) 4. The primary strength of Utilitarianism is that it works well for the well-being of a society since its primary objective is to bring happiness to the all people of a particular society or even further and the world itself. For instance, organizations like United Nations or World Health Organization which have universal purpose and that purpose is to lessen or elimination of unhappiness among people of the world whether in terms of health condition or freedom.
However, what if the point of view of a society is to reinforce certain ideas without any regard to the freedom of, for instance, speech which is accepted as one the primary foundation of human rights. Therefore, would it be ok for a society to punish those who question the culture or the belief of a society? Even though that can bring happiness to the majority of people in that society, is it ok to go against this basic human rights? Then we come to understanding that the idea of Utilitarianism and its strengths or weaknesses are relative depending on the types of society and its law.

Lesson 3 1. The moral philosophy of Kant emphasizes on human being as always the end not the means. This means that because humans have “an intrinsic” or “dignity” they are valuable as oppose to anything else. Therefore, anything else such as animals are only valuable if they are used as a means for humans, so humans are always should be the end. This means that our action toward the others and ourselves must be in a way that we as humans are treated as an end and never as a means.
Kant’ idea regarding animals sounds a little harsh and this was because at that time science was not aware of certain complexity within animals, therefore, Kant did not consider animal cruelty a wrong act because of any animal rights rather it was because those who torture animals can become affected by their actions and so become “hard in his dealings with men.”
Another interesting point in his moral ideas was that anything bad we do to others like, for instance, lying to a friend, we are merely using him as a means and that would contradict the moral value of a human being. Therefore, in our day to day activity we must always try to bring goodness and happiness for others and ourselves so that we become the end in this process not the means.
(Text, Pg 136-138) 2. In utilitarian theory the idea of social punishment is well tolerated since it prevents further unhappiness for the community. Even though, by punishing the criminal we are bringing unhappiness for that person, we are in fact doing the society a favor and so bring them a sense of satisfaction and safety. Therefore, we become happier when we know such criminals are behind the bar and not in the streets.
However, Kant’s theory of dignity and human center go against these kind of punishment as far as it defame or slander the criminal and so tries to change what his/her personality is, say by trying to make them different in jails so that maybe one day there is hope for them to return to the society.
Kant argues that punishment is, however, necessary as far as the crime goes, and it should be proportional to the crime committed. Harsher punishment for harsher crimes and softer punishment for smaller crimes. This can prevent people from committing crimes by giving them choices to make only themselves. If they commit crimes they will be punished so in most cases they try to either prevent themselves from committing crimes or try to hide from the law. Either way, it should be their choice not anybody else. (Text, Pg 136-143) 3. The theory of Kant is very much the foundation of human rights. And this is one its most important strength. We must understand that any human being in this world has dignity and should be treated with respect. Kant argues, in terms of breaking the law of the country, if someone, for instance, steals, he steals from himself. If someone kills, he/she kills himself. Therefore, all punishment should be proportional. However, human rights has gone further and so considers certain punishment or certain types of punishment inhumane and far from treating a human being with respect. For instance, prosecuting a juvenile or punishing someone by death.
The greatest weakness of Kant’s theory is his ignorance about the community and its law. In any country the law and the law enforcement system’s purpose is to bring safety for every member of the community. Therefore, if there is a criminal among these people, then that person should be removed from the community. This brings safety and happiness for all members of that society which should be the most important purpose of any community’s law. If we punish a rapist, for instance, we are doing justice to the family of the victim. This will also bring, again, a sense of satisfaction to the other members of the community by showing them that the law is exist to keep them and their children safe, and so this satisfaction will turn to happiness in that community. (Text, Pg 136-143)