crsmith – The Moral Philosophers

Milling For Happiness in 2020

With 2020 now nearly complete, our hopes of the COVID-19 pandemic coming to an end by 2021 have been dashed. When faced with the prospect of operating for the 2020-21 school year almost all colleges and universities decided to switch to a virtual learning environment. In itself, this decision made sense; yet, when combined with their decisions to retain their high tuition fees, many students and their guardians started to raise complaints. After all, why should they continue to pay large sums of money for an educational experience that is not what they had signed up for? As a result, the following question is one that now plagues colleges and universities across the world: is it morally justified to keep the tuition fee the same despite college moving to the virtual platform and remote from campus?

As stated above, most would argue that the virtual format is not as conducive to learning as if it were in-person. Moreover, some of us live in homes that are distracting and diminish our learning experience, especially given we no longer have access to a quiet, study space like the library. Therefore, to keep tuition costs the same is contradictory to the product. I believe Mill’s recommendation to this dilemma would be relatively straightforward. How does the school operate in a way in which it recognizes its students and vouches for their progression?

As of right now, students are upset because they feel as though the school is acting as a private entity instead of a collegiate institution governing by and for its students. Moreover, there is a reserve pool of money each school has that they can tap into for emergencies, and if Covid isn’t considered one, then I do not know what is. With that being said, Mill would argue that the school needs to give back to the student by reducing the tuition costs. Obviously, the school should ensure that it does not reduce the costs so much it finds itself in bankruptcy, but a calculated amount that shows appreciation for the students. In turn, the students will be happy, not only because the cost of tuition has decreased, but also because they feel fortunate and proud to be represented by an institution that sincerely cares about and listens to its students. And the school, in response to this good deed, may receive heartwarming feedback from the community thanking them for this decision, which may motivate the school to continue acting accordingly in the future.

Our world is ever-changing as just as we know that the sun will rise in the morning, we know that it takes time for the global pandemic to decline. Colleges should reduce tuition in a grand way. Thus we, the students, haven’t been cheated out of our money and we can still get the quality education that we all want. Education must prevail and no worldwide pandemic can change or hinder how education can and should be taught. Mill would agree with us as in utilitarianism the many outweigh the few because there are far more students than professors or administrators. Mill would agree that a reduced tuition would “make up” for a semester over the internet.

There are many people who hate Donald Trump. After all, were it not for him and his ever-changing administration, a significant portion of the population in the United States believes that many horrors could have been avoided. For instance, the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Or the promotion of racism and white nationalism. And here’s the kicker: the objective perspective would likely prove this claim to be true. After all, nations outside of the United States constantly look upon Trump and his administration with horror. As reality stands, Trump and his administration have influenced the death of hundreds of thousands (and that’s just COVID-19). As such, it comes as no surprise that there are people who would (and do) wish death upon Donald Trump. Only one question remains in their way: is this wishful thinking ethical?

This situation potentially seems complex and nuanced, but is relatively simple, especially from Mill’s standpoint of subjective consequentialism. Regardless of how one truly feels about Donald Trump (whether or not one thinks that he deserves to have death wished upon him), I think that it is very hard to argue that wishing death upon him is truly unethical. This is because, according to subjective consequentialism, the act of wishing death upon a president does not impede anyone else’s happiness; in fact, it may even make a lot of people happy (as in, it might make the person doing the wishing happy). Also, just wishing death upon another person, especially if that wish is kept to oneself, does not harm anyone, even the target of the wish. And if this is, in fact, the case, that wishing death upon Donald Trump makes the wisher happy and also does not make anyone else unhappy at all, then this act is definitely ethical according to Mill’s theory and model of subjective consequentialism.

Ultimately history will continue and all beings on this planet will eventually be consumed by the sun as we slowly die and all we know is lost. Covid 19 is yet another road bump in the journey that we are taking to that moment in time. Mill would say, because utilitarianism accounts for the majority of people, that because one person would die it doesn’t matter, this instead of wishing death upon him allows him to live in banishment. However because he is responsible for allowing over 250,000 Americans to die because of the pandemic he should be held responsible for all the deaths. History will frown upon Donald Trump, but utilitarianism and Mill’s ideals will live on forever because democracy’s main purpose is to adhere to the will of the majority of people, not the rich with wealth and power.

The Biting Dilemma of Consequences

Losing a family pet can be a difficult thing to do, especially when using the philosophy in question to make a moral decision. In this moral problem we see a family member who sees that the dog of another family member is not doing well physically, as it has been deteriorating more and more every time the person visits. Is it moral to tell the family members about the worry for the dog? And if not how much should the dog be able to die before the family takes action? In order to be moral you must tell the owners of the dog as it is immoral to keep an animal in pain, it is also immoral to take the dog to the vet and spend money on it as that money could go to making other dogs live a longer and healthier life. There is no easy decision here but in order to be moral feelings must be put aside to make sure an innocent animal no longer suffers.

This is certainly a difficult situation to be in; however, the reality of the situation is that we must think in terms of consequences. According to the philosopher, Mozi, “The business of a benevolent person is to promote what is beneficial to the world and eliminate what is harmful.” (Mozi, 16; 68) In other words, we must focus not on what makes us happy or unhappy and instead act in ways that create positive objective change either which, in this case, would be the making of a well-ordered world. As such, although the decision will be emotionally difficult, we advise that you let your family dog go. In his critique of Mozi, the philosopher Xunzi has stated that if humans act upon their desires (rather than objective goals) then the world will lead to chaos. Acting to prolong your dog’s life is to act on your desires and, while it might bring your family temporary happiness (at a financial cost), you will still eventually have to let your dog cross the rainbow bridge. This time, however, the dog might experience exacerbated pain during their extended lifespan; this is some of the chaos that Xunzi alludes to – that and the fact that keeping your dying pet alive ultimately prevents another animal that is just as worthy of a loving home of having a safe and fulfilling life. This, of course, isn’t to say that your family dog is replaceable; rather, it is to say that actions to keep it alive stem from a selfish human desire which, according to Mozi, is not the moral thing to do.

The United States is currently in a time of protest and change, all in the midst of a global pandemic that has killed far too many people. In this moral problem we see someone who really wants to participate in the protests for BLM as they are politically active, but sadly they live with their grandparents who are at risk to contract Covid-19. Is it moral to go and possibly infect your grandparents to protest the horrible things happening in the US right now? It is important to remember that Mozi wants pure impartiality and to follow the inclusive care framework, meaning that we recommend that they person does not go and participate in the in person protests to remove harmful action to their loved ones.

In this scenario, the individual who wishes to go to the protest must keep in mind ways to remain impartial when making this decision. A thought experiment that may help them with this decision is how they would advise a stranger facing the same dilemma. Under Mozi’s inclusive care framework, all individuals possess the same value. Therefore, instead of seeing the grandparents as people that are related to the individual, see them as strangers that are fearful of the virus. This may help given that it is easier to take advantage of individuals one feels more comfortable with. By detaching oneself from familial bonds, the individual can begin to recognize the merit of their action. From an outside perspective, this scenario paints an important hierarchy of pleasure. By going to the protest and defying your grandparents frail state, the result of the action is pleasure solely for the self. Moreover, I would argue that the pleasure the individual may experience from the protest is short-lived. As soon as they return home, they are reminded of the danger they have put their grandparents in. On the other hand, staying home is not only generating pleasure by potentially keeping the grandparents alive, but also from their gratitude that they will express toward the individual. I believe Mozi would argue for staying home because the individual would be acting partially as well as removing the threat of harmful action.

We arrived at this moral advice primarily through the lens of Mozi’s moral philosophy; that is, via the lens of objective consequentialism. The primary principles that we applied to the above situations were – to promote what is good in the world and eliminate what is harmful (Mozi 16; 68), and Mozi’s idea of inclusive care which means to essentially treat every human being equally, no matter what your relationship is to them (family member, stranger, or friend, etc.). By practically applying these ideas and principles to the moral quandaries above, we came to our conclusions.

For the situation involving the family dog, it is our belief that the right and just thing to do here would be to let it go. This is because allowing the dog to remain in a prolonged state of suffering not only hurts the dog, but it also harms the owners of the dog (financially and emotionally). Because they have the direct power to stop this bad situation, they should, according to objective consequentialism.

For the dilemma involving going to the protests or staying home to protect one’s family members, we decided that the just thing to do would be to stay home. This is not only to practically maintain the safety of everyone involved (which should be a duty of everyone), it also spares oneself and one’s family members from (emotional) suffering. Something else to note here is that even though the person in question would not be attending an in-person protest, there are many other ways to get involved in social movements such as donations and online advocacy. To stay home and protect one’s family is not to completely forego political activism.

To reiterate, according to Mozi’s moral theory, one has the duty to promote what is right in the world and eliminate what is harmful, and to treat everyone as equals. It is these principles primarily that we drew upon to discern our moral advice for the two specific dilemmas above.

Hobbes: AITA?

Tl;dr of your situation: your grandpa is a real POS. But a rich POS (of course). He hates your family, but you are considering sucking up to him by putting up with and echoing his racist beliefs in order to get written into his will. Assuming it works out, you will use your new-found money to pay for college and to give away to charity. Your mom is all for this idea, but your dad isn’t convinced. What to do?

I’m about to answer this question with a little help from Hobbesian morality. Hobbesian morality is all about keeping your promises (covenants) with people. As long as two parties make a covenant with full knowledge of making it as well as what it entails, the covenant is said to be valid. To keep your covenants is moral, to break them immoral. And prior covenants always take precedent over later ones.

Now, here’s my answer: suck up to that POS. Go as nuts as you want, your morality will remain intact. Just like Obi-Wan, you will have the high ground. Assuming that you are able to convince your dad that this is a good idea, though. This is because (if your dad is okay with it) you will not be breaking any covenants (assuming that you haven’t made a covenant with your grandpa to NOT suck up to him, which I doubt) with any party. From my understanding of your situation, as long as you are able to get your dad on board with this, you will indeed NOT be the asshole according to Hobbesian morality, because you will have violated 0 (zero) covenants. Hell yeah.

By Group 1 (LG, SK, GON, CS)