Utilitarianism is a moral theory that focuses on the outcomes and consequences of our actions, rather than the intention of our actions or the actions themselves. In this ideology, the morality of actions should be measured in terms of the maximization of pleasure for the greatest number of people. Jeremy Bentham, a prominent utilitarian states, “We should act always so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number.” The implications of Utilitarianism are that we must always do something that makes things better, even if it means doing something wrong or getting your hands dirty.
Mill specifically defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. He also states that everyone’s happiness matters equally. Mill says that all action is for some end, and that should be increasing net happiness. He claims that some pleasures are intrinsically more valuable than others. He says you can compare pleasures by whether you would choose one over another even if it is accompanied by slight discomfort. Mill is a subjective consequentialist, which means that you need to individually evaluate every situation, and while there is a primary set of rules a society, but there are always going to be secondary evaluations needed to make a decision. This means that while there are a general set of rules one should abide by, every situation is different and you may not act the same in every scenario. This is why he is a subjective consequentialist. Sometimes, in order to make the decision that increases net happiness, you will have to do things differently.
Mother vs. Half-sister
The situation is that the poster has a half sister from her father’s affair. Her mother and father are divorced and the poster just met the half sister who is incredibly excited to form relationships and even wants to meet the poster’s mother who does not wish to meet her. Now the poster’s wedding is approaching she is considering not inviting her half sister as her mother still does not want to meet her.
Mill states that “the creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill 1861: 186). Mill is a subjective consequentialist, meaning that what matters is whether or not an action produces happiness or prevents unhappiness and “by happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain by unhappiness pain and the privation of pleasure.” (Mill 1861: 186).
Therefore, what has to be considered is: would not inviting the half sister maximize happiness? If she does not invite her half sister then she would likely be upset to not have been invited, but if she does her mother will be upset. While either course will end with some degree of unhappiness, the right action is whatever produces the least unhappiness. Due to the fact that the poster and her mother doubtless have a stronger connection than that with the half-sister she has just met, choosing to not invite the half sister would likely maximize happiness. This is due to the fact that this would make the mother happier and therefore would likely make the poster happier as well as the fact that the half sister does not know her that well and therefore will likely not be that hurt. Mill would state the moral action is to not invite the half sister so as to maximize happiness.
Happiness for one or for all?
OP has a house that has gone up in value that she intends to give to her daughter, as it is her daughter’s childhood home. Her daughter is a hairdresser, and can either keep the house to live in and not worry about buying a house, or sell it and use the money to support herself. OP’s fiance has two children of his own, and says she should give the house to all three children, as the money could be split to help them pay for expenses like college. OP wants to know if she’s the asshole for wanting to give her daughter the house, and not splitting it.
Unfortunately for OP, Mill would say that it would be the most moral decision to give the house to all three kids, not only her daughter. For Mill, the greatest good for the greatest number must be considered, in terms of what option produces the most happiness for the most amount of people. Everyone’s happiness matters equally, so even though OP may be closer to her daughter, her fiance and his children’s feelings are equally as important. If what matters is how much good is produced overall, the decision that would make more people happy would be to split the house between the three children because it would make the fiance and his two children happier, even if it means OP and her daughter will be less happy.
Mozi identifies two classes of harms: power relations, and lacking of virtues. The unifying source of these harms is partiality, so the solution is impartiality:
“For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.”
(Mozi 16; p. 68)
Thus, Mozi is an objective consequentialist. In order to explain objective consequentialism, we should first define and explain some terms. Consequentialists try to care about everyone equally, while egoists prioritize their own wellbeing. Consequentialists care about the result of their action, or, what happens due to the action they take. These philosophers ask, does the action I am taking promote what’s beneficial, or eliminate what’s harmful? These are typically the guidelines they use to frame “goodness” through. An objective consequentialist believes that actions shouldn’t be viewed with the goal of making people “happy” per se, but rather if said actions contribute to the objective goods. “…one must regard the well-being of one’s friends as one regards one’s own well-being; one must regard the parents of one’s friends as one regards one’s own parents.” (p. 70)
Mozi provides the following framing for how to assess moral goodness. Three objective goods: (Mozi 25, 32):
The enrichment of the poor
The increase of population
The making of a well ordered world
Mozi believes that humans are inherently good. This differs from Xunzi’s branch of objective consequentialism, that states that humans need rituals to act good.
A Response to Homophobia
Read the original post here. The situation is that a person commented on the OP’s same-sex relationship saying “hate the sin, not the sinner” and this person has regularly implied their belief that same-sex relationships are immoral. The OP responded “yeah, well, hate the belief, not the believer” in order to communicate that they disagreed with the religion that tells them that their relationship is inherently immoral. But the religious person then got incredibly upset and many are telling the OP that what they said was much worse than what the person had said.
Since Mozi believes that “the business of a benevolent person is to promote what is beneficial to the world and eliminate what is harmful” (Mozi 16; 68) then any actions that promote what is beneficial to the world would be viewed by Mozi as moral and praiseworthy. Therefore, the question is whether or not this person speaking out against a person who was disparaging their relationship was beneficial to the world. I would argue that this person speaking out was beneficial to the world due to the fact that homophobia and prejudice as a whole does a great deal of harm in this world. Moreover, this person went out of their way to comment on the poster’s relationship without being asked and had previously implied “the need of spiritual help with [the poster’s] condition.” This person is clearly not only prejudiced against same-sex relationships but goes out of their way to express this prejudice to people.
The OP speaking against this behavior is beneficial as hopefully it promotes the fact that bias is unacceptable and harmful and this person’s comments are offensive and need to stop. The poster even mentioned “hope that my words would put what she’s being doing to me into perspective for her.” Even though what was said did upset this person, since this action was done out of hope of making her see the error in her ways and eliminate bias in this world that is harmful then overall Mozi would likely state this action is beneficial to the world and therefore moral.
Health vs. Religious Views
“Meet Amy. Amy is a 22-year-old who has a degenerative brain condition. Left untreated, this brain condition has symptoms similar to Alzheimer’s, beginning with the gradual loss of memory and advancing to loss of more basic functioning, and ultimately death. In the later stages of this disease, Amy will have no memories of who she is. Unlike Alzheimer’s, however, this disease is treatable, and ultimately reversible. If the condition is reversed, the patient will regain memories prior to the onset of the disease, but not any memories from the later stages of the disease.
Treatment is covered by insurance and has relatively minimal side effects. However, Amy is a member of a religious sect with strong views on modern medicine. Members of this sect are prohibited from any medical treatment beyond the most basic (think first aid, aspirin, etc). Although the sect’s guiding text does not specifically mention this disease, it can be clearly inferred from what the text does say, as well as the practices of the sect, that treatment of the condition would violate Amy’s religious beliefs. Amy is not interested in treatment for this reason, and refuses to consider it. Amy’s parents want her to be treated, but know that Amy’s religious convictions mean that this would be impossible. However, they believe that it would be acceptable to compel her to be treated once she has forgotten these religious beliefs as a consequence of her disease.
Disregarding any legal factors, would it be morally acceptable for Amy’s parents to convince her to seek treatment in her memory-less state? Why or why not? Is no-memory Amy the same person as memory-Amy?”
This would not be a morally acceptable action for Amy’s parents to take. Mozi, a classical Chinese philosopher, stated “that If people regarded other people’s states in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own state to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself” (68). Mozi is saying that the way to act morally is for you to hold another person in equal regard when compared to yourself, if you consider everyone the same way you consider yourself you would never cause any type of ill will to them. This is because no person would intentionally cause themselves harm or go against their own beliefs. This is applicable to Amy’s situation because her parents need to put themselves into her shoes, by doing so they will be sympathetic to her beliefs and would most likely not follow through with this decision. Based on Mozi’s philosophy this is the case due to the fact one should always do unto others as they would do unto themselves, and it is safe to say they would not want their wishes to be disrespected.
To strengthen this point of view Mozi gives a short anecdote about a man who takes control of a city. After this Mozi examines his motivation for doing so and the conclusion reached was he did it “not because he wanted to increase his wealth and honor, earn for himself additional favors and blessings, or because it pleased his eyes and ears, but rather because he wanted to contribute to the benefit of the world and eliminate what is harmful to it” (73). Based on this Mozi would tell Amy’s parents that even though they are able to get their daughter back the choices they make should not be for their benefit, the same way the man from the story could have received rewards of all types his actions were not seeking them. Her parents need to consider what is harmful to their daughter, if they choose to coerce her then they would be causing her harm as they would be disrespecting her wishes. So it becomes clear that Amy’s parents need to act in a way that is beneficial for her and not for them, this might mean sacrificing their daughter, but in doing so they are combating the greatest evils in the world.
Buss argues that manners are vital to Kantian ethics as appearing respectful is to treat someone in a way that acknowledges their intrinsic value. But Buss also acknowledges that there are some key differences between manners and morals for instance manners encourage us to be agreeable, manners are about appearances, and manners are culturally relative. These differences are notable, but do not undermine manners’ moral significance.
While manners might not be synonymous with morals, the two ideals are closely connected as “making oneself agreeable to others is not only an end in itself; it is also, and more importantly, a means to treating them with respect” (798). In other words, Kant states that to act morally, all people must be viewed as an end in and of themselves not merely as a means to an end. Manners help promote this view through the fact that “good manners, then, not only inspire good morals. They do so by constructing a conception of human beings as objects of moral concern” (800).
Moreover, Buss also mentions that “social disharmony could not fail to adversely affect people’s willingness to regulate their behavior according to certain principles of justice” (799) for three reasons. First, people who are angry and resentful are less likely to help others. Second, people who are disagreeable alienate themselves from others and don’t care about their wellbeing. Finally, people who aren’t in the habit of treating others with respect are not conditioned to seeing people’s inherent worth. Therefore, Buss states that morals are significant for Kantian ethics as they are necessary to promote and cultivate the respectful treatment of all humans.
Wishing Death Upon Trump
Are individuals justified in wishing death upon trump?
Trump does / did lots of bad, morally wrong shit. Lots of people think the world would be better off without him in it, and some even wish for his death. Is this morally wrong through Buss’ framing?
Our group thinks that there is an important distinction between wishing something would happen and verbalizing that wish. One is a thought while the other is an action that has an effect on others. We’re going to focus on the implications of verbalizing these wishes, because that’s what we’ve deemed most applicable to Buss’s theory. Manners are acting in a way that may not necessarily be in line with your thoughts due to social norms and protocols. Manners are a method of appearing respectful to others. We do this to exhibit that we view other people as ends, rather than just a means to an end.
It is impolite to verbalize a death wish for anyone because it disregards that people are ends in themselves. Buss believes that regardless of what a person has done, it is still impolite to be rude to them, because it is displaying that you don’t care about their life or acknowledge their intrinsic value as a person. Even though Trump has shown a complete disregard for the humanity of others, Buss still claims that we should extend that nicety/formality to him.
Just because it is impolite, does this mean that it is also immoral? Buss would say yes, it is immoral, because treating people as a means to an end is not acknowledging their special dignity. Every person has inherent value, and we act politely because we directly acknowledge that they are worthy of respect (802). According to both her and Kant, all people deserve to be treated with respect, regardless of whatever unjust or immoral actions they may have taken themselves. To treat another person any other way is thus immoral.
Mr. Bič
In this problem, we are introduced to a man who works at an international company. At this company it is customary to refer to people via their last name. This man, who’s last name is Bič, is from Czech Republic and most of the people he works with are from the United States. When his American coworkers say his name it sounds a lot like Mr. “Bitch”. Many of the people who work with them do not wish to use this to refer to him as they work from home and are around their families for most of the work day. At first his coworkers called him Mr. Birch but he felt slightly offended and corrected them which led them to request a new representative from the company. Due to the drastic difference in time zones he is the only one capable of working with them. This management has pressured him to accept being called Mr. Birch but he believes that this is unjust and he might even have grounds to file a discrimination complaint.
By not referring to Mr. Bič by his proper name, the Americans are not only disrespecting him but also the company custom of calling people by their last name. Buss states that “good manners, then, not only inspire good morals. They do so by constructing a conception of human beings as objects of moral concern” (800). This shows, for both Buss and Kant, that when his coworkers choose to not use his proper name they are not treating him as an object of moral concern which means they are treating him as a pure means. Buss shares their belief that “social disharmony could not fail to adversely affect people’s willingness to regulate their behavior according to certain principles of justice” (799). This statement tells us that by not using Mr. Bič’s proper name they are pushing him towards being resentful by not treating him as though he has inherent value by refusing to call him by his name.
In Buss’s article, she makes the argument that manners are very important especially within Kantian ethics, this situation Mr. Bič has found himself in shows the clashing of two different cultures. In his culture, Mr. Bič means “the whip”. Even though the American staff feels as if they are breaking their own moral code by using a perceived curse word in front of their families they are actually disrespecting Mr. Bič and the company custom of using a person’s last name. Discussing this particular situation with their families could easily solve any moral code they think they are breaking by using his real name while also granting him and the company custom the amount of moral concern they are entitled to.
Synthesis
Both of these problems have to do with disrespecting a person by not acknowledging their intrinsic value. Though one is on a greater scale of wishing death upon someone, and one is on a smaller scale of mispronouncing someone’s name, both are immoral because ultimately, treating someone disrespectfully means viewing them as a means rather than an end. Even in a case like the first one, where the person in question has committed immoral acts themself, it is not up to us to judge how that person should be treated. At the end of the day, we are all human beings and all human beings have an inherent value, thus making them worthy of respect.
Kant on capitalism and moral obligations to others.
In terms of the ethical standard problem, Kant states that “the categorical imperative is thus only a single one, and specifically this: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law,” (Ak 4: 421). To determine whether or not the maxim is universalizable one must first establish the maxim, then consider what the corresponding universal law would be, and finally determine whether or not this universal law is plausible or if it presents a conceptual contradiction. If a maxim being universalized presents a contradiction then one must not do it because it is “impossible to will that their maxims should be elevated to the universality of a natural law, because such a will would contradict itself” (Ak 4: 424).
Kant also presents a second way of considering his ethical standard saying that one must treat “the human being… as end in itself, not merely as means to the discretionary use of this or that will,” (Ak 4: 428). This is to say that one cannot simply use another human being as a means to an end but instead must consider them as an end in and of themselves. Kant also distinguishes between perfect duties, which are the exceptionless imperatives that state one cannot do some action, and the imperfect duties which are those that one ought to do but do not have to do in every situation.
Ethical Consumption Under Capitalism
Is the term “no ethical consumption under capitalism” true? And if so, is it even possible to live a virtuous life if capitalism exists? If it isn’t, is it possible to create an ethical system that allows for virtuous living and what would it look like?
What does Kant define as ethical?
“There is nothing it is possible to think of anywhere in the world, or indeed anything at all outside it, that can be held to be good without limitation, excepting only a good will.”
(9; Ak 4: 393)
Kant provides a framework that claims that the only thing that is purely good is good will. Kant says that universalized maxims can inform one on how to act. If it cannot be applied to every situation, then it is not an ethical decision. The good place does a good job deconstructing the ethical implications of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which there are the people in charge of the means of production and there are the working class who are often exploited and used as means rather than ends. In order for one group to maintain power and excess of production, another group must be kept down and oppressed. That means that when it comes to consumption, there are hardly any good decisions to be made. A good example of this is in the good place when Chidi is debating what type of muffin to get for breakfast. He is trying to calculate harm reduction and the lesser of two evils, but regardless of the other options, they are both still unethical because of the working conditions people face in order to produce these. Bad things are still bad regardless of the circumstances you have been put in.
Kant would likely criticize the people who formed and participate in this system that gives people little to no option about whether or not they do the right thing, especially because companies and powerful people work hard to mask their immoral behavior. You can’t make autonomous decisions if you don’t have all of the information—the fact that corporations and participants in the system treat workers as means shows that capitalism itself is an immoral system, therefore participation in it is inherently bad. The only way to act ethically is to defy capitalism—so it is likely that Kant would agree with the phrase “no ethical consumption under capitalism.” This doesn’t mean that you cannot live ethically if capitalism exists but only if you are not an active participant in said society.
Kant would say that there’s no inherently ethical system for virtuous living, but a better system would allow for individuals to better make informed decisions because they would be aware of the consequences of what the system is doing. A better system would also encourage doing the right thing rather than rewarding people for selfish behavior. The way Kant’s theory works is that people do the right thing out of duty. A better system would be one with more accountability and transparency, which would directly link to more people acting upon these duties and having more ethical options.
To tie this into the trolley problem, categorical imperatives are commands that you must do regardless of your desires. Kant would likely criticize capitalism for being the system that puts people in the position of being tied to railroad tracks in the first place, and putting the responsibility on others to make decisions (e.g. pulling a lever) that would still lead to an unethical decision. This however, does not change the fact that the action you take under capitalism is that you are often forced to pull the metaphorical lever. Even if you are forced to do a bad thing because of your circumstances, it’s still not morally permissible.
Moral Responsibility to Educate Bigoted Housemates
“A is the only minority within an otherwise homogenous group (let’s say B, C, and D are the rest of the members), who all live together under one roof. While each individual in the group has good intentions and are against any form of bigotry, members of the group unknowingly commit micro-aggressions upon A. A vocalizes these concerns to the group, and is met with uncomfortable silence. B, C, and D don’t want to see themselves as bigots, so they choose to ignore A’s concerns. A recognizes that they themself are not responsible for educating B, C, and D on micro-aggressions, and chooses to spend less time in the house. B, C, and D see A spending less time with them as a sign of rudeness (and during the pandemic, they also see it as a lack of concern for their health), and collectively begin to resent A more and more as time passes.
A is aware of all of this. A wants to educate B, C, and D on their behavior but simultaneously recognizes how futile the endeavor is. A wants to respect themself and their identity by leaving the house, but simultaneously does not want B, C, and D to resent them. Both action and inaction make A’s life more difficult. A does not want to leave this housing arrangement because it would be too financially burdensome, but at the same time recognizes their own deteriorating mental health the longer they stay.
If B, C, and D refuse to change, what obligation does A have to fixing this problem? A can’t completely remove themself from the house, and, with every effort to try to fix the situation, A recognizes that they are being drained of their autonomy and self respect. I am not looking for a solution to this problem (I want to make clear that there is no real one under the condition that B, C, and D refuse to participate), but rather, what obligation does A have to improve their life even if they know fully well that there will be no progress? Is there any obligation to resist oppression at all if all avenues for progress are barred?
An alternative way to say the same question: what obligation does A have in improving their life if both action and inaction result in a net decrease to their well-being?”
There is a lot to unpack here, so I’ll address this in chunks.
“A recognizes that they themself are not responsible for educating B, C, and D on microaggressions”
If the maxim here is I am not responsible for educating people on microaggressions, then the universal law would mean that no one is responsible for educating people on microaggressions. We’ll say that microaggressions are immoral, because if they go unnoticed, they can lead to worse immoral discrimination against groups down the road. Thus, saying that no one is responsible for educating people on microaggressions is impossible, because microaggressions themselves are immoral, so letting them go unnoticed is an immoral act. So, the maxim becomes everyone is responsible for educating people on microaggressions, and no one is exempt from this. If it is a maxim, Kant would say we have an duty to do it even if it goes against our own desires. So, unfortunately, Kant would say that it is your duty to educate your housemates on their microaggressions. However, the outcome itself doesn’t matter; if your housemates choose not to listen, as it seems they are not, it is not your duty to make them listen.
“B, C, and D see A spending less time with them as a sign of rudeness (and during the pandemic, they also see it as a lack of concern for their health), and collectively begin to resent A more and more as time passes. “
Kant says we have a duty to not lie, under any circumstances. However, this is different from not telling the truth. If your housemates are not directly asking you why you are spending less time in the house, it is morally permissible to not tell them. But, if they have asked you, it is your moral duty to tell the truth: that you are leaving the house because the environment they have created is uncomfortable. While the truth hurts in cases like this, telling your housemates why you’re leaving the house may lead to a better discussion about the negative environment they have created for you.
“Is there any obligation to resist oppression at all if all avenues for progress are barred?”
Let’s start by formulating a maxim. Here, it seems like the question would lead us to I will not resist oppression because all avenues for progress are barred. Now, let’s universalize it: Everyone will not resist oppression because all opportunities are barred. If no one resists oppression, no progress in society will be made, and the opportunities that are there will be thrown away. So, it seems like it would be a duty to resist oppression because if one does not, they perpetuate the oppression in society. Just because resisting oppression doesn’t seem to work in every instance doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, because resisting oppression furthers humanity and the autonomy of the oppressed communities.
Synthesis
Kant said “Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as end and never merely as means” (AK4:429). Both problems are problems because they have created a world where it is acceptable to use people as a mere means, like how a cup is used to hold water. The first problem specifically asks about the ethicality of consumption within a capitalist system, Kant would most likely argue that capitalism does treat people as mere objects, so therefore it is an unethical system. This can be seen with companies like Apple and Nike who pay workers in other countries a minimal salary for work in unsafe conditions to produce a product, another example of this is the use of undocumented immigrants in agriculture as a way to pay a fraction of the price for seasonal labor. This system has essentially universalized a law allowing for those in charge of a company to use their employees as a mere means to achieving a large profit, which most people including Kant would say is wrong.
In the second situation we are faced with a similar but slightly altered conundrum. As per how the situation is described to us it seems apparent that persons B, C, and D find it acceptable to allow for their microaggressions to run rampant and destroy the relationship they have with their fourth housemate. It seems as though this majority is aiming to not be viewed as discriminatory whilst still acting in ways that are bigoted, this in itself is immoral because it creates a world with a condriction. This means for them to achieve this goal they must write off or discredit what person A is attempting to convey to them, phrases such as “it is just a joke” or “you are overreacting” achieve just that. By using similar phrases or by ignoring person A altogether the other three housemates are able to use person A’s emotions against them to ultimately achieve their goal, whether it takes the form of person A being less present around the house or ultimately moving out. So if person A is not around to inform them of the bigotry in their actions then they have no reason to think they are doing anything wrong, which enables bigoted behavior.
Last week, we talked about the Nahuas’ moral philosophy and their belief in rootedness. This week, we are moving on to Mengzi, who interpreted the Confucian Way. Similarly to Aristotle and the Nahuas, Mengzi’s philosophy supports a virtue-based ethics, emphasizing intention right along with the acts themselves as well as repetitiveness of those acts as the way to emulate good virtues. He focuses on benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom as the four main virtues, and says that each human being has “sprouts” of these; if we grow these sprouts, we will be on the way to becoming our best selves (2A6). While we all naturally lean towards being good, environment and circumstances matter:
“As for the people, if they lack a constant livelihood, it follows that they will lack a constant heart. And if one simply fails to have a constant heart, dissipation and evil will not be avoided.”
Mengzi 1A7
Human nature naturally tends toward goodness, but our circumstances can hinder or get in the way of that nature. Once our environments are stable, we can stop focusing on basic needs and begin to reach outside of our immediate environments to extend goodness to others. Mengzi says that part of human goodness comes from the care and compassion we feel for those close to us. Thus, in order to be good to others, we must extend those natural feelings and treat others with the same care and compassion we usually reserve for those close to us:
“Treat your elders as elders and extend it to the elders of others; treat your young ones as young ones, and extend it to the young ones of others; then you can turn the whole world in the palm of your hand.”
Mengzi 1A7
The best way to know whether or not we are on the right path, we must reflect in order to keep the greater good in mind. While we all have the capacity to be good, sometimes our circumstances can lead us astray from that and we must reflect in order to learn from our mistakes and stay on the right path.
A Pandemic Dilemma: Grandparents’ health or BLM protests?
“I’ve always considered myself politically active, and when Black Lives Matter protests started happening, I really wanted to be a part of the movement. However, because of the pandemic I’ve been living with my immuno-compromised grandparents. Is it my moral responsibility to help the movement like I want to, or should I prioritize my families health and wellbeing? It kind of is a matter of life and death.”
Priorities. That’s always the question, isn’t it? For this specific case, our protagonist is torn between their familial responsibility to protect their immuno-compromised grandparents during the COVID-19 pandemic and their responsibility to their community to advocate for social justice with the Black Lives Matter movement. While our protagonist would love to attend the BLM protests, they must also consider the health risks to their grandparents that may result from this decision. They’ve turned to us for help in answering this life or death question: “Is it their moral responsibility to help the [BLM] movement like they want to, or should they prioritize their family’s health and wellbeing?”
According to Mengzi’s ideology, benevolence should be extended to others in order to be considered a good person and one should fulfill their four sprouts (natural tendencies). In this prompt, the individual asks whether or not going to the BLM protest is her moral responsibility or whether she should prioritize her immuno-compromized grandparents. From Mengzi’s perspective, there is an order of nurture when extending. In order to extend benevolence, one should start with the people closest to them. In this case, the individual would start by taking care of their grandparents. Additionally, Mengzi would say that because the individual chose not to go to the protest, they are showing proper action and their sprouts have been properly nourished. If they had gone to the protest, they would have risked their grandparent’s health for the greater good of the protest. Compromising one’s grandparents for what may feel like the best way to show support for BLM seems to be unethical, especially because there are plenty of ways to show support for the BLM movement and still be politically active in ways that don’t require going to the protests. Even at that, they run the risk of spreading COVID-19 to even more people at a protest! Not just their grandparents!
Outward Extension: Exactly how far outwards?
“Of course we have a duty to act ethically, and it’s ethical to work to make the world better – but how far does our duty to work towards improving the world extend? How much, or how little, should we work towards improving the world and not acting directly in our own interests?”
To what extent must we act in an ethical manner? “How much, or how little, should we work towards improving the world and not acting directly in our own interests?” This is our protagonists’ dilemma. If one chose to act in a manner that benefits their personal life, will they be frowned upon for not spending their time on actions that have impacts on a larger community? In other words, should our goal be to always make a change in a large manner or is it acceptable to focus on smaller change?
Mengzi’s philosophy remains centralized around the fundamental theme of hearts for capacities for virtue and the underlying goodness of the human person. While big questions like this may be difficult to answer, using Mengzi’s philosophy, the “answer” becomes more evident. As every individual already possesses the proper tools to become a virtuous person, the question about morality in the greater community starts here. To do what is best for the community is to do what is best for the individual. A closer investigation of this may clarify the point; if one expends all their energy just to accomplish tasks to better the community but consequently results in worsening the individual themselves, as a whole, the community is not really better off. Even with the extra attention on the community, it is the individuals within the community that determine its moral standing. Maintaining a moral life will result in a moral community, it is not something individuals have to try to reach.
Conclusion
Both prompts ask the question of “Should I focus on the moral issues in front of me or should I focus on the larger and more complex issues out in the world?” Where the first prompt focuses on a smaller scope and asks about whether or not they should compromise their grandparents’ health or attend a Black Lives Matter rally, the second prompt extends this outwards and asks just how much they should be working towards assisting the world, rather than focusing on the problems directly in front of them (acting in their own interests). The second prompt assumes that the problems in the world are not in their own interests, but, depending on the issues within the world, these problems could be directly affecting that person and their own interests.
If we want to ‘make the world a better place’, one way to do this is to act with compassion towards other people, regardless of their characteristics. Not only will we actively be working on our own characters, but also extending our moral characters to serve our communities. As stated in the first prompt, it is easier and generally more helpful to work on the issues directly in front of us. By thinking about the world as our loved ones, we serve both ourselves and the world.
Last week we wrote from the perspective of Aristotelian morality. For a recap of his moral theories, click here; it will give more context to comparisons of Aristotle’s eudaimonia, which will aid in the overall understanding of this week’s theory of morality. This week, we will be writing from the perspective of the Nahuas, or the Aztecs who spoke Nahuatl in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, drawing on L. Sebastian Purcell’s “Eudaimonia and Neltiliztli: Aristotle and the Aztecs on the Good Life” (2017).
Like Aristotle, the Nahuas’ moral theories are based in virtue ethics, or the idea that character is an important component of morality. Rather than Aristotle’s theory of eudaimonia, or working towards a flourishing life as the best way of life, the Nahuas work towards rootedness. Rootedness means taking root in one’s body, mind, soul, and teotl, or earth. In the modern day, taking root may mean finding stability in these various aspects of your life. Part of achieving rootedness is maintaining one’s character, or “uniting one’s face and heart,” as rootedness is about performing life well, not just completing “right” actions (Section 4).
While Aristotle emphasizes that the good life is the happy life, this is a point of difference for the Nahuas; one should not anticipate happiness as the end result, but rather as a byproduct of pursuing a rooted life. Rootedness is based on the ideas that human life is slippery (people make mistakes), transitory (not only humans but all of nature), and not necessarily based in happiness. Based on these perspectives, the Nahuas believe “that one is seeking to lead a worthwhile life,” and living a meaningful life on earth is not necessarily conducive to happiness (Section 5). In order to be able to serve our community well and contribute meaningfully to our society, we must first be rooted, or stable in ourselves.
Parent’s Don’t Approve of Girlfriend
Tl;drOP brings his British girlfriend over to his house to meet his parents for the first time. His parents are close-minded, racist, and xenophobic, so they dislike the girlfriend for being British. Immediately after having dinner, the parents rush the GF out of the house and berate the son for “going behind their back” and dating a “whore”. The parents don’t want her back in their house ever again, and want the son to break up with her but respect that it is his choice if he wants to or not.
The most prominent characteristic of the Nahuas is the idea of society being the focal point of life. They give the impression that individuals must be active members of society in order to even have the opportunity to have a “good” life. Additionally, from the Nahuas perspective,
“…if one looks at their analysis of good and bad performance of social roles, one sees that they justify assessment by appealing to a harm or help rendered.”
(Purcell 2017, 15)
As such, the first step to making a decision [regarding the protagonists’ dilemma] is to identify the society that you (the protagonist) would like to be a part of; after all, it is clear that (at least for the time being) the world with your significant other and the world with your parents are two opposing societies. Keep in mind that there is also a third society: that of your own.
Once this decision has been made, your goal should be to act in such a way that these societies see the “best” consequences. Given that the protagonists’ parents have always been racists, etc., it would appear unlikely that they will ever truly change their minds. In this sense, minus their dislike of the protagonist, there would not be much consequence in their regard. In contrast, any decision made will have drastic consequences for the protagonists’ significant other. Appeal to the parents, risk further mental harm in SO’s regard and parents retain their hatred (they might even feel empowered about their hatred). Appeal to SO, create an environment that fosters SO’s positive mental health and parents will remain unlikely to change their views.
If it was not already clear, the decision that is best for society as a whole is the one that fosters positive mental health in SO.
Not Parenting Sister’s Children
Tl;drA college student who is also employed works from home. She used to babysit her sister’s kids in high school but ever since she graduated high school, her sister drops off her kids without any warning or compensation; assuming that she will just take care of her kids. The sisters’ mother is supposed to be taking care of the children but has not taken responsibility for them and is leaving all of the work to the college student daughter. She does not have the time to watch the kids and ends up making sure they are fed and watching TV or not making a mess, nothing more than that. She is not focusing as much in her classes as she should and could be because of the kids. She is wondering if she is the asshole for not taking responsibility for these kids that her sister drops off and does not take responsibility for.
The Nahuas had systems that guided moral integrity within the society based on the extent and the quality of communal cooperation. The individual remains the focus for moral decisions and behavior, but the ultimate motivating factor remains the overall good and rootedness of the community.
“Assessments of right action, then, follow from an understanding of what it means to lead a good human and communal life. I think it clear, then, that the Nahuas reasoned about the good and the right in the same sort of way as eudaemonists do.”
(Purcell 2017, 15)
Right and wrong is governed by its effect on the overall health of the group and therefore in survival modes, is easy to understand as individuals do the best of their ability to provide for themselves and family members. Today, these interactions become more complex as our community size has increased greatly. Yet, expectations for individual task completion remains and is crucial for successful daily interactions. In the case of the sister, because her family members were not successfully completing their responsibilities, she was failing to complete tasks assigned to her as well as the original job of watching her sister’s children.
In the Nahuas’ community, the mother’s actions as well as the older sister’s, would receive blame as both are unable to successfully provide proper care for the children while simultaneously overburdening a valuable member of the family with more responsibility than can be taken on. Even with multiple warnings, the mother and sister fail to make changes that ultimately degrades the states of everyone, including the children who aren’t getting the attention they require.
Conclusion
While reading the two moral prompts, the reader can clearly see that there are similarities between how the Nahuas would view these distinct scenarios. The main focal point of their views is that morality is based on being rooted in “one’s body, in one’s psych, in one’s community by social rites and role, and in teotl” (Purcell 2017, 13). They stress the importance of being rooted in your actions and doing whatever you do with excellence, as well as being a big part of your community and helping society.
In both examples, there are certain functions that the people must successfully do. In the first example, the function of the narrator is to be a good boyfriend and keep the girlfriend’s feelings in mind. This is being achieved as the guy has clearly made time for his girlfriend and is trying to make her feel better. The function of the parents is to support their son and his choices, however that is not the case as they want him and his girlfriend to break up due to their own racist ideology, therefore it can be stated that they are acting morally wrong.
Just like this example, the second moral prompt also looks at the functions. The mom’s responsibility is to take her care of her kids and the grandma’s responsibility is to take care of the grandkids whenever they can’t be taken care of by their mother. Both these functions are not being achieved as neither of them are taking care of the kids and are dumping this responsibility on the mom’s sister (grandma’s second daughter) who is in college. One can say that her responsibility is her education and helping out whenever she can. However, the mom and grandma are not doing their part of taking care of the kids and instead are overburdening the college student, which is not giving her the chance of successfully achieving her responsibility, thus the Nahuas would assume that they are acting morally wrong.
In comparing the two prompts, the reader can also see that the community in which the author of the Reddit post is a part of is toxic. The Nahuas emphasize being good to the community. The parents of the first example and the mom and grandma of the second example are not being good to the other people in their community, therefore are in the wrong. As much as the others are being treated badly, they continue to want to stay in the community by trying to reason with the parents (as in the first moral problem) and taking care of the children even when they can’t (as in the second moral problem).
Tl;dr: Have you ever felt that your significant other is being useless? Meet our protagonist (22F). Our protagonist has been working overtime to pay the bills while her jobless significant other (26M) has been “laying around” and “looking for a job”. Our protagonist wants him to help with household chores such as feeding the cats, doing the dishes, and cleaning the rooms, however, he chooses not to. The boyfriend leaves his dirty clothes and empty drink and snack cans in the living room. Our protagonist has already asked him nicely to help out while she’s at work to which he claims that he would (and has), but she claims that she has not seen evidence of this.
*Note that our protagonist has not specified what their living situation was prior to the S.O. being jobless.
According to Aristotle, the goal of human life is to flourish, and leading a moral life should lead us to flourish. In order to lead moral lives, we must build good character, which we can do through action. Aristotle’s morality is very character based; compared to other moral theories that are based in action and outcome, Aristotle would say that it is not only about the act and the outcome, but the intent behind the act and the consistency of those acts, because “moral virtue comes about as a result of habit” (Nicomachean Ethics II.1). In other words, we cannot just think good thoughts and hope for the best; we must consistently take action to do the right thing in alliance with our virtues. Aristotle describes virtues as states of character that are “equidistant from each of the extremes,” or the mean between the excess and defect (Nicomachean Ethics II.6). In order to build virtues, we must act on them until they become habitual, and we just do them. We should be doing the morally right thing because it brings us pleasure, and if it does not, then we need to habituate ourselves to do the right thing until it does make us feel good. Good acts and intent should be or become habitual acts, and it is these repeated acts that create good character.
In this scenario, it is clear to see that the antagonist, the boyfriend, is exhibiting immoral behavior in deliberately disregarding his girlfriend’s requests. In Aristotle’s view, virtues are experienced as a spectrum between two extremes motivated by the individual’s needs to avoid pain and move towards pleasure.
The following facts also may show us that virtue and vice are concerned with these same things. There being three objects of choice and three of avoidance, the noble, the advantageous, the pleasant, and their contraries, the base, the injurious, the painful, about all of these the good man tends to go right and the bad man to go wrong, and especially about pleasure; for this is common to the animals, and also it accompanies all objects of choice; for even the noble and the advantageous appear pleasant.
Yet, as shown by the boyfriends’ lack of regard for his girlfriend, it is easy to understand how his actions and decisions illustrate immoral behavior. A moral assessment of the situation on the boyfriend’s part would include the feelings and emotions of his partner proving the moral root of the issue; the lack of his intent. His insensitivity, poor character, and selfish judgements are preventing him from achieving virtuous behaviors while his selfish, pain-avoiding desires keep him at one extreme vice. Here, the imbalanced dynamic clearly causes tension within the relationship as the girlfriend feels caught at the other extreme vice of having to compensate but overloading herself to make up for his inadequacies.
Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue both finds and chooses that which is intermediate. Hence in respect of its substance and the definition which states its essence virtue is a mean, with regard to what is best and right an extreme.
As this cannot persist, there are a few venues the girlfriend can take in hopes of altering her partners behavior. Each option is then assessed for most accurate moral analysis as would be determined by Aristotle.
According to Aristotle, the goal of human life is to reach eudaimonia, also known as human flourishing. In order to do that, you have to live a virtuous life and successfully do your function. Aristotle himself writes,
The function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete.
In other words, one is moral if their actions coincide with their function. In Aristotle’s perspective, the boyfriend is immoral as it is not a rational thing to keep one’s living space dirty and not have a job which further hinders his and his girlfriend’s chances of reaching eudaimonia.
Habituating virtues: There are a couple things that the girlfriend can do about this problem. She can praise him for the things he does around the house or whenever he does something that was asked of him. Although praising him for something he should have done in the first place doesn’t seem reasonable and is not her job to do, especially since she is already busy working overtime, it is a way of operant conditioning which is how you modify behavior. He will associate the act of cleaning with a positive benefit, therefore keep cleaning. This will turn into a habituated virtue. Another suggestion would be to consider breaking up as the boyfriend isn’t keeping her best interest in mind and is not succeeding at his function. Although the act of cleaning the apartment is not immoral, the intent behind the actions can be seen as morally wrong. The boyfriend has been asked multiple times and can clearly see that it is frustrating his girlfriend. By ignoring her wishes purposefully, his actions are seen as immoral. The two can be referred to as incompatible and if they can’t find an acceptable compromise or she can’t lower her expectations, sticking around will only cause more arguments and will not lead to human flourishing for both parties involved.
Responding by lowering her expectations: One possible stand the girlfriend can take would be to subliminally respond to her partner’s lack of appreciation by reciprocating in effort and expectation. In doing so, hopefully the boyfriend’s hypocritical behavior will become apparent, incentivizing him to help reach the same goal as his partner. While he maintains his expectations of her, he fails to complete even the simplest of tasks in response. If she were to respond by stopping completing other tasks, he maintains for her, grocery shopping, cooking dinner, laundry, etc., hopefully, he would be encouraged to contribute with the expectation of being able to share in enjoying the rewards. In this way, the girlfriend is slowly and subconsciously positively conditioning her partner rather than directly confronting the situation. It is here that questions of Aristotelian morality come in. While this method could prove effective, Aristotle would most likely argue that this task lies not with the girlfriend but within the boyfriend. Ultimately, it is not within the girlfriend’s jurisdiction to decide when, how, and what the boyfriend is conditioned to do. Here, we only have one side of the issue attempting to mediate its counter which most likely will not provide a sustainable solution. Seeing as the parties are representing almost polar stands on the issue, it will require both to contribute to a more permanent long-term agreement.
Reaching compromise: One thing to note is that our protagonist has not specified what her definition of “clean” is. She states, “I’m very particular about [how the shower and toilet are cleaned] and usually do it myself but again, working overtime every week is pretty exhausting.” This statement could lead one to think that our protagonist is holding her S.O. to her standards which, while useful in helping her to define her own particular needs, could also be the cause of some friction between the couple. After all, she also states that her boyfriend has now started to respond to her requests by saying that “[she’s] being way too bossy and [that she’s] not his mom.” From the Aristotelian perspective, what we have here are two possible extremes: our protagonist’s wishes (and her definition of “clean”) and her boyfriend’s wishes (how he wants to spend his day and his definition of “clean”). Aristotle believes that virtues are the middle-ground between two extremes and that only through virtues can there be true success. If we apply this philosophy of extremes to our lovely couple, it might be suggested that both parties reach a compromise. To the protagonist, we understand your desire to come home to a clean space after working all day, but by placing your particular expectations of cleanliness on your S.O., you have created an environment that may be harmful on both parties’ behalfs. It’s even possible that your boyfriend no longer feels safe to express his needs to you since all he ever gets told is that he’s not doing enough. It is our suggestion that a compromise is reached between both you and your significant other (e.g. “wash your own dishes/clean up after yourself and I’ll clean the bathroom when I return”) such that neither of you feels like you are living in both an unhealthy environment and relationship.
