Grade my Philosophy essay

[Darth Ultor]

(This essay is about the greater good for man. Everything mentioned in it were assigned topics.)

One question that is frequently asked is, "Do we truly know what is good for us?" Philosophers such as Aristotle have their own views of eudaimonia, which are influenced by utilitarianism. These philosophers' views are relevant to today's dilemmas as to our environmental obligations to each other as humans. Another interesting question would be whether the world would just be better off without people, especially in these times.

Aristotle's views on eudaimonia involve activity exhibiting excellence in accordance with reason. This conception of eudaimonia derives from Aristotle's view that rationality is peculiar to human beings so that the function (ergon) of a human being will involve the exercise of his rational capacities to the highest degree. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia, which is happiness due to the flourishing of the soul, requires activity and action. It is not enough for a person to have a certain disposition to behave in certain ways. He thinks it is necessary that a person also exercise his dispositions, that is, exhibit activity according to the capacities of reason. Eudaimonia requires not only traits of character but activity as well. This is unlike hedonism, which is a school of ethics, which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. Aristotle's view of the good is not lost in the discussion of morality, because he emphasizes acting in a moral manner.

Moral development also plays a role in what is good for us. Swiss psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg set three levels with six developmental stages in total. The first level of moral development is the Pre-Conventional level where one's thoughts are how to avoid punishment by not acting immorally and what is in it for him or her when they do act morally. An example would be of a child who comes to expect a reward from his parents if he behaves well and punishment if he behaves badly. Therefore, it is essential in this stage that parents not reward every good deed and not punish every bad deed. The second level of moral development is named the Conventional level. This level refers to the moral reasoning of adolescents and young adults. At this point, people judge what is moral by comparing action to what society judges as moral and expects from those within the society. The last level is the Post-Conventional level where individuals come to realize that they are separate entities from society, and that their views of what is right and wrong may take precedence over what society sees as such. Those with a Post-Conventional view of morality have their own abstract views including on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Other philosophers had their own view on ethics, such as Aristotle who worked for the "highest good". He was a man of action; good morals alone were not enough. The highest good must be desirable for its own sake, not for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for their own sake. Kant's ethical views were on the good will. It asserts that right actions are those that practical reason would will as universal law. In other words, if the course of action someone plans to take can be willed upon everyone then it is an ethical choice. Prior to the theories of Kant were those of the Greek philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. These theorists suggested that virtue was the key to morality. They compiled a set of virtues that held moral value and maintained that if ethical decisions were made by adhering to the listed values it was almost certain those selections were ethically correct. Kant, however, did not rely on virtue as a measurement of moral principles. John Stuart Mill was a utilitarian philosopher who agreed with Marx on class structure. Like Marx, Mill did not believe in society undermining the individual. He believed in three categories of freedoms that should occur naturally: The freedom to think, express and publish one's opinions on all subjects, including scientific, moral and religious; the freedom to plan one's life and pursue one's goals without interference (provided our actions do not cause others harm); the freedom to unite with others for any purpose not involving harm to others. He summarized it with this statement: "No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom, which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind is greater gainer by suffering each other to live as seems good to them, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest."

These basic rights extend to all living creatures according to Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher and humanist. When he pushed for animal rights, many people thought the term was a parody of the Women's Rights movement. The views of Mary Wollstonecraft, the forerunner to today's feminists wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women; her views were mocked and even satirized by philosopher Thomas Taylor in a publication entitled, "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes". The article refuted Wollstonecraft by saying it will go one step further by extending it to the rights of dogs, cats, and horses. A firm believer in the rights of animals, Singer was very outspoken against speciesism, a prejudice or attitude in favor if the interest of the interest of members of one's own species and against those of other species (Chaffee, 514). One thing he pointed out was that humans, who are a species of high intelligence, should not be entitled to exploit non-humans. Singer quotes Jeremy Bentham who stated the following: "The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden [sic] from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the velocity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? However, a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not is the can they reason, or talk, but if they can suffer?" (Chaffee, 515)

Chief Seattle also believed in the rights of animals and held the entire earth to be sacred. All are and were holy in the memories and experiences of his people. Every animal from the bear, to the deer, to the eagle were his brothers. In short, he emphasizes how his people were so connected with the planet. We are all part of the same family, and not just Animalia, plants are also part of the family that is existence. Therefore, it is our duty to treat the members of our "family" with the highest respect. If I may quote from Avatar: The Last Airbender, one minor character who had achieved Nirvana while meditating under a tree said something very interesting in one episode. "See this whole swamp is actually just one tree spread out over miles..." When the main protagonists did not understand what he meant, he elaborated. "You think you're any different from me or your friends, or this tree? If you listen hard enough you can hear every living thing breathing together, you can feel everything growing. We're all living together, even if most folks don't act like it. We all have the same roots, and we are all branches of the same tree."(©Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko) Although it is a Far Eastern influenced show, this analogy sounds very Native American. If Seattle could see our environmental situation today, he would be disappointed in the industrialization, but at the same time, he would be hopeful due to all the effort being put into trying to save our environment.

The rights of animals and the views of Chief Seattle on how everything is connected and how we should take care of the sacred earth can all be applied to our environmental crisis. I personally do not agree with Al Gore who preaches the concept of global warming, which has, in fact not been proven to be so severe nor was it proven to be caused by humanity. In the 1960's we started to become aware of the damage that industry was doing to the environment. Species of animals were dwindling, there was a hole in the ozone layer, and something needed to be done. Now over forty years later, we use unleaded fuel, we use greener power sources, there are major restrictions on the dumping of toxic waste, and recycling is also taken very seriously. Right now, the situation could be better, but it is still so much better than what it was before. As to the world being better off without us, well, I could say yes. Humanity has the gift of free will and intelligence, and many times throughout history, that intelligence was not put to good use. Species of plants and animals were driven into endangerment and even extinction due to mass hunting or deforestation. Our recklessness with industry has put a hole in our ozone layer. Yes, we are doing a lot now to fix what we had done, but if there were no humans, the earth would be left untainted.

Despite the world being better off without humans, we are here just the same and thus have environmental obligations to each other in our country and in underdeveloped countries. Human intelligence is capable of promoting human welfare and dignity in a way that conforms to our essential nature. Confucius, a Chinese philosopher coined the term and based it on something called ren. Ren is the humane principle rooted in empathy and feeling for others. The "superior man" refers to the ideal human. It is one who does not ever act contrary to virtues in any moment of his or her life. It is how we should act to those around us, and when it comes to our obligations to underdeveloped countries, where a natural disaster had struck or where there is extreme poverty, it is our moral and environmental duty to see to it that that country receives proper humanitarian aid. Taking care of the environment in our country and in other countries is a moral duty of ours. Such steps include alleviating poverty, hunger, and disease. I was never really concerned with the environment very much, it was always very low on my list of important issues, but reading these philosophers' opinions has really made me think about it more. Our environmental obligations in our own country take a much higher precedence than our duties in other countries. I do care about the situation in underdeveloped countries, but like what was asked about our opinion on the photo of the starving children in another country, we have our own starving children in our own country. Furthermore, we have our own environmental issues to fix here before we concern ourselves with issues in other parts of the world.

In conclusion, what is good for us is all based on perception, and in later years we come to realize that what we thought was good was actually not. Philosophers such as Aristotle, Kant, Kohlberg, and Mill gave their own perception on what is good for humanity as a whole emphasizing ethics and the flourishing of the soul. Today, these basic fundamentals are what people see as virtuous in humanity. The good of our environment is also beneficial or us and for future generations, because, as Chief Seattle said, we are all part of the same family of the earth.

[Asiyah3]

One question that is frequently asked is, "Do we truly know what is good for us?" Philosophers such as Aristotle have their own views of eudaimonia, which are influenced by utilitarianism. These philosophers' views are relevant to today's dilemmas as to our environmental obligations to each other as humans. Another interesting question would be whether the world would just be better off without people, especially in these times.

Comments on the introduction: Overall great and comprehensive paragraph, I liked the deeper reasoning and how it showed the 'message' of the essay. My teachers usually tell us to write an essay as if we'd write it to someone who knows nothing about the topic. I think one of the charasteristics of the best essays are undrestandable and instructive. Utilitarianism could have been explained shortly. I was about to add eudaimonia but I noticed you do explain it later.

I didn't read each sentence and I left the middle (longest) paragraph. I'll personally give you A-, I think it was coherent and comprehensive. I'll guess the teacher will give you B.

[Khalil_Allah]

I'm gonna give you a C. My authority on the matter derives from the fact that I received a Bachelor's in Philosophy, with some graduate work, and am now studying law.

Why I'm gonna give you a C? Because, you are writing about the most important of issues in philosophy, ethics. If I give you an A, you're gonna be proud of your work and confident in your knowledge about ethical theory. But you can't be yet. You demonstrate a decent familiarity with various ethical theories, mentioning most philosophers that will be covered in an Ethics 101 class, and touching at some of the most important points of their works.

You'll get a B on your paper, I'm sure. But if you really want an A, you're going to have to go back to Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. This book is a self-help guide on how to be an excellent human being. For Aristotle, a non-Muslim, being virtuous (excellent) is being like a God. Not in the sense of haraam being God-like, but Aristotle understood that there is a touch of divinity in good character. And we as Muslims know that he was right. Righteousness as described by Allah swt and our Prophet saws is very similar, if not exactly, like the character that Aristotle is describing in this book.

If you read this book very carefully, and then go back to your notes of other ethical philosophers, you will be better informed to tackle their ideas.

By the way, Aristotle was not influenced by utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham are the fathers of utilitarianism as we know it. If you ask me, everyone you're taught that came after Aristotle was influenced by Aristotle. If they weren't, they were worse off for it (as reflected in their philosophies), and if they were, then they all deviated from his truth.

I know I didn't help. But if you wanna talk about Aristotle, I'm here all day. :p