MARX & COMMUNISM

Introduction to Philosophy – Karl Marx

Marx divided society into two classes based on socio-economic status, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. Basically the Bourgeoisie are the “haves” and the Proletariat are the “have-nots”. The Bourgeoisie own the means of production (the factory) and the Proletariat work in the factory.

Historically, this division occurred as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Originally, rural villagers hand-crafted products and traded them for other products. For example, one villager might craft a saddle and trade it to another villager for a pair of boots. People raised chickens, farmed crops, made hand-crafts and traded them amongst local villagers.

However, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, everything began to change. Wealthy people opened factories. Suddenly, a factory could produce a hundred saddles a week whereas before a single villager took three months to make a saddle. The factory produced a hundred saddles a week, and could sell them cheaper than the villager. The only problem was that all of the saddles looked the same. It was mass production.

The saddle-maker was soon put out of business because he could not compete with the factory. Villagers like him went out of business and moved into the cities where they were forced to take jobs at factories. This division in society causes tension because the factory worker becomes alienated from his product, that is, he feels exploited because he is just another cog in the machine of the factory and can no longer take pride in his work. The factory owner gets richer and the factory worker becomes a commodity, used like a machine or a part in a machine and discarded when no longer necessary. Those in the Proletariat resent the factory owner because they feel they are being exploited. The Bourgeoisie resent the factory workers because they depend upon their labor in order to make profit.

Marx’s solution to this problem is violent revolution. He advocates that the Proletariat should revolt against the Bourgeoisie, that is, come together, arm themselves and violently take over the factory.

Marx justifies his solution to this problem by claiming that the Bourgeoisie are acting immorally in exploiting the factory workers. The Bourgeoisie are basically stealing from the poor, and in addition, they are living in affluence while others starve in poverty. Basically the rich are guilty of not being charitable, and as a form of justice the Proletariat should take their wealth away from them. Marx sees violent revolution as a form of justice for moral wrongdoing.

Marx said that religion is the “opiate of the masses”. He meant that religion keeps people (particularly the Proletariat) passive and docile so the Bourgeoisie can exploit them. Religious moral teaching like “turn the other cheek” and “blessed are the poor in spirit” make the Proletariat weak and content with being poor and exploited, while the Bourgeoisie do not live up to the same standards of morality.

CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS

Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) is a black comedy written, directed by and co-starring Woody Allen, alongside Martin Landau, Mia Farrow, Anjelica Huston, Jerry Orbach, Alan Alda, Sam Waterston and Joanna Gleason.

The film is set in New York City and follows two main characters: Judah Rosenthal (Landau), a successful ophthalmologist, and Cliff Stern (Allen), a struggling documentary filmmaker. The two men are each confronted with moral crises.

Judah's crisis concerns his affair with a flight attendant Dolores Paley (Huston). After it becomes clear to her that Judah will not end his marriage, Dolores, scorned, attempts to inform his wife of their affair. Dolores' letter to his wife Miriam (Claire Bloom) is intercepted and destroyed by Judah, but she sustains the pressure on him with her threats of revelation. She is also aware of some questionable financial moves Judah has made.

Early in the film, he confides in a patient, Ben (Waterston), a rabbi who is rapidly losing his eyesight. Ben advises openness and honesty between Judah and his wife, but Judah does not wish to imperil his marriage.

Desperate, Judah turns to his brother, Jack (Orbach), who hires a hitman to kill Dolores. Later, before her corpse is discovered, Judah retrieves letters and other items from her apartment in order to cover his tracks. Stricken with guilt though, Judah turns to the religious teachings he had rejected, believing for the first time that a just God is watching him and passing judgement.

Cliff, meanwhile, has been hired by his pompous brother-in-law, Lester (Alda), a successful television producer to make a documentary celebrating Lester, whom Cliff grows to actively despise. While filming, he falls in love with Halley Reed (Farrow), Lester's associate producer.

At the time, Cliff is despondent over his failing marriage to his wife Wendy (Gleason), and he woos Halley, showing her footage from his ongoing documentary about Prof. Louis Levi, a renowned philosopher, a character based on Primo Levi.[1] He tells Halley he's shooting Lester's documentary for the money so he can finish the documentary on Levi.

Cliff's plain hatred of Lester (and his resentment of Lester's courting of Halley and success) are evident in a screening of the documentary film. It juxtaposes footage of Lester with shots of Benito Mussolini addressing a throng of supporters from a balcony; it also depicts Lester yelling at his employees and clumsily making a pass at an attractive young actress.

Lester is at once Cliff's polar opposite, since Lester is considered, by Cliff, to be a dimwit who mispronounces "foliage" ("foilage") and "nuclear" ("nuculer") — but also his equal. Lester quotes Emily Dickinson in one key scene, impressing Halley and upstaging Cliff.

Halley leaves for London, where Lester is offering her a producing job; when she returns several months later, Cliff learns that she and Lester are engaged. Hearing that Lester sent Halley a bouquet of white roses every week they were in London, Cliff is crestfallen as he realizes he is incapable of that kind of affectionate display. His last romantic gesture to Halley had been a love letter which, he admits, he had plagiarized almost entirely from James Joyce.

Adding to Cliff's burdens, he learns that Prof. Levi, whom he had been profiling on the strength of his celebration of life, had committed suicide, leaving a curt note, "I've gone out the window."

In the final scene, Judah and Cliff meet by happenstance at the wedding of the daughter of Ben, Cliff's brother-in-law and Judah's patient. Judah has worked through his guilt and is enjoying life once more; the murder had been blamed on a drifter with a record. He draws Cliff into a supposedly hypothetical discussion that draws upon his moral quandary. Judah says that with time, any crisis will pass; but Cliff morosely claims instead that one is forever fated to bear one's burdens for "crimes and misdemeanors."

The film ends with a narration by the late Prof. Levi about the interplay between morality and happiness.

EXISTENTIALISM

Introduction to Philosophy – Existentialism

Some Notable Existential Philosophers

Proto-Existentialists
Friedrich Nietzsche
Soren Kierkegaard “Either/Or” “Fear & Trembling”
Fyodor Dostoyevsky ‘Notes from Underground”
Martin Heidegger “Being & Time”

Existentialists
Jean-Paul Sartre “Being & Nothingness” “No Exit”
Albert Camus “The Myth of Sisyphus” “The Stranger”
Simone de Beauvior

OUTLINES

Absurdity of Life

Absence of God, not necessarily the non-existence of God (it’s a kind of Nietzschean atheism)
Angst/Dread (the fact that we do not matter really bothers us)
Alienation from the world, others

“Condemned to be Free”

The Necessity of Choice
The Importance of Choice
The Subjectivity of Choice
Freedom is both a blessing and a curse
“The Myth of Sisyphus”

“Existence Precedes Essence”

Humans have no nature, no essence (neither good nor bad, no original sin, no static essence)
You make yourself, that is, you create yourself with every choice you make
Your essence/nature is determined by your choices- but freedom means you can always change
You are ultimately responsible for your actions, your life, your values
You are accountable only to yourself

Self-Deception/Bad Faith

In order to cope with the absurdity of our existence, we deceive ourselves
We want to be meaningful; we want to matter; we want significance
Significance (bad faith) via
-association with religion, groups, the accomplishments of others
-accepting some essence/nature
In order to cope with the subjective nature of our existence, we contrive an identity/essence
-date yourself


Existence precedes essence

-There is no such thing as human nature
1. Everybody’s good (humanism) education makes people good, Socrates
2. Everybody’s bad (religion) God makes people good

-You make yourself (your own nature thru choices)
Every moment you choose, you make yourself, create yourself
-You are responsible for what you do
-Your choices really, really matter
-judge yourself

NOTES

Self-Deception, Bad Faith (in order to cope with the absurdity of life)

1. We spend a lot of energy, effort and time deceiving ourselves into thinking we matter. We live in a near-constant state of self-deception. It makes us feel better. Unfortunately, it’s like taking an aspirin every morning to numb the pain of a terminal illness. Kierkegaard described human existence in the title of one of his most famous books, “Fear & Trembling and Sickness unto Death.” The fact that we exist is our terminal illness, and bad faith numbs our pain in the face of the Absurd.
2. We always have faith in something. The nature of faith is such that we cannot prove or demonstrate it, hence the fact that we must believe it by faith. Bad Faith, then, is faith in an inauthentic self, a contrived or crafted identity.
3. In our all-consuming desire for meaning, significance and purpose we carefully craft a series of personal identities.
4. We gain significance through deception. We deceive others into accepting our crafted inauthentic identities. When others appear to accept this identity, it makes it easier for us to accept it. We believe in ourselves through others, by deceiving ourselves through others. For example, if one of my students tells me, “Professor Arnold, you are the most erudite and brilliant lecturer that I have ever heard.” In the face of my own absurd existence, I love to hear compliments. Suddenly, I am significant. Additionally, I hope that because she said that aloud, the rest of the class will believe it too. But my feelings of significance are fleeting. I begin to wonder if she really meant it. Maybe she was just trying to butter me up for a better grade. Maybe as the words, “…erudite and brilliant lecturer…” escaped her lips, she was thinking, “What a schmuck! Does this guy ever shut up? What a blow-hard. Professor Arnold really enjoys the sound of his own voice.” And what if everyone agrees with her? You see how important others’ perceptions of us are? And how precarious and ultimately mysterious they are? We desperately want others to perceive us in a certain way, but we can never be certain of their perceptions. Our own feelings of significance or insignificance are as fleeting, mysterious and unreliable as the opinions of others. This is why Sartre said, “Hell is other people.” In his play “No Exit” a man dies and finds himself in a room with two women. He doesn’t know where he is or why he is here. As the play progresses, he is continually faced with the challenge of interacting with the women, trying to figure out who they are and worrying about what they must think of him. One hates him and the other is infatuated. He cannot leave the room, cannot leave their presence. There is no privacy, only the constant presence of the two women watching him, judging him, constantly forming perceptions of him. At the end of the play he discovers that he is in hell, and will spend eternity in this room with these women. Hence, “Hell is other people.” Sartre thinks that we wouldn’t feel the urgent desire to craft identities if not for other people. However, other people are a necessary evil. We gain significance through others, and we love and hate them for it. We need others, but ultimately we hate the way we behave around them. We act in bad faith in order to gain significance through others; and yet, we are ashamed of our deception and never fully satisfied with others’ approval.
5. How exactly do we craft our identities? In bad faith we associate or disassociate ourselves from outside sources, and ultimately our own choices.
- We associate ourselves to: Love/marriage – In realizing that we do not matter, what better way to gain significance than ‘mattering’ to someone else. When we’re in love we can say, “To at least one other person in this world, I matter.” Our everyday language often betrays our underlying existential feelings about the world. What do we call a lover or a spouse? We use the word, ‘significant other’. How appropriate. Simply by having a significant other, we gain significance through the other. For to be loved is to be significant, of only to one other person. The belief that another person thinks we matter, that they love us in a completely unique and special way, is a powerful form of bad faith. Love is so prevalent because it is such an effective aspirin for the existential condition. And it only takes one other person to feel this way. This is how desperate we are for significance. But, in the still quiet moment when my lover turns to me and looks me in the eyes and says, “I love you,”- can I really be certain that she telling the truth? Perhaps, like that student who praised my intellect, she is really thinking, “I’m going to sleep with your friend tomorrow,” or even “I do care about you, but I don’t really love you. I’ve settled.” Now, this is not a form of cynicism towards love. The question of whether true love exists or not is ultimately an irrelevant question, like the question of God’s existence. Whether or not true love exists does nothing to change the existential fact that I can never know when it does. My lover may truly love me. But I will never know. I have been condemned to love, and be loved, with uncertainty. We believe in bad faith that we are loved by another, that we matter most to someone else. But in the end, it remains bad faith and a form of self-deception.
- So, belief in the love of a significant other is ultimately a form of bad faith. Not something you’re going to write inside a Valentine’s Day or Wedding Anniversary card! But what if I told you that there was a person who would love you unconditionally. In fact, you could know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person was going to love you no matter what. God, religion, gangs, sports teams
- We disassociate ourselves from: mistakes, bad choices, unappealing associations
6. We deceive ourselves into believing we have a stable nature
- Good nature (humanism) education makes us better, Socrates, we do not take credit for the mistakes we make
- Bad nature (religion) God makes us better, Jesus, we do not take credit for the good deeds we’ve done

Authentic vs. Inauthentic

1. Being authentic (or authentic being) means realizing and acting like your choices really matter. Your choices matter because they have very real, concrete consequences. Your choices cause real change. Your personal choices matter because your choices are personal. Not only do they determine what happens to you, but more importantly, they determine who you are. You make yourself with every choice you make.
2. When we realize that our choices are the only aspect of our existence that matter, we’ll take them more seriously. There is an awareness of existential urgency which accompanies the realization that our choices are all that matter. The ephemeral nature of the present moment imbues our immediate choices with absolute urgency and ultimate power. Authentic significance exists only in your present choice.
3. When we accept that our choices are all that matter, we’ll begin to accept full responsibility for them. Ever notice how we like to take responsibility for their choices that bring about good consequences? And similarly, ever notice how we always blame outside sources when one of our choices brings about less than perfect consequences? In bad faith we blame our choices on other sources, such as a good or bad nature, good or bad luck, ethical codes or philosophies, even finding scientific excuses like biological instinct or genetics. Being authentic means taking full responsibility for your choices. You are all alone with your choices. You alone bear responsibility for your choices. This responsibility is a blessing because it is your only means of authentic significance; however, it is a burden because you cannot blame someone or something else when you are unhappy with the consequences.
4. Nobody wants to be told, “You don’t matter!” Tell me anything but that. Call me a ‘son of a bitch’ but don’t ever call me ‘meaningless’. Confronted with the absurdity of our existence and our own meaninglessness we make a mad scramble to ‘matter’. More than anything we want to know that there is a ‘Big Picture’ and somehow we fit into that Big Picture. Even if we’re just a miniscule dot in the Big Picture, at least we’re a part of the Big Picture. At least then, we matter. Most of us live our lives obsessed with ‘mattering’. We’ll take significance any way we can get it. We’ll do anything to ‘matter’. We’ll deceive others and ourselves in order to matter. We’ll believe anything. In bad faith we get so obsessed with ‘mattering’ in the big picture that we stop ‘mattering’ in the here and now.
5. A student of mine once commented, “Existentialism gives me nothing to look forward to in life.” I responded, “You say, ‘look forward’. Your choice of words reveals two things: your desire for significance and your tendency towards bad faith. The existentialist would say, “Stop looking forward. That’s your problem. Stop looking forwards or backwards for significance and meaning. That’s bad faith. Your past choices have been made, they’re done. And your future choices are completely unknown. In fact, you may never get a chance to make any future choices. There will be plenty of time to make future choices in future moments. Your present choices are of paramount importance, because they are the only concrete aspect of your existence.
6. Another student of mine asked, “Does this mean existentialism is an ‘eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die,’ sort of philosophy?” This is a common misunderstanding. Existentialism allows for delayed gratification and learning from your mistakes. It means you never do anything you do not authentically choose to do. For example, if you attend college classes because your mother demands it, then you are suffering through the class in bad faith. However, if you suffer through a boring college class in order to get a college degree so that you can get a better job that you will enjoy, then you are making an authentic choice.
7. In his essay, “The Myth of Sisyphus,” Albert Camus adds an existential spin to the story. Remember, Sisyphus was condemned to shove a stone up a hill for all eternity. Each time he reached the top of the hill the stone rolls back down and he must start all over again. We are like Sisyphus in that we are condemned to make choice after choice, only to discover that another series of choices awaits us in every moment of life. However, Camus imagines that with each shove of the stone Sisyphus whispers, “This is my stone!” This declaration gives Sisyphus his only means of significance. He may be condemned to shove the stone, but the stone belongs to him, and with each shove he asserts his significance. All he really possesses and wields power over is the stone. Similarly, all we really possess and wield power over is our choices. Our individual choices, made each moment of our existence, give us significance. Every choice we make is a shove of our stone, and with each shove we assert the only significance we truly possess in an absurd universe.

Recommended Reading: “Existentialism is a Humanism” and “No Exit” by Sartre and “The Myth of Sisyphus” by Albert Camus

NIETZSCHE

Introduction to Philosophy – Nietzsche

Nietzsche criticized three moral theories prevalent in Europe during his lifetime. He rejected:

1.) Christianity – The moral teachings of Jesus, particularly the Sermon on the Mount. Examples include; “Turn the other cheek,” “Go the extra mile” and “Bless those who curse you”.
2.) Utilitarianism – The ethical system that maintains that the moral choices are determined by the greatest good for the greatest many people. Utilitarianism informs egalitarianism and democracy.
3.) Kantianism – The ethical system developed by Immanuel Kant which maintains morality is dependent upon application of the Categorical Imperative: “Act in such a way that you would will it become a universal maxim”.

In contrast to these prevailing moral theories, Nietzsche advocated a Master/Slave Morality. There are two kinds of people in the world: Master or Slave. This has nothing to do with slavery; but rather, the mentality of masters and slaves and how they interact with others. Masters do not look to others for their ideas of right and wrong; rather, they do what they want, when they want. In contrast, Slaves believe what others tell them is right and wrong, that is, they get their morality from others. They obey the laws and adhere to the religious, cultural or legal standards of right and wrong.

Nietzsche was inspired by ancient Greek ideals of life-affirming adventure, particularly Odysseus. On his journeys Odysseus told lies, cheated, stole and basically did whatever he wanted. Odysseus always got the treasure, women and barely escaped danger and death. This behavior made him a hero in the eyes of the Greeks.

The person possessing the Master Mentality inspires others to follow his morality. He does not force them, but rather, inspires them to follow his example by living life to its fullest. The Master Mentality disregards the prevailing moral attitudes and cultural mores of his day, and instead, lives life according to his own moral standards.

For example, Jesus Christ was an example of the Master Morality. He challenged social and moral conventions and inspired others to embrace and follow his own morality. However, Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus and get their morality from him are examples of the Slave Morality.

Some people who are examples of the Master Morality are:

Alexander the Great
Jesus
Buddha
Mohamed
Odysseus
Napoleon
Gandhi

UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. It may be summed up as- The greatest good for the greatest number of people. (p.99 “…utility or the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right…”)

It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. (p.96 “All action is for the sake of some end…”) It can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which do not regard the consequences of an act as being a determinant of its moral worth, i.e. Kantianism) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character).

Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain). It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance.

Aspects of Utilitarianism
1. Hedonism, pleasure and pain determine values (not simply sensuousness)
2. Consequentialism, rightness or wrongness determined by consequences. The greatest good for the greatest many. Quantitative values, only the amount of pain or pleasure is considered.
3. Egalitarian, everyone counts as one. Maximizes consequentialism.

But are consequences the only thing that matters?
Deontologists disagree with Utilitarianism. Deontologists consider torture to be wrong b/c it’s simply wrong; while for the Consequentialists considers torture to be right b/c it produces good results.

Jeremy Bentham, British philosopher (1748-1832)
Bentham was born in London, into a wealthy family. He was a child prodigy and was found as a toddler sitting at his father's desk reading a multi-volume history of England. He began his study of Latin at the age of three. Bentham’s will stipulated an ‘auto-icon’.

Bentham's position included arguments in favor of individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the end of slavery, the abolition of physical punishment (including that of children), the right to divorce, free trade, usury, and the decriminalization of homosexual acts. He also made two distinct attempts during his life to critique the death penalty. Oddly enough, he wrote a criticism of the Declaration of Independence.

The origins of utilitarianism are often traced as far back as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but, as a specific school of thought, it is generally credited to Jeremy Bentham. Bentham found pain and pleasure to be the only intrinsic values in the world: "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” From this, he derived the rule of utility: the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart was educated by his father, with the advice and assistance of Jeremy Bentham. He was given an extremely rigorous upbringing, and was deliberately shielded from association with children his own age other than his siblings. His father, a follower of Bentham, had as his explicit aim to create a genius intellect that would carry on the cause of utilitarianism and its implementation after he and Bentham had died.

Mill was a notably precocious child; at the age of three he was taught Greek. By the age of eight he had read Aesop's Fables, Xenophon's Anabasis, and the whole of Herodotus, and was acquainted with Lucian, Diogenes Laërtius, Isocrates and six dialogues of Plato. He had also read a great deal of history in English and had been taught arithmetic.

At the age of eight he began learning Latin, Euclid, and algebra, and was appointed schoolmaster to the younger children of the family. His father also thought that it was important for Mill to study and compose poetry. One of Mill's earliest poetry compositions was a continuation of the Iliad. In his spare time, he also enjoyed reading about natural sciences and popular novels, such as Don Quixote and Robinson Crusoe.

About the age of twelve, Mill began a thorough study of the scholastic logic, at the same time reading Aristotle's logical treatises in the original language.
At age fourteen, Mill stayed a year in France with the family of Sir Samuel Bentham, brother of Jeremy Bentham. In Montpellier, he attended the winter courses on chemistry, zoology, logic- as well as taking a course of the higher mathematics.
This intensive study however had injurious effects on Mill's mental health, and state of mind. At the age of twenty he suffered a nervous breakdown. As explained in his Autobiography, this was caused by the great physical and mental arduousness of his studies which had suppressed any feelings he might have developed normally in childhood.

In his famous work, Utilitarianism, (p100) the younger Mill argues that: (1) cultural, (2) intellectual and (3) spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere (4) physical pleasure because the former would be valued higher than the latter by competent judges.

What is a competent judge? (p.103) A competent judge, according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher. Education, according to Mill, provides people with the skills to be competent judges (p.105). Thus, utilitarian ethics is like calculus- for it can be taught and used to calculate right from wrong. Remember our question from reading the Meno, “Is ethics like mathematics?” Utilitarians would think so…

His famous quote found in Utilitarianism (p.102) was, "…it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" demonstrating Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He justified this distinction by the thought that "…few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures."

Like Bentham's formulation, Mill's utilitarianism deals with pleasure and happiness. The ‘Happiness Principle’ (p.103) is “…the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable…”
However John Stuart Mill made a clear distinction between happiness and pleasure; and made it evident that Weak Rule Utilitarianism was focused on maximizing happiness rather than pleasure; for what one desires and what is good are not always the same thing. For example a pleasure/desire may be to bully a lonely child, which may produce pleasure; however happiness comes from following virtues rather than desires.

You have heard the phrase, “Greater love has no man than he give his life for another.” That is, sacrifice is often seen as a morally virtuous action. However, utilitarians think that sacrifice is not inherently virtuous- it is only a virtue if it serves the greater good. (p.107-108)

Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions and, from that, choose to do what we believe will generate most pleasure. The rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he looks at what would happen if it were constantly followed. If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequentialist calculation — specific to a case or generalized to rules.

Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that will in some specific circumstances clearly decrease happiness if followed. Never to kill another human being may seem to be a good rule, but it could make self-defense against malevolent aggressors very difficult. Rule utilitarians add, however, that there are general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if such rule-breaking increases happiness, one example being self-defense. Critics argue that this reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism and makes rules meaningless. Rule utilitarians retort that rules in the legal system (i.e. laws) that regulate such situations are not meaningless. Self-defense is legally justified, while murder is not.

Biology and Evolution

It has been suggested that sociobiology, the study of the evolution of human society, provides support for the utilitarian point of view. For example, in The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer argues that fundamentally utilitarian ethical reasoning has existed from the time primitive foraging bands had to cooperate, compromise, and make group decisions to survive. He elaborates: "In a dispute between members of a cohesive group of reasoning beings, the demand for a reason is a demand for a justification that can be accepted by the group as a whole." Thus, consideration of others' interests has long been a necessary part of the human experience. Singer believes that reason now compels the equal consideration of all people's interests, including animals.
Some Practical Applications of Utilitarian Ethics

Can certain actions or practices be ethically justified by utilitarianism? (1) Slavery (2) Torture (3) Genocide (4) Discrimination
Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Too permissive- The end justifies the means. There are no universal prohibitions against any action. Is it the case that, there is no action which is universally prohibited? If so, is this a problem? Should this be troubling?

Too demanding- Are utilitarian ethical standards too high- that is, are they unrealistic in their demands upon people? For example, according to utilitarianism, you might be required to give up a pleasure like internet ($30 a month), if that means someone doesn’t go hungry.

BUFFY VS. WOLLSTONECRAFT

Wollstonecraft vs. Buffy Summers

The following is an OUTLINE for the lecture given in class.
1. Damsel in Distress

Wollstonecraft is dependent on men for her salvation (rights)
Buffy does the saving, that is, she is never saved by men.

2. Use of Rationality versus Violence

Wollstonecraft makes an appeal to men’s rationality. She makes an logical, carefully outlined argument.

Buffy uses violence instead of rationality; she even describes herself as “rash and impulsive”.

3. Female beauty and woman as sex object

Wollstonecraft rejects Rousseau’s ideal of woman as an “object of desire” and that the whole tendency of female education should be to render women pleasing to men.

Buffy reverses the traditional gender stereotype that a woman must be either powerful/strong or beautiful/sexy. Buffy is both powerful and beautiful.

4. Vampirism as Rape and the Phallic Symbol

A phallic symbol is any object which represents the violent, penetrating power traditionally associated with the penis; examples include: gun, missile, knife, bullet, sword, etc.

Buffy uses a wooden stake (phallic symbol) to kill vampires, who represent vampirism as a kind rape and male oppressive power over women.

Common uses of profanity often betray our phallic association with power and violence.
“A man has balls or a big dick” if he is tough, and is a “pussy” if he is weak.
If a man is aggressive he is described as “cocky”, and you “cock” a gun to fire it.
The phrase “to fuck” suggests violent penetration, as well as “screwed”

5. Victim versus Judge

Wollstonecraft is a victim of her society and culture.

Buffy is judge, jury and executioner. She cannot look to anyone else for assistance in deciding what is ethical; that is the blessing and burden of being a hero.

WOLLSTONECRAFT

Introduction to Philosophy – Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Immanuel Kant was perhaps the quintessential Enlightenment thinker, exalting in his philosophy the guiding principle of human rationality. And yet, his reputation as a fierce misogynist reveals much about the prevailing irrationality concerning women’s rights in the seventeenth century. For when Descartes, Kant and others wrote of the existence of a rational soul and the power of human reason, in many ways they were not describing faculties of what they might label, “the fairer sex”. At home or in public, both intellectually and spiritually, women were subordinate to men. It was into this world of gender prejudice and fierce subjugation of women that Mary Wollstonecraft was born; and during her thirty-eight years on earth, she would challenge cultural mores, successfully enter the male-dominated world of rational discourse, and publish the pioneering text for feminism.

The English philosopher, teacher and writer, Mary Wollstonecraft was born in 1759.

Wollstonecraft is an Enlightenment thinker. She consistently appeals to “the Law of Nature” (p.7); “Reason…the perfection of our nature and capability of happiness” (p.11); “Exercise of reason, knowledge and virtue” (p.11); “against the monarchy” (p.12); “the sober light of Reason” (p.35); “…my soul and sufficient strength of mind” (p.35); “universal rule of right, virtue and duty” (p.35); “Liberty is the mother of virtue” (p.36)

The Argument

P1: If women are educated, that is, their natural reason is cultivated; then, they will make better wives, mothers and citizens.

P2: If women are better wives, mothers and citizens, then men will be better husbands, fathers and citizens.

P3: If men and women are better citizens, then society as a whole will benefit.

Therefore, women should be educated, that is, their natural reason should be cultivated.

Wollstonecraft never compares men and women, that is, she never tries to prove that they are equal. Rather, she argues that denying women an education is actually a detriment to men, society and ultimately to God. (p.34)

Chapter I-II (pp.1-36)

First Argument

“Ignorance under the specious name of innocence” (p.18)

John Milton

Second Argument

“Manners before morals…” (p.22)
Example of the military

Third Argument

“Woman should never feel herself independent” (p.25)

Rousseau
Moses

Fourth Argument

“…the whole tendency of female education ought to be directed to one point- to render them pleasing.” (p.26)

Dr. Gregory’s book - “fondness for dress.” (p.27)

Fifth Argument

“Friendship or indifference inevitably succeeds love.” (p.29)
“Companionship vs. Contempt” (p.33)