Kory Bassett

Group analysis essay.

Question 1: Do we have obligations to help others? Are those obligations in good faith
even if they are for our own self-interest?
Nooshin: She thinks its not necessarily about money but more about the time donated
that is meaningful.
Rachel: She agrees with Nooshin on more of an act of compassion rather than just
giving away money to fuel their happiness. She used a good example of this with her
dad who works to help underdeveloped countries by building them businesses along
with other volunteers. He then educates those people on how to run those businesses.
His focus here is to teach people the skills needed to survive rather than a fish needed
to eat. She also mentioned that Peter Singer told us to give our money away but he
wasnt specific on how to do so. This should mean that we still can choose where our
money goes rather than just throwing it away to unknown charity(s).
Erik: He didnt have much to say on this subject though he agrees that the act is more
valuable than money.
Peter Singer tells us that we do indeed have an obligation to help others and that any
money we make over 30,000 should be given away as it is what he calls excess and
unneeded. If we do this though and it isnt purely based on good faith then we are failing
our obligation to help others who are less fortunate than us. Any self-fulfilling reasons to
justify this are immoral in his eyes and if you are thinking of it in that way then you are
not filling out your moral obligation towards others.
Question 2: Is it unethical to eat meat? Do we have an ethical duty to eat meat? Why
are why not? Is it unethical to eat any food? Why or why not?
Erik: He talks about being an anthropology major and how he wants to tackle this
question from a biological perspective. He explains how humans have evolved to eat
meat and that we need the rich nutrients contained within the meat. And that other
sources, such as vegetation alternatives, dont provide the amount of nutrients required
for our bodies to run properly. Saying that those alternatives only offer a small amount
even when eaten in larger quantities. He also argues that the only reason we as
humans can keep discussions such as the ones for these questions is because the way
we have evolved taking the energy from within meat and using that to fuel our growth.
Nooshin: From the start of this question we could tell by Nooshins reactions that she
wasnt a fan of the idea to give up meat. She mentions how science just hasnt come up
with a good enough substitute to solve this problem even if a person did want to give up
meat. They simple would be unable to get what the need for their body to function
properly from other sources. She adds that even though it may not be ethical she cant
help herself from eating meat because she enjoys it.
Rachel: Adds to the point that even if you wanted to give up meat for substitutes you
would have to ingest large amounts of things such as quinoa to get enough nutrients in
your body. So much that the only realistic way to get all that you need is to take
supplements.
I brought up the topic of religion that prevents people from eating certain things and that
birthed a discussion.
We all discussed how religion restricts some people from eating specific things. It was a
bit off topic but it opened an interesting idea that we all feel it is ok to eat whatever you
prefer as long as you dont try to influence others around you to eat a certain way
because you are used to eating that way. It also is important to be courteous to others
needs because some people may have a special circumstance that require them to
watch what they eat or even prevent them entirely from eating some foods.
Peter Singer talks about his feelings on this subject in The Ethics of Eating. He makes it
aware that he feels the way we go about eating our meats is unethical. How tens of
billions of chickens produced today never go outdoors. They are bred to have voracious
appetites and gain weight as fast as possible, then reared in sheds that can hold more
than 20,000 birds. The issue here is that we completely neglect any rights that these
animals once had and treat them as nothing more than food. Defenders argue that they
are regrettable but necessary responses to a growing populations demand for food.
This is simply sad that we have gotten to a point as a society where we disregard these
living things any ethical treatment just because we dont have to. He says that as
consumers, we have the power and the moral obligation to refuse to support farming
methods that are cruel to animals and bad for us.
Question 3: What is truth? How do we know if we have arrived at truth? Is truth relative?
Why or why not.
Rachel: You can know something that another person may not know and just by telling
them that you know expect them to belief you. Belief isnt always enough to convince
someone of a certain way. She talks about how she is a pre-school teacher and
sometimes the kids there will ask questions about one thing or another. She tells us that
with these young kids you cant just tell them why because they will always have more
questions, whether it be to your answer or to another piece of it. For these kids,
sometimes personal experience is the only way for them to truly learn and this is tricky
because while they also dont just take whatever you tell them as truth. They also cant
be expected to just accept that they have to experience it in order to understand. This
reasoning is a difficult concept because it shows that truth isnt such a simple black and
white idea. But rather a subjective attempt at conviction.
Nooshin: In some parts of the world people will listen to their leader just because of the
position that they are in. They are convinced with no other evidence than that persons
word. Almost as if it was fear that caused that person to believe rather than actual proof
of truth.
I was talking about the idea that truth it relative more than convincing truths. This
opened into a conversation about how each person perceives the world. We were
talking about our own perception of the world is never going to be the same as our
neighbors vision of the world. Because of this variety, we decided that there are many
truths based on our own personal experiences. The important thing about this question
is that it makes you self-analyze your thinking to better understand how others see
truths. Rachel tied this in by bringing in the idea of how our mind communicates with our
body. Sending pain signals to areas that otherwise would be unable to feel pain. The
reason I found this interesting is because if we believe in a truth (pain) then we will be
convinced of that truth (pain). Much how our mind believes there is pain in our body.
It is difficult to define because as soon as you think you have it pinned down, some case
or counterexample immediately shows deficiencies. Ironically, every definition of truth
that philosophers have developed falls prey to the question, is it true? Nietzsche says
that truth is not static, but a dynamic concept. It is not a structure underlying the world,
but a style of life. Within the game of life, truth is at stake. It is a stake, a wager, a
venture, a risk that one continuously makes throughout ones life. This is my favorite
definition of truth because it is perhaps the most realistic definition of truth. It is such a
complicated idea that its not so easily marked as one thing or another.
Question 4: How is good behavior vs bad behavior determined? Do the consequences
of ones actions define whether an action is good or bad? Or is it the motivations or
intentions that matter?
Nooshin: If we don't have happiness we can't have sadness, we cant have good
without also having the bad. We need that contrast to value feelings. Good behavior is
something that makes us happy or anyone else happy without hurting anyone. She talks
about the fact that some people simply dont care about others.
I brought up an idea about someone doing an act or behavior that they thought was
correct or good when in reality its bad behavior, does that make it wrong? This brought
up the topic of physical discipline and how parents may intend to do good by disciplining
their children into learning to behave better in the future.

Rachel: She brought up a study that talked about the goal of discipline should be to
make sure the child understands why they are being punished rather than habitual acts
that are acted upon blindly. It becomes an act of muscle memory when the child doesnt
know why they are being punished. When discipline turns to habit that's when you need
to stop. The goal is no longer to better your child but instead relieve your own stress.
This goes against our definition of happiness. However, with this being said sometimes
we worry that we have affected others when that isnt always the case. Maybe its just
something going on in their life that you have nothing to do with. Happiness isnt so
simple because it deals with such complicated understanding of human emotions.
We all felt strongly about this but it agreed with one another and that agreement is that
happiness come from any act that gives pleasure without causing anyone else pain.
Nietzsche being an anti-realist about value doesnt take his positive vision, or those
aspects of his critique that depend on it to have any special epistemic status. While his
illiberal attitudes are obvious, there are no grounds for ascribing to him a political
philosophy, since he has no systematic views about the nature of state and society. He
aims at freeing higher human beings from their false consciousness about morality q
therefore doesnt believe in the idea of the two being separate entities but rather melded
into one act of behavior that is of freewill and solely that.
Question 5: If we do the right action for the wrong reason does that make it less moral?
Nooshin: She brought up tax deductions through charity. Even though you are giving to
charity for your own benefit which is to get tax breaks at the end of the year when you
file, you are still helping other less fortunate people who otherwise would never see that
money. Under this definition that would be morally wrong though under the
circumstance she believes that it is justified to do so in that circumstance.

Erik: Was talking more on the topic of tax breaks. He said that if every person took part
in it, even though its to benefit ourselves the money we could give to develop medicine
and sciences from so many people giving to charities would outweigh any moral
wrongness that is implicated there.
We didnt have much to say on this question because we felt that we had covered it
question 4 already.
Immanuel Kant would suggest we run this question through the Categorical imperative.
If for any reason, we were unable to determine that it should be a universal law then we
are in no way able to go through with that task. If we give to charities for tax breaks we
would have to will that everyone would also give to charities for tax breaks. And while
we may be able to do so we would then have to think about all possible consequences
before finally seeing if it passes the Categorical imperative.
Question 6: Are bad actions that are completed with good intentions less moral? For
example: Stealing food to help the poor.
Rachel: She opened talking about a situation that had happened with a few people who
were starting a food bank operation to help feed the less fortunate and would get their
food from big grocers that had thrown out food close to expiration because it was just
being thrown away anyways. They ended up being arrested for stealing that trash
because it was still property of Walmart even though it was just going to be sent to the
dump.
Nooshin: She talks about the play of Les Miserables. She ties this in by talking about
the opening of that act when first person Jean Valjean steals bread for a family member
who is starving. That act was in no way wrong to her. Nooshin then brings up the topic
of law and how laws are in place to save other peoples lives but this law that prevents
people from taking thrown away food from dumpsters saves no lives instead prevents
lives from being saved. This spawns an issue if the laws objective is to help its citizens
then this law that is in place does the exact opposite.

I brought up the idea of emotions affecting our judgement in situations such as stealing
food. If we can take a step back and think about it rationally rather than making a pure
emotional response then maybe people will understand your situation more. Taking the
time to explain what is going on before being so quick to jump for that bread that your
sister so desperately needs to survive. Making logical decisions in any situation will
always make you come out with a better result. Emotion is a dangerous thing and taking
it out of the equation when making a choice will only be beneficial. I also talked about
the situation of the dumpster diving with Walmart and that maybe if those people went to
Walmart and explained to them what they were trying to do then Walmart would have
felt better about the idea. Even if Walmart didnt want to do that and decided against
giving away their garbage essentially then some news or media source would take
notice of the situation and deal with it that way. So, while I felt that Walmart shouldnt
care because that food meant nothing to them I also thought that it could have been
handled differently by the two guys who took it from Walmart.

According to Thomas Aquinas he would ask you to check for yourself if the act is good
or bad depending on whether it contributes to or deters us from our proper human end
the telos or final goal at which all human actions aim.
Question 7: What does living the good life consist of?
I felt that this question was way too subjective for any of us to say too much about it. I
personally said that anything that makes you happy or makes you feel the way you want
to feel then that's what the good life should consist of for that person. It shouldnt be
about whatever anyone else thinks on this specific question just because someone
being miserable could be their idea of the good life even if the entire world thinks they
are wrong. I did mention that it also had to do with cultures and how they are used to
behaving. This started another Segway that Nooshin took over.

Nooshin: When we hear bad news about other people we have never met who might
have lost something because of a cause that was out of their control. We still feel
sadness, our natural reaction towards hardship is to feel for that person whether we
know them or not. She talks about where she is from and how they are used to sharing
the house with many people of their family there instead of buying into fancy or even
excessive personal belongings. This allows them to go on vacations and even more
basic things such as living expenses become trivial since they no longer have to worry
about paying large mortgages or car payments.
 This reminded me of a documentary I had seen on South Korea which specified
about the ways of life there and how it is normal for a citizen over there to think of
happiness as working 16 hours a day. This is because work equals success to them and
that in turn brings happiness. A culture so much different from another just as ours is so
much different from Nooshins. So now instead of just personal preference and wants
for what it means to be happy it now also had to do with the culture you are from. As we
could start to see this was becoming a much more complicated question than first
expected.

We came to an agreement that the goodlife is helping people so that they aren't
in pain, but only to the point where we ourselves can also be happy. While we did come
to that conjoined agreement I still felt at the end of this question that the idea of
happiness isnt quite understood. Everyone's definition of the word is different from their
neighbors so it isn't so much about finding happiness as much as it should be about
reaching contentment. We linked this common idea of happiness as having money and
not having to worry about paying bills or other people hurting. It isnt so simple because
of how unique each person is so we cant put such a broad question under analysis
without getting more outside data. This is a question of experience rather than
explanation. I think this is important because it helps support the idea that not
everything can be explained from outside data but only as you yourself have seen the
world. It ties back into our earlier question where Rachel mentioned how she cant
always just tell her 3-year olds the answers they want but rather they need to
experience it for themselves.

According to Aristotle living the goodlife all starts with a consideration of ends and
means. Purposeful action contrasts with aimless or thoughtless action, which is action
with no end in view. He wanted to know if there is an ultimate end, goal, or purpose for
human life. This led him to the belief that the final end of human life is to flourish, to live
well and without worries. He tells us that having a good life is the final ends for humans.
Anything we call good we do so because it is the means to living or living well.

Question 8: What are the qualities of the superior individual?

We opened this question by stating our thoughts on it right away. That being a
superior individual is someone who doesnt cause harm to others. Someone who can
will that their acts will not hurt anyone around them. It was also brought up that it may
not always be up to the person whether they are a good person or not. Sometimes
they may have mental illness or other things going on that we dont know about that
cause that person or prevent that person from behaving a way they may intend to
otherwise. I mentioned that under all circumstances we can all become murderers. I
dont think I elaborated what I intended to as well as I could have. I used the example of
serial killers and how they tend to be premeditated while a one-off murder though it
could be premeditated of course I think they are more of an emotional response to
something. This had to do with us talking about criminals being below us simply
because of their title as a criminal. Us giving people the right to explain and to
understand them before judgement is passed on whether they are incapable of being a
superior individual is important to truly mark one as a better man.

Nooshin: Used an example of this idea by talking about how a leader of a country can
have an emotional response or misunderstand a situation and because of the scale of
their title they could even start a war over such a decision if they werent aware of what
was really going on. For the reason of a mental block or another on any scale making a
rash choice can affect a large amount of people whether they notice or not.
I think from this question and the back and forth we had with some stronger opinions in
this one than the previous questions.

Erik didnt see it the same way with the topic of murder murder is murder he
said. Though I think with the explanation that followed this up it had cleared up the point
I was trying to make. This led us to an idea that maybe a superior individual is someone
who is able to make up for previous choices they have made. This certainly is a factor
came to a conclusion that responsibility and experience make up a large part of the
superior individual. Because if you have the ability to recognize your own mistakes then
you have the ability to learn from them and that allows you to become the superior
individual.

According to Plato a superior being is someone who possesses all three souls at once.
This includes the rational soul (mind or intellect), the spirited soul (will or volition) and
appetitive soul (emotion or desire). In his view, a human being is said to be just when all
three souls perform their proper functions together in harmony. All three souls working in
unison for the good of the person as a whole.

Question 9: To what extent, if any, does happiness relate to living the good/moral life?
I dont like the idea of happiness and I brought that up in this question talking about how
I think people who are unhappy but still ok or content with how they are in that state of
mind then that should be acceptable. This focus on happiness and trying to reach that
peak of perfect emotions is a fallacy to me. You need all emotions to appreciate the
other ones that exist. Nooshin used the example of a song and how it can make you
feel happy or sad because of nostalgia or a past experience. You would never have that
moment if you were unable to feel the plethora of emotions that exist. Erik was trying to
make a point that all decisions are emotional decisions because trying to avoid a
emotional overload that would cause you to make a regrettable choice. It is also
important to notice how influential one person can be by the way they are acting
towards another person. Something else we brought up before ending the question
because we felt we had covered it previously.
To Aristotle happiness and the Goodlife go hand in hand. He said that living a good life
required the fulfillment of a broad range of conditions, including physical as well as
mental wellbeing. In this way, he introduced the idea of a science of happiness in the
classical sense, in terms of a new field of knowledge. What I believe he means by this is
that virtue is achieved by maintaining the Mean, which is the balance between to
excesses. It is very similar to the belief of Buddhas Middle Path, but there are intriguing
differences. For Aristotle, the mean was a method of achieving virtue, but for Buddha
the Middle Path referred to a peaceful way of life which negotiated the extremes of
harsh asceticism and sensual pleasure seeking. The Middle Path was a minimal
requirement for the meditative life, and not the source of virtue itself. (pursuit-of-
happiness.org/history-of-happiness/Aristotle/)
Question 10: To what extent, if any, does ones duties to society/other people relate to
living the morally good life?
I talked about this in previous question but I added onto it by saying that if someone is
living a fulfilled life then they will spread their happiness and good vibes to other people
passively by being around friends and family or even strangers on the street. Then it
creates a kind of snowball effect that grows into a web of good feelings for many people
because one person decided to feel good on any day. The point I meant with this is that
it is such a strong thing that it can influence people just by being around them.
Nooshin brought up a saying from where she is that reads Human beings are members
of a whole. In creative of one essence and soul, if one member is afflicted with pain
other members uneasy will remain. If you have no sympathy for human pain, the name
of human you cannot retain. I thought this pretty much answered this question than I
could have and the other people in our group also agreed with this. I added on to this by
going more into the idea of humans being social creatures and needing interactions to
function properly and while we are all individuals I think its important to understand that
these is something bigger than us and that we should be focusing on that.
Rachel leads us to our endpoint by talking about humanity and the need for us as
humans to have differentiating opinions because if we were all the same then we would
never be able to learn from our experiences because we would never have any new
experiences from us all thinking the same way about things. This uniqueness that we
see in humans is important to our development to better society and humanity as a
whole. That is more eye opening than any other part of the discussion we had so far
because it shows me that all the bad in the world is necessary to better ourselves
According to Peter Singer the correlation between living the good life and our duties to
help others are very much the same. If we spent our excess to help others who may be
less fortunate then we are in turn fulfilling our oblations to help others which will bring us
happiness to help us achieve the morally good life. Through the happiness of others, we
find ourselves seeing out our duties to humanity as a member of society and that should
bring us to the morally good life if we continue to contribute as we should be according
to Singer.