Last Blog Assignment

(1) Question:

I chose the question that asks if humans have a natural tendency to do good or evil and what are the implications of this answer to ethics.

(2) Conceptual Clarifications:

What this question is asking is whether or not people are inborn with the actions to do well to other and themselves. Depending on what period and which philosopher you want to follow than it depends on how you think. Mill (Ruggiero, 146) states that he didn't believe it was inborn but was acquired. He continued to note that whether acquired or inborn it had little difference because the point was that it did exist.

(3) Answer:

I don't think people are naturally inclined to do good or evil. I think humans are naturally brought upon to do what it is needed to survive. I think personal survival is the final decision for what is ethical or un-ethical. When put in the most dire and extreme of circumstances people are going to do what they have to, to make sure they survive and move on with their life. The methods may be good or evil depending on how you review it after or before the action has taken place but the fact of the matter is that the action does take place and actions made in real time can not be second guessed. I do believe where survival is not the underlying item of motive that people are taught to strive for goodness of self and others around them. I believe everyone likes to be happy and likes to see others around them happy. I agree with Mill that it is acquired through life experiences and teachings rather than inborn or inherent. You are a product of those around you, those who teach, and what you experience in life. The implications on this for ethics is that if you believe that good can be taught and learned that evil can be taught and learned on the flip side. Someone can grow up and learn to do evil things that make him happy. If the goal is happiness and evil ethical decisions are made are they truly evil at heart? This makes for the never answered question. I would say if evil act is done unto yourself than yes it is ethical if the action is done to harm others for your own personal happiness than the action is still evil though the person is made happier because of it.

(4) Example:

Multiple examples of this would be saying murdering someone when you are cornered. Say you join the military and have to go to war. Whether you believe war is right or not the fact is the soldier is there and can not change his mind. He comes up upon an "enemy" and they start shooting at each other. The only way that he makes it out is to kill the other person. Survival is kicking in here and he kills the other person. Is killing and murder and evil act yes, but in terms of survival it is warranted because he is in a corner and must make a real time decision to either survive and move on or die and not continue on per say. In terms of when survival is not effect, say someone captures and tortures someone for his own personal pleasure. Say he does not kill or injure the person but tortures them mentally. This makes the torturer very happy and is good in his eyes because he is happy. The tortured is obvious not happy to what is happening to him at this time. Even though this makes one person it leaves one person unhappy and is there for still an evil act. Good acts are only good if they help the person who is doing the action and anyone else who may be involved. You can not harm someone in the process for you own good and happiness and it still be considered a good act.

(5) Word Count:

665 is what my word tells me. :)

(6) Image:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/survival%20killing%20is%20ok%25253F/xel123/survival.jpg

(7) References:

Ruggiero. (2008). Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues. McGraw Hill.
Mill

Mill. (1861). Utilitarianism. Fraser's Magazine.