Philosophers Views - Personal Statement Example

Mini Research Paper Episode 02 There are several issues that are being raised in this episode. Thus, the points out that it is extremely difficult to put a price tag on life of a person, but still the contemporary companies have entire departments the main function of which is to do this. In addition to that, the issue of quality of pleasure, namely division into higher and lower one is discussed, suggesting on examples that not all entertainment is equal. The point of view of Jeremy Bentham is being the focus of the episode. This thinker is known to be one of the founders of Utilitarianism and his ideas of calculating the utility of an action is being engaged (Steintrager 2004, 10). In addition to that, the question about the different between higher and lower pleasures is being discussed, suggesting that the preference should always be given to the former (Zhai 2014, 116). It is my strong belief that Utilitarianism provides a person with an effective way to calculate the outcome of the action that is being performed. In other words, I believe that the comparison of the positive and negative outcomes allows one to see that impact that a particular decision will have on the world. In addition to that, I think that this concept is quite flexible and is able to prove an adequate as well as objective account of every situation, pointing out the best option. It is quite obvious that people who come from other backgrounds will have a different opinion on this topic. For example, religious people might suggest that Utilitarianism lacks some stability when it comes to making a judgment about an action. In addition to that, those who come from more conservative society may note that the above mentioned approach is often incompatible with tradition. Just like in the majority of ethical dilemmas, there is surely no true or false answer to the question about the necessity to put a price tag on one’s life or the quality of pleasure. It is obvious that everyone would benefit from acknowledgement of uniqueness of every person, but argue that sometimes cost analysis might be an effective way to advance business and should not be seen as some immoral activity that harms other people. Episode 03 The key problem that is viewed in this video focuses on the role that a free choice plays in one’s life. Out of many aspects that should be taken into consideration, the discussion engages income distribution, suggesting that rich people are reluctant to share their wealth in favor of the poorer people. It is pointed that this might introduce some distortion into the social environment and result in dissatisfaction with the governmental policies. The philosopher, the view of who are noted in the episode, is Robert Nozick. He is known to be one of the most active supporters of Libertarianism. The professor uses his comparison: making wealthy people share their money with the poor is seen negatively by the former as they are almost forced to work for the latter (Abegg 2013, 115). Indeed, Bill Gates can hardly be satisfied with such state of affairs. It is my personal belief, that there is no other way than sharing. If the society does not accept this simple truth, it may collapse. Indeed, taking a portion of money from Bill Gates may be seen as a negative action in financial terms, but this in no way diminishes his contribution to the technological advancement. In addition to that, it is quite obvious that sharing is a part of humane nature, so it is an action that provides us with an ability to manifest our true potential. With the topic being so controversial, one might suggest that other people will disagree with me. For example, those who belong to upper classes will not be willing to share any part of their wealth with people who are placed lower on the social ladder. In addition to that, younger people are likely to be more selfish and they will not be willing to be deprived of even the slightest bit of the outcome of their hard work. It must be noticed that the society is clearly divided into proponents and opponents of sharing wealth and the sizes of the parties are disproportionate. However, a mutually agreeable consensus might be reached, since excessive concentration of money will not do any good to either part of the population. So, if the society wants to achieve prosperity, it should be able to organize wealth distribution in an effective way. Episode 04 The episode in question puts emphasis on some of the most fundamental elements of the Western civilization namely rights to life, freedom and property as well as they role of entitlement to those in the contemporary society. In addition to that, the issue of the relationship between the majority and minority is being analyzed, suggesting that there are many aspects that should be taken into consideration. The discussion that is being presented primarily relies on the works of John Locke who developed his vision of the state of nature: a situation that existed before the society was formed (Morris 1999, 100). While there is no empirical way to prove his vision, the points that he makes are quite sound. A big emphasis on made on the necessity of a minority to obey the majority and the nature of this relationship. Thus, while some might see it as oppressing, it is suggested that people agree to it when entering a society. I think that the above mentioned rights, namely to life, freedom and property, are truly the fundamental ones. That is why the government is able to put restrictions on them only to a certain extent. For example, it may be forbidden to kill a different person, but a right to death should be recognized as unalienable right of every individual. Moreover, the mechanism of obey a majority should be justified by some external reasons. There is no doubt that people who come from a different cultural background are likely to see this position in a different light. For example, there are cultures which are known for their collectivistic approach towards many aspects of social life including property. In other words, there are generations of people who were raised with the idea that private property does not contribute to the prosperity of a society; so, they do not feel an urge to accumulate it. There are many points of view on the state of nature and the one that is offered by John Locke is surely one of many. That is why there is no need to look for a straight answer whether some fundamental rights exist. The compromise in this case can rely on the fact that the above mentioned rights work perfectly within European cultural framework. Episode 06 The content of this episode presents the ideas that deal with the fundamental part of the human nature, namely morality. It is suggested that the moral value of an action should be derived from the motive that a person pursued. In other words, one should think about the long term consequences of an action and determine if it could become a universal law that other people might relate to. The philosopher who contributed his ideas to the discussion is Immanuel Kant. There are several key points that should be mentioned. On the one hand, according to him, life of a person should be guided by duty (Lake 2000, 56). In other words, people should think about the consequences of their actions from a rather broad perspective. In addition to that, categorical imperative would urge them to behave in a certain manner again and again (Saurette 2005, 86). Personally, I think that the theory which was developed by Kant features several drawbacks. First of all, it is extremely rigid and is not able to adequately react to the situation. In other words, a person will not choose the best option for a particular set of circumstances. Secondly, I’ve often noticed that the outcome that is brought by this theory is negative. So, I do not think that people should utilize it. One can hardly make a mistake, pointing out that not all the people would share my point of view. For example, those who are quite religious, will favor the view which was advocated by Kant since it is similar to spiritual commitments. In other words, those who are accustomed to rigorous code of conduct will find the view of Kant quite plausible. Finally, it is important to point out that any discussion about morality can not have a flat answer to it. In other words, some people might adopt the idea of Kant, while other will reject them. The compromise that might be reached should be rooted in the mutual desire to behave morally and as a highly developed human being. Though it may be difficult to achieve such a consensus people who try to do so in order to contribute to harmonization of the society. References Abegg, E. (2013). Political morality in a disenchanted world. Lanham, MD: University Press Of America. Lake, P. (2000). Kant, duty, and moral worth. London: Routledge. Morris, C. (1999). The social contract theorists critical essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Saurette, P. (2005). The Kantian imperative humiliation, common sense, politics. Toronto, Ont.: University of Toronto Press. Steintrager, J. (2004). Bentham. London: Routledge. Zhai, X. (2014). Benthams theory of law and public opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More