KIM WOODS

Be sure to reply to your classmates and instructor. Try to attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you.  Keep the discussion on target and try to analyze things in as much detail as you can.

o    Gina Lasiter

After watching Michael Walzer’s video on Just War Theory, explain his idea of the “moral equality of soldiers on the battlefield,” and discuss the ways in which this equality might complicate the utilitarian goal of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number. After watching Michael Walzer’s video on Just War Theory his idea of "moral equality of soldiers on the battlefield" Soldiers on both sides just or unjust have equal rights to shoot their guns so long as they shoot each other and not at an innocent civilian. War itself is a required independence and grant soldiers on both sides equal rights. It is also mentioned that soldiers on the battlefield are moral equals. Self defense is a justification of a just war. So basically he is saying as long as soldiers are shooting other soldiers in self defense and no civilians get hurt it is a just war and is showing moral  equal quality on both sides. He uses the example of a bank robbery in comparison of moral equality between the bank robber and the guard. He says the guard has more rights then the bank robber because it is just cause to protect the innocent and protect his rights to keep the bank safe. Here he is telling us their is no moral equality present. The bank robber is morally wrong and is putting innocent people is danger which makes it an unjust situation. When discussing equality and how it might complicate the utilitarian goal of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number. He is stating that soldiers are taught to fight for their country for the greatest good by winning the war even though it isn't the choice of the greatest number of people. Soldiers on both sides feel the same uncertainty and strangeness when risking the lives of near by civilians. As long as they are fighting in a way of self-defense it is justified as for the greater of the good. Utilitarian may see this as not generating the net good for the greatest number because people's lives are being lost. Gina WestmontTV. (2013, March 7). What is just war theory, Michael Walzer, Feb. 21, 2013 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/9f4XuOkMCSA

• • • Go To Parent

After watching Michael Walzer’s video on Just War Theory, explain his idea of the “moral equality of soldiers on the battlefield,” and discuss the ways in which this equality might complicate the utilitarian goal of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number.

After watching Michael Walzer’s video on Just War Theory his idea of "moral equality of soldiers on the battlefield" Soldiers on both sides just or unjust have equal rights to shoot their guns so long as they shoot each other and not at an innocent civilian. War itself is a required independence and grant soldiers on both sides equal rights. It is also mentioned that soldiers on the battlefield are moral equals. Self defense is a justification of a just war. So basically he is saying as long as soldiers are shooting other soldiers in self defense and no civilians get hurt it is a just war and is showing moral  equal quality on both sides. He uses the example of a bank robbery in comparison of moral equality between the bank robber and the guard. He says the guard has more rights then the bank robber because it is just cause to protect the innocent and protect his rights to keep the bank safe. Here he is telling us their is no moral equality present. The bank robber is morally wrong and is putting innocent people is danger which makes it an unjust situation. When discussing equality and how it might complicate the utilitarian goal of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number. He is stating that soldiers are taught to fight for their country for the greatest good by winning the war even though it isn't the choice of the greatest number of people. Soldiers on both sides feel the same uncertainty and strangeness when risking the lives of near by civilians. As long as they are fighting in a way of self-defense it is justified as for the greater of the good. Utilitarian may see this as not generating the net good for the greatest number because people's lives are being lost.

Gina

WestmontTV. (2013, March 7). What is just war theory, Michael Walzer, Feb. 21, 2013 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/9f4XuOkMCSA

100-125WORD COUNT

Jamante Galvin

• • • Go To Parent

Is it ever morally permissible to lie to someone? Describe a circumstance in which it seems that lying might make more people happy than telling the truth.  Would lying be the right thing to do in that circumstance, or is it our moral duty to tell the truth, even then?  Consider what Immanuel Kant would say, and explain that with reference to this week’s readings.  Then, offer your own perspective.  If you agree with Kant, consider and respond to an objection to his view.  If you disagree with Kant, explain why.  Discuss the positive and negative aspects of deontological theory as it relates to another of the theories you have encountered in this course.

Sometimes we may lie to protect someone else feelings even though we may not mean to lie intentionally. For example, telling someone that they prepared a delicious home cooked meal after they have slaved over a hot stove knowing that deep down inside the food tastes awful to you. Lying in this case would be morally wrong because I believe that we can handle situations such as these delicately. Furthermore, Kant’s stance on lying is stern. He does not believe in misleading someone even if the lie is a small lie is morally wrong, “and since we presumably do not want to be lied to, we should not lie to others” (Mosser 2013). Also, Kant thoughts are that humans have the dignity to be ethical in their own decisions and lying affects others of their freedom to choose rationally. I agree that we can never be afraid to tell the truth to someone even if their feelings are going to be hurt. You may lose some friendships along the way or maintain healthy friendships. Honestly, I believe that if you are upfront with someone, they will actually respect you more because you are being real with them instead of being fake.

Positive aspects of deontology ethics is the obligation of one to carry out moral acts without the actions of consequences. In contrast, consequentialism theory is the consequences of one’s conduct are the basis for their judgment about right or wrong. Deontologist believe consequences should not play a role in someone’s morals. The negative aspect of deontology ethics, is the refusal to acknowledge the acts of consequences whether it is good, bad or neutral.

                                                                References

Mosser, K. (2013). Understanding philosophy. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

100-125 WORD COUNT 

·         Jasmine Longino

• • Go To Topic

Week 3 Discussion

3.      Is it ever morally permissible to lie to someone? Describe a circumstance in which it seems that lying might make more people happy than telling the truth.  Would lying be the right thing to do in that circumstance, or is it our moral duty to tell the truth, even then?  Consider what Immanuel Kant would say, and explain that with reference to this week’s readings.  Then, offer your own perspective.  If you agree with Kant, consider and respond to an objection to his view.  If you disagree with Kant, explain why.  Discuss the positive and negative aspects of deontological theory as it relates to another of the theories you have encountered in this course.

I believe that it’s never morally permissible to lie to anyone. I always would like people to tell me the truth, so I feel obligated to do the same. I do understand that there are instances when people may be lying to me and I do not know. Being honest helps me sleep better at night knowing that I am doing the right thing and if someone else decides that they want to do otherwise, that is on their conscience. A circumstance that lying may have benefits the parties would be when I had to tell children that Santa was not real. They had believed this for years and they had never asked me before. After I broke the news to them some of them started to cry while others just sat there with a blank stare. Lying may have been right in regards to the children’s sadness but it is more important to have correct knowledge over emotional fabricated stories. I do believe that it was my moral duty to tell the children because if they still decided to believe in Santa then, at least they would know the truth. According to Kant, “high faculties are and always should be preferred over the lower ones” (Kant, I.,2008). The high faculty in that situation was the knowledge and truth and Kant would agree that I made to right decision. An objection to this view would be that the children would have been happier by having something positive to believe in. Deontology tells us that we are obligated to do what is moral. I made a moral decision to tell the children the truth even if it hurt their feelings, it was my duty. A positive aspect on deontology is that it follows the rues of duty and puts aside emotions and consequences. A negative aspect is that in utilitarianism the greatest good for the majority takes precedent, and in deontology that is not the case. An example would be if someone stole food. I would be obligated to jail that person versus just letting him take the food so that he does not starve.

References

Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals. In J. Bennett (Ed. & Trans.), Early Modern Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/kant1785.pdf (Original work published in 1785)

100-125 WORD COUNT