PHIL journal #1

Journal #1: Write a mini-critical essay on some aspect of Singer’s argument in “The Singer Singer’s argument implies that it is selfish of someone to not give substantial amounts of their earnings to people in need. He uses Bob, a man close to retirement and a train track dilemma in which Bob was told to either let a child die or pull a switch that would cause the oncoming train to change directions and hit his bugatti. Ultimately, Bob chose to let the child die. Bob was indeed a selfish man as the dilemma which he faced was urgent, present, and in proximity. However, devoting a majority of your income towards helping the needy should only be expected from the wealthy. As living comfortably is a right as should anyone and with inflation and the current economic state of america it's unfair to expect those lower in the socioeconomic ladder to donate the majority of their income due to their lack of security. With this being said the singer doesn't mention the effects which different economic statuses have on your well being and he also doesn't account for the idea that there will always be someone worse off. Bob was morally vicious for choosing the short term/materialistic happiness of a bugatti over the wellbeing of a child, however, We as people aren't placed in these dilemmas we have the option to try to live comfortably while giving back in the moments where we aren't taking care of our or our loved ones happiness. Journal #2) How do YOU imagine life being like in a “state of nature”? Do you agree or disagree with Hobbes’ account of the State of Nature? Discuss I think you could argue that low-income communities of which are greatly affected by poverty, food insecurity/deserts, poor education, and poor policing essentially are places in which people are in a “state of nature”. Without the necessary goods, services, and institutions in today's day and age it seems extremely easy to be placed into this state of living. Marginalized communities in America feel as though the government doesn't protect them or care for them, their homes aren't safe, and goods and services are not as readily available as they should be. This leads members of the community resorting to crime or immoral acts which individuals feel necessary to get by in life or maintain a certain standard of living for their family. I imagine such a thing to be exhausting to those in it, considering the continuous need to look over your shoulder and the worry of being killed or wronged. In states like this I believe that the people are plagued with ignorance as living in this state implies that your community does not have an education system or rules and growing up like this will ultimately lead to barbaric tendencies. If there is no law prohibiting stealing or killing it would be witnessed more thus desensitizing the viewers to these acts. The only natural conditions which would prevent this are those individuals' moral compasses, however growing up in a state like this provides that you won't understand what's right or wrong. So long as what you're doing assures your survival is all that matters. I agree with Hobbes in that without rules or these institutions governing us and providing us with the necessary information to thrive in a way which benefits all, we would ultimately place ourselves in a state of “war against all”. However I'd like to be optimistic that humankind will never officially stay in this state. Humans work better in groups and it doesn't take much to realize this, stemming from families, then to clans, then to tribes, and then nations being formed.

Said nations should provide a common ground in which members feel as though they are somewhat trusting of one another to not do these things. The “state of nature” which Hobbes speaks of is only a period of time which humans face when anarchy arises, or a gov. Marginalizes a community of peoples. Are you an ethical egoist?Discuss why or why not. Ethical egoists believe that the pursuit of one's own self-interest is the highest moral good, while Moral relativism holds that morals are inherently subjective to one's culture and there is no universal moral standard to live by. One of the main reasons I believe that ethical egoism is the right moral theory for me is because it emphasizes the importance of individual freedom and autonomy. I believe that every person has the right to make their own decisions and pursue their own self-interest, as long as they do not harm others in the process. I believe that this is essential for personal growth and happiness, and that we should all be free to pursue our own goals and desires without interference from others. I feel that while Moral relativism does hold the idea that individuals can act in their own interest it leaves what we determine as morally good or wrong up to culture and culture isn't always fair or positive in essence. Ethical egoism holds more consistently in the long run and doesn't have to come with a narcissistic personality. Rather a true Ethical egoist understands that in most cases bringing about the most good to a group of individuals will benefit you in the long run as well. Ethical egoism also promotes accountability and efficiency through reminding individuals they are responsible for their own happiness and simultaneously motivating to work harder (towards their best self interest). Have you ever felt—like Sisyphus and Phil Connors in the film “Groundhog Day”—like you were stuck in one place, that every day was the same, and/or that nothing you did mattered? How did you deal with your situation? Discuss. The story of Sisyphus, a figure from Greek mythology, has long been seen as a metaphor for the struggles and frustrations of the human condition. In the myth, Sisyphus is punished by the gods for his cunning and deceitfulness by being forced to roll a large boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down as soon as he reaches the top. This cycle is repeated for all eternity, with Sisyphus never able to escape his fate. As a Black man, I can certainly relate to the struggles and frustrations that Sisyphus faced. Like Sisyphus, I often feel as though I am pushing a boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down again and again. The struggle to overcome racism and discrimination, to achieve equality and justice, can be a never-ending battle. But just as Sisyphus found meaning and purpose in his struggle, I find meaning and purpose in mine. I believe that through perseverance and determination, we can eventually reach the top of the hill and achieve true progress and change. And even if we never fully succeed, the journey itself is worth it. As sisyphus teaches us a valuable lesson in understanding the beauty behind a struggle. If we don't take time to appreciate how far we have come in life we won't ever appreciate the happiness any success may bring. Similar to the quote said famously by Albert Camus, “we must imagine sisyphus happy”, and the only way which sisyphus will experience his never ending journey is by appreciating and finding happiness in how far he's come.

these ideas are harmful. Lastly Virtue ethics, which states your moral grounds are rooted in the qualities and characteristics of the individual. Virtue ethics would fall on the side that it's inherently vicious to spread any form of hate rooted in prejudice, especially prejudices against someone's sexuality. In this situation it’d take some explaining that spreading forms of hate or discrimination are vicious actions. Said actions lack the virtue of compassion, fairness, or empathy for individuals in those circumstances. Both Compassion and Empathy involve caring about the well-being of others and wanting to alleviate their suffering. Homophobia, on the other hand, causes harm and suffering to LGBTQ+ individuals and does not show compassion towards them. It is often rooted in fear, ignorance, and a lack of understanding, and it can lead to violence, discrimination, and exclusion. Fairness lies in treating others justly regardless of identity or circumstance. Virtue ethics, would argue that spreading hate or discrimination is a vicious action. Through promoting virtue ethics you promote a more inclusive and respectful community as a whole. All 3 of these philosophies would work in the moral dilemma which I was in as all can be considered a moral framework that promotes equality, respect, and compassion for all individuals. By working together to create a safe and inclusive environment, you foster a sense of belonging and well-being for everyone. What kind of moral development/change of outlook (if any) do the main characters in the film “Please Give” experience over the course of the film? What ethical approaches (e.g. egoism, utilitarianism, duty-ethics, virtue ethics) do each of the characters embody in your opinion? Throughout the film, the main characters go through a process of moral development and change their outlook on various issues. For example, Kate is initially shown as being a little self- centered and materialistic, focused on her own desires and ambitions. She's also shown as being judgmental and critical of others, particularly Andra and her granddaughter (more her husband than her), Rebecca. As the film progresses, however, the characters begin to change and reevaluate their values and priorities. Kate, in particular, goes through a significant moral development and begins to see the world in a different way. She starts to see the value in helping others and becomes more compassionate and empathetic towards Andra and Rebecca. She also becomes more aware of her own flaws and limitations, and begins to take steps to address them. I would say this is a clear representation of her exemplifying Virtue ethics. As she developed a level of moral responsibility in which she felt she wasn't being a virtuous person. In terms of duty ethics, all of the main characters in the film can be seen as embodying examples of this moral theory. Duty ethics is based on the idea that we have moral obligations to treat others with kindness and respect, and to do what is right regardless of the consequences. One example of this is Abby's relationship with her parents, Kate and Alex. Throughout the film, Abby is shown as being resistant and rebellious towards her parents, often ignoring their rules and expectations. However, as she grows and develops as a person, Abby starts to take more responsibility for her actions and decisions, and she begins to show more respect and obedience towards her parents. This demonstrates a sense of duty and responsibility towards her family, as Abby recognizes her moral obligation to be a good daughter and to follow the rules and expectations set for her.Despite these changes, Abby's egoistic tendencies still play a role in her actions and decisions. For example, she is shown as being motivated by her own desires and interests, rather than by the needs and concerns of others. She often puts her own

wants and needs ahead of those of others, and she has a hard time seeing things from their perspective. Rebecca shows a clear representation of this throughout the film as a whole. This is seen in Rebecca's relationship with her grandmother, Andra. Throughout the film, Rebecca is shown as being responsible and caring towards Andra, taking steps to help her and support her in various ways. Understanding it in a way is her duty despite it not being the most fulfilling thing.