Download "Jimmy Wright" <jimmywright@hotmail

From: "Jimmy Wright" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Thought Essay #1
According to Thomas Hobbes, were the attacks on September 11th, 2001 justified or
not? What about the U.S. retaliation in Afghanistan
In an analysis of the attacks on September 11th, Thomas Hobbes would most likely
contend that the reasons for those attacks would fall under all three of the "principal
causes of quarrel:" the competition would lie between American/Western ideals and
Islamic ideals, the diffidence comes in that many non-Western states blame the United
States for exploitation of people and values in other countries thus causing Al Qaeda to
resort to violence in an attempt to protect their homeland, and finally the glory associated
with crippling the United States and becoming a famous, or infamous, rebel against the
hegemonic oppressor that is the United States. But where would Hobbes stand on the
ethics of the attacks? Hobbes contends that there is no such thing as "right" and
"wrong" in the world because there is no universal power to rule over all of humanity.
Without this commonwealth of humanity, "[t]he notions of right and wrong, justice and
injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law: where
no law, no injustice" (Hobbes 32). According to Hobbes, the attacks on 9/11 and the
subsequent retaliation by the United States in Afghanistan were simply an expression of
the nature of humanity; and, it is an excellent explanation of the right of nature which he
defines as
the liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation
of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything,
which in his own judgment and reason he shall conceive to be the aptest means
thereunto (Hobbes 33).
But what about the martyrs on the planes who sought a cause greater than their own
lives? How does Hobbes explain their behavior? Although the suicide attacks were a
violation of the law of nature-a precept by which man is forbidden to do that which is
destructive of his life-it is not necessarily a violation of the right of nature-in which his
nature is not necessarily limited to preserving his own life, but can encompass his way of
life (Hobbes 33). Thus, Hobbes would say that the events surrounding September 11th
are perfect examples of how humanity is at war with itself, but human nature denies
ethics due to its inherent liberty and lack of a common authority.
From: [email protected]
Subject: Weekly Thought Essay #1
The Josephus Institute reading asserts that ethical values have to be universal
to be considered ethical. Universal, according to their argument, means that
it is, a) right, good and proper [1], b) there is consensus on its universality
(there has been little disagreement on whether it is ethical, historically
[4]). Universal ethics are moral norms that we ought to abide by if we want to
be right, good, and proper. The Institute argues that trustworthiness,
respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship are all universal
ethical norms. Mencius asserts a different, but very similar set of values.
He believes that goodness is intrinsic, and we have values of humanity,
righteousness, propriety, and wisdom.
I believe Mencius’s ethical norms better meet the test than the Institutes.
All of the Institutes ethical norms are “good” but are not necessarily right
and proper. The reading does not convince me that trustworthiness, citizenship
and caring meet the consensus part of the test. Caring seems to be more of a
personal or societal moral, than a universal ethic. According to the Institue,
if a person were to not care about someone, then they would be acting
unethically. Caring implies worrying or thinking about someone else’s
physical, emotional or mental being. Some people are so evil that all persons
should not care about them. They might pity them or show commiseration towards
them, as Mencius says, but caring is a much stronger word that is not
necessarily a norm or universally accepted.
The Institute’s norms seem to impose more specific moral norms on you that do
not feel universal as a whole. Mencius uses broader terms that can be more
universally accepted across cultures and value systems. By using broader
terms, Mencius presents ethical norms that are right, good, and proper, but
that do not come into question as easily in regards to universal consensus.
From: "Adena Young" <[email protected]>
The readings were quite interesting as the relevance of the authors’ ideas could be
tested on Willie Stark. Some of the readings better fit Governor Stark than others, but I
think the best description of his character and actions are a combination of concepts.
Thomas Hobbes describes Stark’s logic regarding MacMurfee. He writes that "if any two
men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become
enemies; an in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and
sometimes their declaration only, endeavor to destroy or subdue one another" (30).
Stark was highly interested in self-promotion. The men were enemies as they both
wanted political advancement, which is something they could not both achieve at once.
Hobbes also states that each person is governed by his or her own reasoning.
Individuals’ actions are influenced by what they see as right and wrong, which differs
from person to person. Like Thrasymachus, I believe that Stark, as a political leader,
would say that he was seeking what was in his best interest, but in doing so he was also
seeking good for the people. Stark’s justification for acting politically was to help the
people, especially the poor. Yet, one’s perspective determines what he or she believes
to be in their best interest. Likewise, I think one’s perspective determines what he or she
considers ethical and unethical. Despite the "ought" ethics, which are standard and
established norms that apply to everyone, I think we hold different standards for different
people on how one "ought" to behave. For example, the rich would be more likely to
consider Stark’s actions unethical, while poor people would consider him to be ethical.
X-Originating-IP: [67.209.30.249]
From: "Sha Embree" <[email protected]>
To: "Tim O'Neill" <[email protected]>
Subject: Thought Essay
Sha Embree
Thought Essay #1
September 2, 2002
Gilligan's article raises the question, if there is a difference between men and women's
concepts of eithics, how does that effect women leaders and women's role in politics? It
is very apparent the shortage of women in politics. We have seen an increase in
women's
role in politics. However, would we not agree that the idea of a women President is a
long
ways off? The characters of Lucy Stark and Sadie both had loyality to Willie Stark.
However, their values or ethics differ greatly. Lucy Stark had a sence of loyality and
duty to support her family and husband. Sadie's loyality benefited herself. Both of the
characters are very different, but yet seemed to have that passive or
nonjudgemental, unconditional loyality to Willie Stark. These women are portrayed
somewhat powerless in their situation. Is that by choice or circumstance? Have women
moved away from these stereotypes? Do women's ethics change with love and
obligation?
Gilligan suggest that women are bound by different guidelines for their ethics and
values.
Could this difference be what holds women back in politics? I fear that if women moved
away from thier nuturing and caring nature to adapt to a black and white set of ethics,
women would have less to offer as a mother, wife and neighbor and I dare say a citizen.
If Lucy Stark exposed Willie's affairs, would he have been elected. What
about Hilary Clinton. What kind of ethics does she demostrate to women? If the tables
were turned, how would we feel if Hilary had the affairs and Bill "stood by his woman"?
There is a diffenence, but are we better or worse for it?
Jack Zinda
The test on whether or not a value is universal is whether it remains morally righteous
under any given situation. This means that it’s a rule that applies under any given condition. It
would be harder for the institute to pass this test, because it speaks about ethics in terms of many
specific rules that will always apply. Many of the ethical guidelines seem that they could be
contradictory in and of themselves, and they may not apply in every situation. Mencius’s list of
ethical values seem to pass this test, because his definition uses the ideal that every person
inherently knows what is ethical or not in any given situation. By being less specific with its
ethical guidelines Mencius passes the test on universal values more easily than the Josephson
Institute.
Thomas Hobbes’ opinion would come closest support Thrasymachus’ opinion that who
ever has the most power is able to determine what is ethical and justice. Hobbes does not state
exactly this, but instead says that you should try to do the right thing as long as others desire it as
well. They both agree that if you have the ability to act in a certain way than you have the right
to do so. Hobbes ideal on this is more restrictive than that of Thrasymachus’.
Ethics does not seem to be based on gender. Ethics seems gender neutral, but a person’s
point of view on ethics can differ greatly depending on their environment. Therefore it may
appear that the reason behind why two people have different ethical standards is from their
gender, when instead it was from their environmental surroundings.
Willie’s justification that everything is bad until man creates good out of it therefore it is
justified to do good as long as the outcome is positive. This is contradicted by What is Ethics
Anyway? . Willie Stark had no ethical standards and only followed his own personal values.
Mencius also would disagree with Stark’s ethical standards. He says that everyone knows the
ethical thing to do in any situation. According to this Willie had others, like Jack, violate what
they felt were the ethically proper things to do.