Post 4

My moral system is based off what the Bible teaches is right and wrong. I try my best to do what is best for others as well as myself. I try to live my life to how God would want me to live. I believe that people should be treated fairly and respectfully. I have learned the morals I have from my family, friends, and church. Jesus gives many examples in the Bible of what is right and wrong. I do my best to do God’s will. When I don’t know what to do in a situation I think about what God would want me to do, then I think about what I want to do, then I think about the consequences of each choice would bring. To figure out what is the right answer I know that I should do what God would want me to do.
Kant believes that the only good without qualification is good will. He would say that I should do things only because I acknowledge the duty I have to help others when I have the means to do so. Kant bases his theory on good will because he believes that good will is the only thing that is good in any circumstance. The act itself is purely good. Kant would not want me thinking about what the outcome of the situation would be, or what kind of consequences I would have. He believes that people should not rely on inclinations. They should ignore any inclinations they have to do something. Kant would recommend that I follow the principle of categorical imperative. This idea is that good morale is found behind the reason and the choice that the person makes based off of duty alone. Duty is not doing something because it will make you feel good or because you think it will bring you bad consequences. A duty is following a universal law. A law that everyone can follow and it will help the good of the people and the world. Lying, for instance, would not be a good universal law. Acting in reverence to the laws that aid the common good of the world, and aiding those in need when you have the means to do so are the morals Kant would try to teach me. I believe that Kant would reason that I should do my duty as a human being and follow the laws and the universal laws. Doing things solely due to duty would be a hard task to manage. Trying to keep all outside feelings, emotions, urges, and influences out of a decision would be difficult. I think Kant’s beliefs of morality make it hard to categorize anyone’s choices as being morale.
Mill, on the other hand, would want me to do what makes me happy. His ideal principle is the greatest happiness principle. He believes that the most important thing a person can do is promote happiness and stray from pain. Mill sees happiness as being a lack of pain and the presence of pleasure. His utilitarian beliefs are quite different from my own. I prefer to do God’s will and do things for others. He could argue that those things make me happy and give me pleasure. His utilitarian theory is that pleasure and happiness bring about goodness in people’s lives. It is the greatest good, in fact. He would tell me to do whatever it is that makes me happy. However, in the case that there is a situation that there are two pleasures and I must choose between the two he believes that the greater pleasure should be chosen. The pleasure that the majority prefer is the greater pleasure. People should promote the happiness of the general people as well as themselves. In doing what the general people want, by making them happy, that person to make them happy in turn becomes happy themselves. There is pleasure from making others happy. People feel good about themselves when they do something to make other people happy. The more pleasure people spread to others, the more pleasure they have with themselves as well. Mill would tell me that I’m on the right track by doing things to make others happy, however I need to also do things for my pleasure as well.