“Higher Pleasure” vs “Lower Pleasure”

I am convinced that it is an individual’s choice whether “higher” pleasure outdoes the “lower” physical pleasure or vise versa. In other words, only a person themselves can determine which pleasure is the best pleasure for them. For example, there are some people who wed because their spouse is very attractive, while others wed because of the inner connection that a person shares with the other. I personally think that “higher” pleasure is better than “lower” pleasure. On the other hand, it is possible that “higher” pleasure can be accomplished only when the “lower” pleasure is achieved. For example, lets say there is a couple who just married. They were very attracted to each other when they first met. That brings about “lower” pleasure. Then, as years went by, they began to really appreciate one another, and evidently end up falling in love. This brings about “higher” pleasure. Therefore, higher pleasure is accomplished only when lower pleasure is achieved.

Utilitarianism

I feel that a person should be held morally accountable for their actions depending on certain circumstances. Let’s say a woman named Lisa Keesa proposed to do something moral, such as donating a kidney to someone who is sick and desperately needs it in order to survive. Lisa follows all the procedures, goes to the hospital, has the doctors remove her kidney, then has the doctors place her kidney into the sick man named Joe Shmo. A couple of years later, Joe is diagnosed with being a manic depressant. One morning, as he’s getting onto the train to go to work, he decides to kill 10 people sitting on that train. Would Lisa be responsible for the deaths of the 10 people sitting on that train that day? If it wasn’t for Lisa donating the kidney, then Joe Shmo would have died and therefore the lives of the 10 people that day on the train would have been spared. I believe that Lisa had good intentions the day she decided to donate her Kidney. How could she know that years down the road, Joe Shmo would kill 10 people one day? Utilitarianism is defined as an ethical theory that all actions should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In this situation, utilitarianism would say that what Sara did was immoral because it ended up doing more bad than good. I feel that Lisa had good intentions by donating the kidney therefore her intentions should be factored into the morality of an action. 

DCT God Moral or Immoral?

The term rational is defined as: reasonable or sensible. Irrationality is defined as: not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical. Therefore, if God is irrational, then He is deprived of mental sensibility. If one lacks mental sensibility then how can that individual comprehend the intricacy of certain moral issues? If God is deprived of mental sensibility He cannot understand why something is right as opposed to wrong. God needs to be rational in order to make the distinction between right and wrong with regard to moral issues. Therefore, the God in Divine Command Theory is immoral simply because he does not possess the competence to differentiate between right and wrong.

Divine Command Theory

All throughout the world, there are people who live out their daily lives devoted to their religion. Many people follow and worship God and believe Him to be the most powerful being to ever exist. Divine Command Theory is a term that states an act is only good if God says it is. I disagree with this theory; however, I do believe that if this theory were completely false it would affect religion immensely. Some people who believe in God would be lost knowing that God Himself cannot decide morality. This might force a firm believer to reevaluate their beliefs, and perhaps diminish their devotion to their religion. If the most powerful being who created the world can not decide on what is right or wrong, then his followers might question the teachings they have followed so faithfully.

Cultural Relativism

In Southern California, there was a teacher who taught English as a second language to a class of Southeast Asian students. The teacher began to develop a great relationship with all of her students. The teacher later became pregnant while teaching her students. The students were so thrilled for her; they decided to throw a baby shower in her honor. The teacher gave birth to a beautiful and healthy baby girl. Several days later, the students found out she had a girl. The teacher was astonished to find cards of condolences that she had received from her students. Finally the teacher asked the students why she was receiving such cards. They began to explain that in their culture having a boy as the first child was something to celebrate. Therefore, when she had given birth to a baby girl as her first child, the students all sympathized for her because it was a disappointment not having a boy as their first child.

I think that cultural relativism plays a significant role in this situation. In our culture, we are taught that all babies are a blessing no matter what sex it might be. It was shocking to see how these students were showing sympathy for giving birth to a healthy baby girl, just because they did not have a boy as their first child.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!