One of the most basic kind structures through which the ego comes into existence is identification. The word identification is derived from the latin word idem meaning same and facere which means to make. So when i identify with something, I “make it the same.” The same as what? The same as I. I endow it with a sense of self, and so it becomes part of my “identity.” One of the most basic levels of identification is with thing: My toy later becomes my car, my house, my clones, and so on. I try and find myself in things but never quite make it and end up losing myself in them. That is the fate of ego.

“And when you’re living in America, at the end of the millineum, you’re what you own. So I won not a notion. I escape and ape content. I don’t own emotion, I rent.”

If distance makes the heart grow fonder,
Space and time the mind will ponder,
And search forever for the day,
We’ll play our parts while hearts grow stronger.

So close your eyes and search with me,
A way to live vicariously
Through tales of lust, and love, and laughter.
To find that thing called Ever After.

Scientist example:

“They justify these experiments by saying that you will help them advance science and that the research leading to your death will result in life-saving drugs that will benefit thousands in their country and throughout the world. You protest what they are about to do is morally wrong. However, they explain that morality is simply a matter of personal opinion. They ask, who are you to say that we are morally wrong?” Isn’t it absurd to claim that as long as the scientists sincerely believe they are doing the right thing, no one should question their actions?”

This poses a huge problem in the ethical relativism theory. If what is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion, how can we defend our own morals against those who oppose them? Lawhead describes the error in the theory when he states that “the ethical relativists go further and clams that there are no objective considerations by means of which we can say that a particular moral judgment is mistaken or that some moral judgments are better than others.” This is where I disagree with ethical relativism.

However, there is a division of ethical relativism that solves said problem and that Lawhead poses no argument against. Subjective ethical relativism is “the doctrine that what is right or wrong is solely a matter of each individual’s personal opinion. This theory combines the idea that morals differ from person to person, yet deciding what is right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion. This theory gives us the ability to defend our morals against those that differ and also allows us to fight to preserve the opinions of those who share the same morals. Therefore in the example with the scientists, we would be able to defend our stance that to kill in the name of science is wrong to me, and therefore they should not be allowed to continue. This can be applied to the United States’ fight to spread democracy or liberation. We cannot impose our morals on those who believe differently, but only defend those people who share our morals. We cannot act out against a country who, shall we say, force women to be completely covered in public, because we feel it is morally wrong and they believe it to be morally right. We can, however, intervene if there are people in said country who do not believe it is morally right to force women to be covered while in public because we are simply defending our own personal morals, and not simply attacking those who do not share them.

It is clear to me that ethics are a matter of personal opinion because of how many conflicts have been caused between races, within societies, and between individuals because of them. Wars have been started over differences in ethics, debates rage on within societies on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage. This goes to show that ethics cannot be universal or even culturally specific. They can only be a matter of personal opinion and what’s right or wrong may only be decided by each individual. We then have the right to defend our own morals and the people who share them. Although we may have to submit ourselves to the opposing morals of the majority, this does not mean we must be defined by their morals too. Submitting ourselves to a democratic government gives us the opportunity to voice the opinions that determine our ethics and allows ourselves the opportunity to have them represented by our government. For if we did not choose to unify in such a way, personal ethics would cause so much conflict between individuals that we would enter into a constant state of war. We must be given the opportunity to submit ourselves to a state who shares our most precious morals therefore giving us the ability to defend them and also be given the opportunity to change the state to better represent our ethics.

Ethics and the questions that this branch of philosophy conceives have always been an anomaly to me. Ethics covers such a broad range of ideas and philosophies that although it may be tough to understand, it is a vital part in analyzing human behavior and principals. That is why I chose to explore this topic and how I feel it applies to our day to day lives. Throughout my education of this topic, I came to discover that ethics play a role in many more aspects of our lives than I imagined. From religion to politics, ethics and descriptive morality help form how we chose to live our lives and how we interact with people and the world around us. One of the more prominent ethical debates I see arise, is the spread of democracy and the United State’s global influence on our idea of liberation. In thinking about this issue and our involvement in foreign affairs, I noticed that the argument can be simplified into one’s position on ethics and how they relate to us as individuals, communities, societies, and even as a species. Are our morals specific to us as individuals, or do they apply to larger groupings such as societies? Perhaps they are even universally applicable. Can we pass judgment onto others based on whether we believe their morals to be right or wrong? These are the questions I asked myself in my philosophical journey.

My first goal was to gain an understanding of what the word ethics truly means. Ethics can be defined as “a different philosophical field…concerned with what we ought to do, what consequences ought to be achieved, and what sort of persons we ought to become.”I utilized Lawhead’s book for the majority of my research because of clear and specific definitions like these. As you can see from his definition, ethics is a part of everything we do in life. Once I had established a strong understanding of the term ethics, my next goal was to decide how we determine what is morally right or wrong. The divine command theory states that “the rightness or wrongness of an action is intrinsically related to the fact that God either commands it or forbids it.” This theory of ethics is contradictory to my beliefs because I am an atheist. It is important to state this fact because it eliminates many theories from consideration. This belief allows me to eliminate many other theories on ethics as possibilities for my way of thinking. That leads me to question then that if there is no higher power determining what is morally right or wrong, how do I determine it? I could evaluate such things as motive and consequence but it always leads me back to the fact that one’s morals should reflect self-interest. If the motives and consequences best serve my interests in order for me to live a healthy and happy lifestyle, then they must be morally right for me.

Determining that I believe what is morally right or wrong is dependent on self-interest was an important part in clarifying my beliefs. My next goal was to establish whether my ethics were subjective or objective. As I have stated, I believe that what is morally right or wrong is based on self interest, which initially sounds like a believer of ethical egoism. Lawhead defines ethical egoism as “the theory that people ought always to do only what is in their own self-interest.” I cannot fully agree with this theory. There have been times in my life where I am presented with an opportunity to sacrifice something in order to benefit another person although the consequences may not reflect my self-interest and I would choose to do so with the satisfaction of knowing that I helped another human being. So although I believe what is right or wrong is based on self-interest, saying that we “ought always to do only what is in their own self interest,” I cannot agree with. To me, it is more important to follow my opinions on what I believe to be right or wrong regardless of how it reflects my interests. For example, if I choose to end my life to save the life of another, I would do so because of my personal opinion on morals and not based out of self-interest in which case my own life would be more valuable. With opinion being the determining factor of right or wrong, I am forced to believe that ethics are not objective, but rather subjective. Lawhead’s definition of ethical relativism is, “the position that there are no objective or universally valid moral principles, because all moral judgments are simply a matter of human opinion. “ For such a strong statement, I had to examine the arguments against ethical relativism to see if I truly believed in this theory. When we compare this theory to its counterpart, objectivism, we find the main difference to be the belief that there are a set of universal morals. For this theory, I can name numerous examples where individuals defied what may have been deemed morally wrong by their society or by any set of universal laws because in their opinion, their actions were morally right. For example, many of today’s societies view suicide as morally wrong, yet people still commit it because they believe it to be morally right for them to end their lives rather than continue it. This example shows how morals may differ from individual to individual. The problem with the example is that although his choice was a matter of personal opinion, do others have the right to question his actions? One main arguement against ethical relativism is presented in a scenario in which foreign doctors want to perform medical experiments on you that will end your life….. more to come in the next post

I was reading about Marx today and I came across some pretty interesting ideas of history and culture. Marx’s theory compares the forces of history to a boulder that someone has sent rolling down a mountain. Once set in motion, the boulder becomes an independent force with it’s own momentum. Obstructions may be set in it’s path to slow it down, or obstacles can be minimized to speed up it’s descent. However, because of its mass and momentum, it cannot be stopped, and when it has passed through each stage of it’s descent, it will finally reach it’s destination. Thus, history is controlled by its own internal laws as well as human actions. The goal of the social activist is to help speed up the inevitable changes of social reform and revolution.
This is a great example of why I think the world is constantly becoming more and more progressive, or why liberalism is so popular among the youth, and conservatism is predominant in the elderly. Let’s face it, the ideas that we support now, that we believe to be progressive and liberal, will eventually become the traditional values that republicans then cling to. Will my ideas and beliefs one day become the old way of thinking? Can democrats in the U.S ever become too liberal to the point where their ideas become radical changes to MY way of living? These are the questions.

Question: Is pride a virtue or sin?
By definition, pride would be the ability to recognize value in one’s self or one’s work. To me, there seems to be little wrong with that definition. However countless times I have heard people state that being proud is a bad thing, or even swallowing your pride is a sign of maturity. But what does it mean to swallow one’s pride? In what situations is this applicable and can be viewed as morally good. Let’s examine the argument or in this case the opposite of pride if it is to be understood as a “bad” thing. Would the opposite then be the characteristic of being humble? If we use aristotle’s barometer of virtue to examine the situation, we would place humbleness on one side of the spectrum, pride in the center meaning the ideal virtue, and arrogance on the opposite side. Dictionary.com’s definition of humble is “having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience etc.” from this definition we can see why it is placed on an extreme side of the spectrum. That’s a no brainer. The same websites definition of pride is “pleasure or satisfaction taken in something done by or belonging to oneself or believed to reflect credit upon oneself.” no arguement with that definition or why it would be seen as the viruous median in this situation. Then we have arrogance, “offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.” this definition sheds some new light on the argument and my main point. Pride cannot be a bad thing. The only reason we view being proud in a negative light is because it hurts peoples feelings. So here is my point, we cannot say that pride is the sin, but the effects of pride is the true transgression of divine law. I will try and clarify with an example my philosophy professor used today in class. Let’s say that the world heavy weight boxing champion of the world makes the statement:
“I am the absolute best boxer in the world.”
Without adding any other elements to the situation, is there anything unvirtuous about his way of thinking. In terms of the competition and those who participate, he has proven himself to be better than any other boxer in the world. Whether he loses the championship at a later date or not, the statement remains true to the moment. In another example, imagine someone approaches me and says I am a stronger man than you are. More likely than not, I would agree with the statement and I cannot say that they are wrong for saying so. If they are stronger than me, then the statement is true and what fault can I find in them for saying so? If pride is a virtue, then I should not try and discourage his way of thinking. The problem that people find these situations is the affects of pride and not pride itself. It is impossible for me to say that I would not be discouraged by the second example and would most likely attempt to defend myself by illustrating something I was proud of or even attempt to challenge the statement even if it was overbearingly true. My problem with the situation would be the arrogance involved, and by definition we know that arrogance is the display of pride.so perhaps arrogance needs to be removed from my Aristotelian barometer. Is there a word that we use that can fit into the spectrum where humbleness is on one side, and pride is in the middle? Perhaps vanity, being defined as “excessive pride in one’s appearance, qualities, abilities, and achievements.” This would be my choice because it best fits the guidelines of our spectrum, whereas humbleness is the negative extreme from lack of pride, pride being the virtue, and vanity being the negative extreme from excessive pride.
So why then does our society so quickly label pride as a sin? I believe it’s origin dates back to around 550 AD. Around this time period Saint Gregory developed a list we most closely relate to our modern definition of the seven deadly sins. Within this list, pride is often regarded as the most serious offense of the seven. It can be reason that this is because of the religious tale of lucifer and his desire to compete with god. This desire was quickly allocated to the result of pride.Think about why pride is one of Saint Gregory’s seven deadly sins (note that there were originally eight). The antagonistic views of pride therefor have always and continue to relate strictly to the effects of pride and not the possession of the quality itself. These are the questions, your answers?