Famine, Affluence, and Morality - Assignment Example

Questions

2. Body-soul dualism creates an illusion of separateness. In Judeo-Christian perspective, the body is widely considered as sinful, angry animal creature. Lust and hunger are shown as the instincts worthy of a pig. At the same time, it can be noted that it is also noted in Christianity that a body is the God’s temple, and it is a duty to care properly about it. However, mainly Judeo-Christian paradigm imposes a variety of limitations connected with bodily issues, usually neglecting its value. The soul is important, the body is a flesh simply that will be abandoned after the death. It is important to be ascetic.

At the same time, the attitude to body in Hinduism, for instance, is quite opposite. There is no condemnation of the lust, and coitus is considered as a sacred act, as it is in Tantrism. Maithuna is a spiritual connection between a man and a woman. Through it people may reach God. It is a kind of worshipping. There is no strict distinction, which would say that the soul is pure and the body is dirty and undeserved. Nevertheless, there are many sadhu in India, who abandoned mundane worldly issues and lead ascetic lives.

Underlining the before mentioned, there are views that a body is a limitation in spiritual growth, and views that consider it as a tool for it. My point of view is an integrative one. It can appear to be a trap, when a person is stuck in fulfillment of only bodily desires and searches for only their gratification through their pursuits. However, I accept that the body was given to humans on purpose, so that they have to learn to deal with it as a tool. People do not have to become sages and leave the society. Body with its needs, just as well as society, serve as a background for spiritual growth. Spirituality, which is based on the running away from the difficulties of living in society or suffering from the incongruence that takes place regarding own body, is not a fair spirituality. Harmony between the body and the soul ought to be reached. In case it is established, soul does not have to fight with the body in order to transcend the temptations of the flesh. Just as the knife, which itself is not harmful, it is just a tool – the body may serve for the greater good or spoil the aspirations of the soul, if its meaningful value is misunderstood.

Enjoying bodily pleasures without shame or guilt is a proper view. It is not to say that excessive gratification of the bodily needs is an appropriate way. The sound measure has to be considered. It is an essential distinction, which may serve as a measure. Hedonism deals with satisfaction of the desires. Desires are considered and accepted as spiritual. Epicurean view also imposes value in pleasures. However, he distinguishes higher and lower pleasures. Himself he was quite ascetic, so far, his pleasures obtained the different value. I agree with this core distinction. Even though it is a pleasure that can be found in tasty food and drinks, or sexual activities or massage, or other bodily pleasures – those who have tried intellectual, spiritual or creative pleasures, would know how deep and overwhelming there are. They would strive to get those pleasures. Mundane pleasures cannot be compared with them. So far, the body does not have to be denied; it has to be integrated, while the priority still has to be placed on the virtues of the soul.

3. The conflict of determinism and the free will is a contradictive, yet reasonable one. Determinism perspective claims that all the choices and deeds are determined by the preceding factors and experiences. So far, they can be predicted, as there are causal connections. These connections enable scientific development. At the same time, it is accepted that people obtain a free will, which allows them to choose consciously and act accordingly. My opinion is that even though determinism works, people still have a free will and are capable to act beyond all own predispositions and, thus, are responsible for all own actions, disregarding any circumstances, even though they definitely determine their choices and behavior – either consciously, or subconsciously.

Determinism would be considered first. It is true that person’s psyche is built from the early childhood and all the experiences shape the further development, which is true for the whole lifespan. People are bonded by circumstances they have to face. It can be distinguished several types of determinism. Among them vital are biological, genetic determinism and social determinism.

Genetic determinism can be defined evidently – for instance, IQ level is connected with genes. Physical appearance is also shaped by the random parents’ chromosomes combination. People widely suffer from own dissatisfaction with own bodies – for instance, an external appearance and health. It is determined from their conception. For instance, if an individual was born with wide bones and the parents are overweighed, it is hardly possible that such person will become a ballerina. However, I assume that any background can be and has to be developed. All the backgrounds were given on purpose; people are born for different goals. Individual may shape own appearance with own efforts to improve it.

Biological determinism may be connected also with the lifestyles. For instance, bad habits as smoking and drinking alcohol determine bad health. So far, genetically healthy person may ruin own health; while less healthy from birth person may lead a healthy life style and save and increase own health. The same concerns food habits. There are biological laws that determine the outcomes – this way, they act just as like as genetic determinism.

Social determinism is connected with the conditions set by the society. Family, school and working environment – all these have an influence on the individual. Values that are accepted within the society and norms it considers, act as the powerful determinants of the population’s behaviors. People may act according to those limitations and incentives or tend to show non-conformism – yet still the rules of the surrounding environment determine both types’ attitudes and behaviors.

Free will proposes an opposite view. It states that people as cognizant individuals are allowed to settle on really undetermined decisions. I assume that people can not get rid of influences caused by their experiences. They are determined in their actions, choices, feelings and even thoughts. Subconsciousness obtains data that shapes all these aspects. Children grow up to repeat their parents’ behavioral patterns. Nevertheless, even taking into consideration all the before mentioned, still people can do efforts to establish own freedom from these patterns or influences caused by traumatic past. Even being born and grown up in the negative environment, still, a person may create the own way that would be different.

5. Ideal morality is not relative – it is absolute. It is fair and equal to everyone. However, unfortunately, in modern reality it is seen that morality is widely relative. It appeals to the customs and accepted laws. As a vivid example, it can be provided a story of Nujood – a girl who was forced to marry a man being very young. In the book I Am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced she shares her story. Her father just decided that she has to marry. She had no right of choice. Her new husband raped her the first night after their marriage, disregarding the fact that he promised her father not to do so. He used to beat her as well. Her mother-in-law was a very evil woman. She taught her son that if Nujood does not obey him, he has to beat her stronger. She has to obey him, as she is his wife, she said. Her father would not allow a divorce, as he cared about his so-called ‘honor’ which probably meant that he was afraid to face shame from the local men. Nujood’s family did not help her. She ran away once and found a judge and a female lawyer who helped her with the divorce. She wrote books, earned money and went to study abroad to become a lawyer to help other women.

Such practices cannot be imagined in the European countries, where people obtain the freedom of choice and speech. Local customs allowed early marriages. After that case with Nujood, laws have changed to make it forbidden. This case shows the way in which morality may appear to be relative. In many countries, women are treated as the second-class indeed. They obtain little power and freedom. In the developed countries, women are considered as equal to men. The seemingly have the equal chances for a solid career or leading positions. Companies implement equality principles and programs, which include diversity on all the levels. However, not all the companies are free from sexism or discrimination. People may have equal opportunities as announced; however, the reality shows what it is actually like. In modernity, there are many tools and programs that try to provide all the people with equal rights.

However, all the debates around the unequal distribution of goods and professional positions seem irrelevant when considering practices as clitoral circumcision. It is absolutely suppressing, discriminating and humiliating practice. It definitely does not have to be tolerated. Whenever it may happen, it should be condemned. The first reason is that people have the same biological background; women have the same structure, disregarding their ethnical origin. It is not moral that some part of women on the planet suffer from eliminating of particular very important parts of their bodies – even if some people accept that it is moral to oppress women in such a dreadful way. Secondly, Peter Singer in his article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” stated that it does not matter, whether a person in trouble is a close person nearby, or a stranger in the other part of the globe – both they deserve the equal right for care. The third reason is that ill morality can be compared to illness: it may spread. In case people accept wrongdoings nearby, they may spoil the own positive environment. As the fourth reason, I would appeal to the utilitarian perspective and say that such deeds does not increase overall happiness but increase the common amount of pain. As the fifth point, it can be noted a principle of universalizability – which means that an act may be considered as moral in case it may be accepted as a universal law. No moral universal law would support common clitoral circumcision. So far, such practices have to be condemned.

6. Psychological egoism is a perspective that accepts that all the human actions are based on the self-interest. Psychological altruism, on the other hand, claims that people are eligible to act according to the ultimately altruistic motifs. Psychological definitions of egoism and altruism are based on the empiric data; they show the issues as they are seen currently. Ethical definition focuses on the way how the things have to be performed. Ethical egoism claims that a person ought to act in accordance with self-interest. It is a kind of prescription to search for own welfare. These actions are not necessarily selfish; people may follow and fulfill own desires which would lead to the greater good. At the same time, many harmful deeds may be composed due to altruistic aspiration. Ethical altruism states that a person has to consider the interests of the other people as if they were higher than own one. Sometimes it may mean sacrificing own interests or even own life. Altruism can be defined as living for the others. Own interest is disregarded.

I suppose that it has to the ‘Middle Path.’ The actions have to appeal to both own interests and the welfare of the other people. Even though it be an absolute moral code, either handed down to us by previous generations, or from an original revelation by God, it has to be adopted to the modern society. There are rules of morality that had significant value for centuries and thousands of years, for instance, compassion. These rules are to be accepted, since they really matter, merely than because it is simply a religion of ancestors to be accepted, which is valid prima facie. I agree that it has to be based upon self-evident moral principles to be followed. They can be based on either altruism, or egoism; or both of them, which, I believe, is more reasonable.

My point of view is that it is fair to consider both own interests and welfare of the other people. It concerns both close people and those, who are strangers. An individual does not have to abandon own interests for the sake of the other people. There are critical cases, when a person may give away his or her life to save something more significant. However, in everyday life it would be fair to build up a sound balance between the needs of the others and own interests. In can be noted deservedly that there are various levels of desires, and lower desires can be easily abandoned for the sake of the higher ones. In my point of view, it may serve as a determinant of own actions. In case the objective value of the own desire or need is higher than those of the other people, it has to be placed higher. However, realizing that the desires or goals of the other people are higher and are worthy indeed, it would be fair to put the emphasis on them, even abandoning own wishes.

7. The most persuasive perspective on morality to me is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical convention, which presumes that the delight of the most number of individuals is perceived as more prominent's benefit. As per this method of reasoning, an activity is ethically right if its outcomes lead to satisfaction (or nonappearance of torment and enduring), and is it prompts pain (Mill). Since the relationship of actions and their outcomes, positive or negative, cannot be derived from the circumstances, no ethical rule is fundamental in itself under utilitarianism.

There is a distinction between pleasure and utility. Even though utility as a greater good is essential, utilitarianism is not a rejection of pleasure. Ultimate delights, as demonstrated by Epicurus are not standard unremarkable lower joys yet rather altogether a more prominent measure of perfect state, satisfying and heavenly. Greatest Happiness Principle, else called as the Creed of Utility, says that activities are right in extent as they have a tendency to advance joy, wrong as they tend to deliver the opposite of joy, which implies pain and agony.

Some of the critics express a view that it is an approach deserving of a swine – to fall simply in delights satisfaction and gratification of desires and pleasures. In any case, typically they are not by any means acquainted with the significant delights. Higher joys are achievable for individuals. Individuals need higher delights that are unavoidably associated with excellencies, or virtues. Mill says individuals want only pleasure and happiness. Virtue is generally isolated from pleasures and happiness. However, virtues are the indistinguishable piece of deep happiness, so individuals want it. Along these lines, delight and bliss are not repudiating but rather joined together. The best point of utilitarianism, for me, is its flexibility and adaptation. There are no strict standards. People have to define the measures and analyze own contributions.