James Soper

12/08/14
Intro to Philosophy
Critical Thinking-Group Assignment Paper
1.) I dont think we have any ethical duty with our money, other than to make ourselves
happy by spending it responsibly and within reason of what you need and what you want.
Peter Singer has a great idea on paper but I dont believe in todays world or any future
generations this is a plausible movement that can happen. People hold too many different
philosophies to let something like this become a social norm, outside of aggressive
enforcement by government officials and law enforcement officers this will not happen in
my opinion. My group all came to the same conclusion as me, we all felt it really
depended on an individual basis what he or she does with their money. I liked what
Aristotle had to say on charity and ethics with our money, he thought we should act
virtuous for our own sake, giving money to someone just because you want to help
someone is a good way of using your money but if you are doing this only because you
will receive something in return is the wrong way of using your money.
2.) In my opinion I believe it is ethical to eat meat. I believe more in a naturalists point of
view on the matter, if an animal is put on this earth it has been put into an ecosystem and
in turn into a food chain. Human beings sit on top of the food chain for now, therefore I
think you can eat whatever you want and it will always be ethical (outside of other human
beings of course,) it may be gross or even sad but I dont think we should put any
constraint on what can be eaten. I do think animals can philosophize because they make a
lot of the same primitive decisions that we humans make, like what to eat or whether to

walk to that patch of grass or that group of trees, it may seem simpler but that doesnt
mean its not a decision that was made with a primitive question. The group all came to
the same consensus on this question, we all believed it varied on the individuals assorted
ethics values and even health. I did like what AJ said during this discussion though, I
have him quoted as saying Eating meat doesnt seem to be the bad thing but the way we
kill our meat is. I thought that was a good point of view, and I agree with it. I thought
Aristotle had an interesting idea of the Hierarchy of Souls, he thought there was three
types of souls, a nutritive soul (plants and other organisms that absorb food and
reproduce,) a sensitive soul (living things that are capable of pain and pleasure,) and the
rational soul who is capable of everything.
3.) I believe truth can best be found by using the Socratic Method, by continually asking
questions on the subject at hand and doing this repeatedly until you can come to the
answer that you can least doubt. You must see all sides of an argument or issue to fully
understand it in my opinion, otherwise you seem lazy or ignorant. John thought if it
affected his life than it was the only truth that mattered to him, he seemed to believe in a
more relative idea of what truth was. Grant and AJ thought truth was universal through
the mind of the observer. Again, I believe Socrates had the best method of understanding
reasonable truth, it might drive you crazy to continually ask questions but if you feel
strongly about the subject matter you should understand it through multiple observers.
You dont necessarily have to agree with another persons point of view but that doesnt
mean the persons view isnt valid.
4.) I think good and bad behavior is determined by societys point of view on the behavior in
question, it holds the most weight therefore it will likely be the strongest source of

whether or not this is good or bad. I believe both intent and motivation matter but I think
the intent matters more than the motivation, if I can be more clear I believe moral intent
matters, if what this person does is morally right than I believe his motivation is
irrelevant other than inspiring him to have an intent on doing something morally
acceptable. The group came to a conclusion that intent did matter more than the persons
motivation as well. I think the view Stoics had is relevant on this question, they believed
in improving ethical and moral well-being, to do things without dangerous emotions like
anger, jealousy, and envy. I think if a person had an intent free of these types of
dangerous emotions then they would be thinking righteously.
5.) I think it is less moral, because by acting this way you are not being a virtuous person. If
you believe you are doing a good thing by acting in this way then you have fooled
yourself into thinking you are a good person but really you are being selfish, therefore
your actions have become invalid because of your moral values you have taken. The
group came to a consensus that we believed it was less moral. I think Immanuel Kants
point of view is relevant here, he believed duties are those actions that reason dictates
should be pursued regardless of any gain, or loss to self or other people.
6.) I believe it is more moral to do things with good intent even if it takes a bad action to get
there. There is obviously some extreme ways that can flaw my point of view but I think
in everyday occasions this seems to be the best way to approach things. The group all
thought that it was more moral as well but Grant did think that we should get our facts
straight before we make such hasty actions. A little off topic but I thought I would
counter act my point of view by quoting something I read not too long ago, its an
aphorism of sorts that dates back to the year 1150 by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux he said

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I thought that was an interesting point
of view, it really opened up my mind a little more onto the other side of this question. It
reminded me that even if you have good intentions you may never take the time to
complete the action even if it is deemed necessary.
7.) I think the good life consists of being happy now without negatively affecting others
peoples happiness. I believe a lot in the quote stating that tomorrow is never promised, if
I can take the time (much like the stoics say) to just adjust my attitude to whatever is
going on around me then I have made the first step in living the good life. Ultimately I
want to arrive to the conclusion as I lay on my death bed and start thinking back on my
life I want to feel little to no regrets. On this question the group varied a bit more than we
did in earlier questions, AJ thought he should spend time with friends and be happy
without excess, Grant believed the good life consisted of sacrificing for other peoples
happiness, and that personal happiness was secondary, and lastly John thought he should
have fun and in turn help others have fun as well. I think Aristotle had a great belief
system on what makes up a good life, he thought neither the regular types of pleasure,
wealth, and honor provide an good account living the good life, since even individuals
who acquire the material goods or achieve intellectual knowledge may not be happy. He
thought a happy person will reach a midpoint between reason and desire.
8.) The qualities of a superior individual in my opinion is someone who is true to themselves
and has some sort of non-conformity. If I can stay true to myself than I make up whatever
values and beliefs that I believe in rather than someone elses point of view which I think
is a very inferior way of living your life. Like I stated earlier, I want to live my life with
no regrets and I think having a mind free of social patterns or benchmarks is my ultimate

goal on determining if I have lived a superior life. My fellow group members had
different thoughts on this questions, Grant thought self-sacrifice or selflessness was the
superior way of living, AJ thought it was the person who is willing to speak out that was
the superior individual, and John thought personal accountability was what made up a
superior individual. I thought Nietzsche had a good idea of what makes up a superior
individual, he thought that multiple forms of government represent a rule of the herd
mentality, which seems like a rule of mediocrity. He thought a person should stand out
and be recognized for their talents.
9.) I believe living a happy life is living a good life, being happy is the overall most
important thing to me. In our group we thought happiness was what made up a good life
but we get there in different ways, whether it be sacrificing for other individuals or just
pursing the things that make us as individuals happy. Grant thought immediate
gratification was bad and it should be avoided, which I continued by stating that instant
gratification can be a good thing as long as reason comes first. The Hedonists get a lot of
attention in this sense, some hedonists believe we should avoid all pain and pursue all
pleasures, although there were more reasonable hedonists that came along to put more
logic behind this belief. I can agree with this belief within reason, you shouldnt be
reckless and be too hasty to pursue all pleasures because ultimately pain is necessary,
without it we wouldnt know what makes us happy anymore.
10.)

Social duties can make a morally good life if youre doing it for something you

actually believe in, rather than doing it just because you think you need to or because you
will get something in value in return. Grant thought his happiness will help other peoples
happiness and AJ thought it depended on the societys moral values if it was something

you would proceed in taking action for. Immanuel Kant thought Kant that what matters
morally is the good will and not what the good will accomplishes. If a person wills the
moral law, then that is what matters.