Name:
Course:
Professor:
Date:
Question 5
Pascal would respond by urging me to believe that God exists so that I can be on the safe side. Pascal chose to argue the existence of God, not because he believed it but because he preferred to be safe rather than sorry. If a human being denies God’s presence and then it is proven that God exists, the human being will suffer a lot in hell. If we reject his existence and we are proved right, then we gain nothing as well (Connor). Pascal would explain that the best action to take in my self-interest is to believe in God. There are several outcomes for assuming that God either exists or doesn’t exist. If God exists, he will reward the believing human in heaven, but even if we believe it and it turns out that he doesn’t exist, then we have lost nothing.
John Locke would assure me that God exists for several reasons. First, God has to exist because we exist. Human beings must have a creator who is God. According to Locke, nothing only bears nothing, and therefore God is the one who made human beings. The second proof of God’s existence is the abilities that human beings possess (Ayers). As humans, we are intelligent, and we can reason. Therefore, there must be a being that created humans with such capabilities and this being has even more power than us. The only creature that can have infinitely more powerful abilities than us can only be God. The third reason for God’s existence is that human beings cannot be a product of chance and ignorance, but instead we come from a place of purpose, perception, and intentionality. God created the universe and human beings with some order in mind; he is intelligent and orderly.
David Hume would explain God’s existence using three theories, the teleological, cosmological and ontological arguments. The first theory states that the world is created to be orderly and harmonious. Everything was designed with a purpose; air to give life to human beings, the sun and the moon and many others. The reason for this is that an intelligent and all-powerful God created it to be so. The cosmological theory further asserts the existence of God because of the material universe (Smith). God must be the one who first set everything in motion including the creation of the world and human beings. The final ontological argument expounds that God is perfect. For something to be perfect, it must first be in existence so that it can be deemed to be perfect. For this reason, Hume would conclude that God definitely exists.
St. Augustine would respond by saying that God indeed exists but that he was not responsible for the evil actions of human beings. The world that God created was meant to be perfect as the first man and woman were made without sin in the Garden of Eden. God is all knowing and all-powerful because he created the universe and everything in it. However, human beings brought evil upon themselves by sin. St Augustine would, therefore, condemn Descartes action of wanting to kill me. God would not tolerate such evils because God is perfect. After all, he created the world from nothing. Human beings ruined the original ideal state of the universe when they sinned.
For this reason, evil has become quite prevalent in the universe. This is why people will continue to suffer because of their evil deeds. God gave man free will to choose what he wanted for himself and man misused this chance by wishing to become like God.
Question 6
Concerning feminism and equality, Mary would address the topics of education, sensibility, and morality in her work, ‘Rights of Woman.’ On the education of women, Mary argued that women should be educated so that they could educate their children and become companions for their husbands. During her time, women’s main role was childbearing and taking care of the family. Women received only basic education, and it was assumed that they were too fragile to think critically. Women were taught from their childhood that they were to be judged simply based on their beauty(Taylor). Educational philosophers at the time proposed that women did not need a formal education; men expected women to be simple and frivolous. Mary countered this argument is saying that society would be better off with educated women as they would be able to teach their young children and contribute to their family’s wellbeing. She proposed that children should be educated both at home and in day schools. Women should be able to choose careers that they like such as midwifery, politics, nursing or even become physicians. Women were not just to be treated as toys and companions; they were perfectly capable of rational thought if the emphasis on beauty alone was done away with.
The second topic is sensibility. Wollstonecraft argued that women often fell prey to their senses and this made them irrational. She was not against sensibility, but she explained that too much of it made women unstable in their thought process. Following every single change in their feelings would prove destructive not only to them but to the whole society. According to Mary, passion and reason should act together(Taylor). Another passion that women should avoid is sexual desire. This desire is what would enslave their bodies to men. If a woman were not interested in sexual feelings, then she would not be subject to the dominance of a man. She instead urged women to let their passions subside into friendship with the men they love. She insisted upon a marriage based on love so that the two partners would become companions to each other. Wollstonecraft urged women to ultimately transcend the lusts of the flesh so that they may not be held hostage by their bodies. They would then be able to concentrate on their minds and free their rationality. According to Mary, sexuality occupied an essential place in everyday life of a woman.
On the point of equality between men and women, Wollstonecraft agrees that men and women are different in some instances. For example, men have greater physical strength than women, and this means that they should attain a higher degree of courage. Equality comes into play on the matter of morality. She does not come out to explicitly state that men and women are equal but argues that all human beings are equal before God. Because of this, the same standard of morality should be applied to both genders (Taylor). Women at the time were expected to the more modest and exercise a higher degree of sensibility, especially in their marriages. They were held to a different degree of virtue and sexual standards. Wollstonecraft argues that men should subscribe to the same rules as they were subject to the same moral standards. After this, she goes further to state that men should be the ones to free women from the chains that held them. Women’s emancipation would be significantly aided if educated men set them free. Women could not do it on their own because they were uneducated. If they were treated as capable of rationality, men would find their women to be better people.
Question 7
Mill’s greatest happiness principle explains that an action is moral if it results in the happiness of the most significant number of people involved in the situation. Alternatively, it can be demonstrated that an act should only harm the fewest number of people possible. In this case, picking up hitchhikers along the way is a nuisance to the car occupants. Mill would allow the car to go on without him as being left behind would only harm him, but the other car occupant would be happier. This principle is the basis for the utilitarianism theory in ethics. The law is a form of consequentialism where action is judged by the resulting consequences. According to Mill, a utility is a measure of happiness, and all people seek their happiness (Mill). Because of this, we should strive to act in a way that gives the largest number of people happiness. Mill also proposes that there are two levels of satisfaction; the higher and the lower level. When a person is faced with a choice between a higher level and a lower level of happiness, they will obviously choose the higher one. Even if the higher level of utility is accompanied by more discomfort, a rational human being will still prefer it over a lower level of happiness which may come with a lower level of pain.
Mill compared the happiness of a human being to that of a pig. He states, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinions, it is because they only know their side of the question.” (Mill) A person’s happiness depends on their situation in life. An intelligent person will often be less content because they are aware of many problems that exist in the world. An ignorant person, on the other hand, is likely to be happier because they do not know much; hence they have fewer worries in their minds. This is why Mill says that it is better for Socrates to be dissatisfied than for a fool to be happy. Society would stand to benefit more from Socrates’ dissatisfaction because he is wise.
In the same way, a human being’s happiness is higher over an animal such as a pig. Animals require very little to be satisfied, but a human being cannot say that they would rather be animals so that they can be happier. Human beings have experienced higher levels of happiness and pleasure while animals have a lower level. Wise people such as Socrates have a higher level of satisfaction when compared to fools. From this analysis, a higher level of pleasure is to be preferred over the lower one. Many times, people seek their happiness over that of others. According to Mill’s principle of Greatest Happiness, an action seeking personal happiness over societal benefit would be considered immoral (Mill). Before taking any action, a person should first consider its effect on the greater good. If the move will result in the greatest happiness for the most people, then the action is moral. Conversely, if it results in the least harm to the fewest number, it is also moral. The utilitarian principle shows that self-seeking behavior is immoral and wrong.
Works Cited
Ayers, Michael. Locke. Routledge, 2012.
Connor, James A. Pascal’s wager: The man who played dice with God. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006.
Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism.” Seven masterpieces of philosophy. Routledge, 2016. 337-383.
Smith, Norman Kemp. “The philosophy of David Hume: a critical study of its origins and central doctrines.” (1941).
Taylor, Barbara. Mary Wollstonecraft and the feminist imagination. Vol. 56. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
