Utilitarianism: Godless Doctrine?

Firstly, I want to discuss the 9th objection to utilitarianism: that in our lives, when making decisions, it is completely impractical. I am inclined to completely agree with this assessment. It could be practical, depending on the situation, but by and large, it is simply not. When making every decision, it is too time consuming,and it is also too unrealistic to think that moral agents go through the process of felicific calculus. More likely, a moral agent would take the time to go through this process only when time is available, and only when the consequence could affect them significantly in a negative way. This could be said of the opposite case as well; more or less, the opposite is true, and a moral agent would only take the time when the consequence would affect them in a positive way. However, when you look at it, the result is the same, and it is done in the minority percent of situations.

Secondly, Mills' rebuttal to utilitarianism being the ultimate form of God's will is also impractical as well as void. The initial claim is that utilitarianism is a Godless doctrine, and that its foundation is human happiness, not God's will. Mills' says that God as the creator would will His created beings to be happy, and so utilitarianism is the best way to achieve God's will. I am operating on the assumption that Mills himself was not a Christian- mainly because following Christian doctrine would lead you to operate opposite of a utilitarian mindset. This being the case, I must assert that Mills' rebuttal is incorrect. Within the Bible itself are all of the foundations and answers to the questions that Mills himself seemingly seeks to answer with his own philosophy. What he is effectively doing then, is creating his own doctrine, and trying to reconcile it to a previously created doctrine, without understanding it. Looking completely outside the box, this would be equivalent to me creating a philosophical frame of ideas, and when challenged on the authority of, say, Hinduism, I would say to them: "No, you see, my ideas fit with your ideas because (insert reasons here)", when in fact, I had no real understanding of Hinduism to begin with. Basically, what I am saying, is that Mills' concept of utilitarianism being the ultimate idea of conforming to God's will, is utterly wrong, impractical, and does not make sense. Does anyone have any thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

God's Goodness

In class on Friday, February 27, 2015, the question of, if God has so much power and is supposed to be the ultimate good, why would he continue to let bad things happen? I struggled with this question much in my younger years. However now I believe that I just might have a good grasp on the idea of why. There are two ways that I look at the situation.

The first way is, that God loves us and wants us to love him as well. If he simply stops bad things from happening then what reason would people have to look for his grace and blessings? The saying goes if you spare the rod you spoil the child. We are God s children and if we do not have things happen to us then we can never appreciate the good things that he blesses us with. If you never fall, how will you know what getting up feels like? Think about it.

The second way is a more philosophical / scientific way of thinking. The entire universe is made up of laws, ideas, forces, and other things that we use to explain life’s mysteries. These things are built upon a type of symmetry. Newton’s Third Law of Motion says, “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.” Yin and Yang is the idea that inside all good there is evil and inside all evil there is good. If all this is true then it would make sense that a world filled with good without evil cannot exist. The opposite is true as well.

This is how I thing about the situation. This idealism is not for everyone. This is simply how I try to explain things. By all means comment and share your ideas on the situation.

Consequentialism( Who is right or wrong?)

    When it comes to Consequentialism we all have something in common. Wether one is a man woman or child or even an animal, we are all consequentialists. When you touch fire you get burned as a consequence, and you learn to not touch it again. If you hear that terrorists are bombing planes, you would not neccesarily want to travel by that mean of transportation. There are always actions and reactions to everything that goes on around the world and I am going to mention a few just to support my statement.

     Chris Kyle was an American Navy seal that risked his life to go on tour to Iraq to save the lives of fellow soldiers and protect america. He did his job and he made harsh decisions such as killing anything that was a threat possibly including women and children. One morally could not do such a thing, but yet these threats had to be eliminated. He got rid of them so that they would not harm others, this can be see as the lesser of the two evils. Of course taking a life is evil, but those lives decapitate the heads of prisoners of war, blow innocent civilians up, and more horrendous things that you could not possibly dream of.

   Now some consequences are just uncalled for, Another sad current event was that of the jordanian pilot who was captured and then burned alive. The ISIS millitants starved the pilot for five days and then poured gasoline on the pilot, put him in a cage like an animal, set him on fire, and they recorded the horror with an HD video camera that was so high quality that it could be used for a film. As a matter of fact the video was 28 minutes much like a short film. Since they are at war, the consequence for the pilot was being set ablaze.

  This leads me to the conclusion about which consequentialist is right or wrong. Both sides have opposing views but which is better, and which is morally correct? Killing hundreds of people or burning one man alive? Ill leave that up to you.

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's are the ultimate basis for any judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Whether we realize it or not, we all usually base our actions on the consequences those actions may bring. We brush our teeth so that we do not get cavities or so that are teeth won't fall out. We lock our doors so that no one can get into our house and steal from us or harm us. No matter how big or how small the action, the consequence of what will happen if we do or do not do it, is in the back of our mind.
Mill’s ethical theory Utilitarianism, which is a form of consequentialism states that the permissibility of actions is determined by examining their outcomes and comparing those outcomes with what would have happened if some other action had been performed. Mill says that a morally good person could in fact, with the best motives, perform an impermissible act. Mill also believes that it is better for happiness to be distributed among many people. So the example used in class was should the people who ow 50% of Americas wealth give it to the poor so that they could experience happiness and escape the conditions they had been living?  The moral goal of our actions, he says, is to create “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” There are way more poor people, struggling everyday to make ends meet, than there are wealthy people. So why not just distribute the money to make everyone live in a comfortable way?If it is going to help the majority and bring happiness to the majority, why wouldn't we take that route? How would this be acting morally? Just handing out money to people that haven't worked or earned it does not seem fair or morally right. We are to work for what we have. It is not right to just give free hand outs because you worked hard for a better, privileged life to those who have not. Yes, many poor  people work very hard, but not all of them. There are many lazy people out there that just expect to be handed things, how is it morally right for hard working people to just hand out money and a better life to those that just sit around doing nothing for themselves or this world?

Utilitarianism

I am a consequentialist all the way. Many of my decisions I make are based off of the consequences that may follow afterwards.

I know I’m not the only consequentialist because the government itself also makes decisions based off of consequences. Laws by themselves are made based off of consequences. Everyone knows that when you go and rob an old lady you get immediate jail time. The same comes with doing 60MPH in a 45MPH zone. You get a ticket. And when you get enough tickets and don’t pay them, you go to jail.

The decision of passing certain laws are being based off of consequences also. For example, same-sex marriage. Although WE may think the government should legalize it, they look at the consequences of passing the law. Whatever those consequences may be.

But when the tables are turned, and someone who believes in deontology is presented with said scenarios, they would first say that calculating consequences and how happy the majority would be is too time consuming. However, they would also say that one should follow the speed limit and follow the law. They would also say that one should not rob an old lady, and follow their mind.

So what’s the real difference between these two? Utilitarianism focuses mainly on the consequences and how many people would be happy vs. how many would be unhappy. Deontology focuses on behaving in such a moral way that it could be the maxim for every other moral agent to act.

But does making more people happy make you moral? Or does acting in such a way that you believe the world should act make you moral? Is it really important to worry about the rest of the world acting morally? Or should you just do what’s right based off of the consequences that YOU have to deal with?

Consequentialism/Felicific Calculus

I am not an advocate nor an opponent of any of the subjects mentioned. (Strictly work)

 

Whether one has knowledge of it or not, we are all consequentialists. The consequences of one's conduct is the basis of the morality of that conduct. Some current issues such as the American sniper, legalization of marijuana, and the issue of restless pilots all relate to consequentialism once analyzed with a Kantian eye. We have all heard of the American sniper story where a man is forced to make difficult moral decisions concerning the life of enemies of the United States. He protected his comrades under what conditions? Some would argue that he did it for the good of his entire troop. To reiterate, the Kantian would say that he did what was the most consequential, for the greatest good.

The legalization of marijuana possesses an aspect of consequentialism. An advocate of marijuana would agree with the Kantian view of marijuana. A Kantian would say based on Felicific Calculus, legalizing marijuana would cause the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Not legalizing marijuana would violate the greatest happiness principle which states that things are good if they promote happiness and things are bad if it diminishes happiness. It is obvious, without stating numbers that there are more people for marijuana than there are against it. Failing to legalize marijuana would diminish the happiness of the greatest amount of people.

 

The issue of restless cargo pilots is the most recent issue that many people are talking about. There has been a number of plane crashes that has many wondering what is the cause of it. If its not terrorist, then what is it? Cargo pilots are not getting enough rest, some would say. Others say that cargo pilots are under outdated laws that permits them to work long hours. The consequentialist would say that say that the good of the whole is what matters the most. Losing money or having to pay more employees is not the issue. The Kantian would support allowing pilots to work less hours on their shifts because it would comply with Felicific Calculus.

 

Plato

Plato is a philosopher from Greece who was the pupil of Socrates, and teacher of Aristotle. Plato wanted to have the ideal utopia. This is through the idea that the person with the most power should be the most virtuous, intelligent, and strongest. With this in place, the leaders of the state would all be philosophers taking into account the betterment of the citizens. The only thing that can keep this from happening is the ideals of an individual. If he/she is not just then it throws the whole system into chaos. Justice must be a high attribute that everyone has for this idea society. Justice is based on morality, laws, ethics, religion, and many other aspects. This makes defining justice quite hard. What is justice for one person does not necessarily mean it is justice for another. In Plato's Republic it states, "to suffer injustice bad and to do it good". This states that being unjust can be beneficial for the individual. This in turn hurt the whole and can not reach the utopia that Plato seeks.

For this utopia to occur there must be parts of the city/state that do a job each. This is the division of state that corresponds with the division of the soul. There are three parts that all compile to make the work of the city complete. First there are the Workers. These are the people who produce goods, and are motivated by the love of the work or by wealth. Second there are the Guardians. These people enforce the laws, defend the state, and are motivated by desire for honor. And third, there are the Rulers. These are a select few that rule over the people and look out for their well-being. As each person does this work it is their Ergon, or the thing that they are best at that would benefit the whole the most. The way that people are kept in check by this system is the Noble Lie.

The Noble Lie is a lie that originated when people were told that there is a certain metal in their blood that determines whether they will be a Worker, Guardian, or Ruler. This was told so that people would not try to jump different classes and disrupt the whole flow of the system. The reason that this is a noble lie, is because it would be more beneficial to lie than to tell the truth, because the truth would hurt more than help. An example of this would be Santa Clause. If we told little children that Santa was not real, there would be a lack of excitement towards the season of giving. We tell them about this while they are young so that they like Christmas, and later when they are able to understand that Christmas is about giving and Jesus Christ. This is how the Noble Lie can help.

The parts of the soul that are linked to the parts of the state are, Appetites, Spirit, and Reason. The Appetites fill a need like the workers who fill the need of work and jobs. Next, Spirit makes sure that the Appetites are kept in check and do not lust for more than is needed, like the guardians. Finally, Reason is there to look out for the good of the soul. This is that little voice that we hear telling us not to do the thing that is bad and will hurt us. The Rulers are like this part of the soul. A good and healthy life should have an equal portion of each of these in the soul.

One of the principles that Plato believes is that, we learn by knowledge. If one understand how to do an action then one can do the action. This is completely different than Aristotle's theory because he states that you learn by doing. If someone acquires the knowledge to do a task or action, then they will know how to accomplish the action when the time comes to perform it. Knowledge is the true learning tool for Plato. With the knowledge that is gathered there is no task that cannot be completed. This would be the perfect example of how knowledge is power.

Better Late than Never? :/ -American Sniper

This week in class we discussed the philosophy behind Immanuel Kant, a philosopher during the Enlightenment period who established the three types of philosophy. The three types are logic, physics, and ethics the - latter which we discuss in this class.

            The main topic we discussed in class that I will relate my blog post about is the good will to duty principle which states normal human conditions manifest itself acting for the side of duty alone. The two principles of duty are the motive of duty and the formal principle of duty.

            Since we did not discuss the topic of American Sniper in class this week I would like to take this time to talk about it in my post. I am currently reading the book American Sniper by Chris Kyle himself and I am half way done, and I have seen the movie so I feel I know enough about the topic to have an opinion on whether what he did in his military career was either morally right or wrong. I am a firm believer that his actions were not morally wrong. By definition the motive of duty states that a human action is morally good, not because it’s done from immediate inclinations – nor from self-interest – BUT because it is done for the sake of duty alone. Chris Kyle is the most lethal sniper in American military history with over 160 reported kills during his four tours in Iraq. Although, he is the most lethal sniper, it was not the number of kills he cared about; he was more concerned about the lives he couldn’t save. So by going back to the motive of duty he did not act in a manner that was done from immediate inclinations nor from self-interest. I find what he did morally good because he was doing his duty to protect not only his country but family and fellow American service men and women. The Formal Principle of Duty states in short that an action done from duty has its moral worth from a formal principle or maxim (a principle upon which we act). The principle of doing one’s duty whatever it may be. So by this definition as well Chris Kyle’s actions were of moral worth. He acted in a sense to protect and serve his nation and to destroy evil in all it’s forms.

Theories versus actions

This week we talked about several different things relating to the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, including the Formal Principle of Duty and the Categorical Imperative. Kant’s main reasoning was deontological, or duty based. He believed that we act based on our duty, and set reasoning as the standard for morality. This was very different from Aristotle, who based actions on the end rather than the means. Kant was more interested in why people act rather than what they do. Thus he was similar to Plato, Aristotle’s teacher. Also, he theorized a perfect world like Plato. In both of their utopias, civilization was perfect and man did no wrong. However, the differences were that in Plato’s world the people looked to the World of Forms for guidance, whereas Kant’s perfect world had everyone acting based on their personal morality. Kant’s world was situational ethics to a degree. However, they both were similar in that both tackled the same problems of everyday life. One problem they both had, however, is that both of them stopped at the theoretical stage. They both wrote books and thought and talked about problems but they never really tried to enact them. Philosophers can have a very powerful influence on the world around them if they try. B.F. Skinner is an excellent example. His thoughts were put into action and are the basis for the American school system. Had other philosophers tried to act, the world around us would be very different. The problem is that other people realize this too. They want to keep the philosophers suppressed and tried cutting the problem from the root by murdering Socrates. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Philosophy is a part of humans and we will always philosophize to one degree or another. Let’s just hope it leads to good things.

Conflict of Duties

            This week in class we discussed Immanuel Kant and his theories. Kant emphasizes the good will and how it manifests itself acting for the sake of duty alone. This brings about his idea on the formal principle of duty, which states: an action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose it attains or seeks to attain, but from a formal principle or maxim. The Principle of doing one’s duty whatever it may be.  A maxim is a principle on which we act, and there are two types of principles, the objective and subjective. The objective principle is the principle on which we ought to act, and the subjective is the principle on which we do act.

            Now this brings about what happens when there is a conflict of duties, which we discovered in class happens often. According to Kant, whatever we choose to do in this situation can be seen both as morally right and wrong. For instance on the supposed right to lie, we know that it is wrong to lie but that it is right to save a human’s life. In this case we may say that lying was morally right because of the result of the lie keeping our friend alive, but you can’t use the consequences or results to justify your decisions because there is no way of knowing for sure all the possible outcomes. So we must admit that telling the lie was immoral and wrong, but the fact that we saved our friend was moral and right. This conflict of two separate duties shows that in every action or principle there will always be a morally right or wrong choice, but in order to make the right decision we must have to think rationally and with reason.

Kant

 

 

The Good Will, in a nut shell, is you intentions being correlated with your actions. It is absolutely good, doesn’t depend on consequences, believes that everything has a function that the reason of the function is to produce a good will, and everything for the sake of duty alone. The motive of said duty, is not for self-interest but because it is morally good and done for the sake of duty alone. An example of performing a morally good duty is helping an elderly woman across the street. A person that will help her because it is morally good would perform the action regardless of the outcome whether she pays that person or gives him anything of any value. While a person who performs the duty because he knows that she usually pays those that her help her across the street did it because of self-interest. Not to be moral.

The two principles discussed in class this week were, the subjective and objective principles. A subjective principle is a principle upon which we do act while an objective principle is a principle of which we should act. For example. Arriving to a function on time is the objective principle but arriving late is the subjective principle. But there are some exceptions to the rule such as the categorical imperative. One categorical imperative states that you should act as you would want the moral world to act. An example used in class was showing up to class late because you had to call the ambulance for your elderly neighbor who is having a stroke. However, this is a maxim that we should NOT want everything to practice because then everyone would be late to every function that they are supposed to attend.

Although most people are never on time, including myself, that one imperative proves the statement made during the discussion about Plato that morality is only practiced because of enforced punishment. But what about lying? When is it morally right to lie? How far should a lie be taken until it becomes utterly wrong?

 

 

Philosophy, An Immoral Action, and the Good Will

In just the couple of classes we have had about Immanuel Kant, we have learned a lot about his view on philosophy, an immoral action, and the Good Will. For one, we know that there are three major branches of philosophy: logic, physics, and ethics. Physics and ethics are both formal and empirical meaning that these two branches are mostly derived from experience. Logic is strictly formal. Logic deals more with reason and thinking.

Kant then goes on to say that an immoral action is an irrational action therefore implying that a moral action is a rational action. This led me to question if this statement is absolutely true or not. In the case of deontology, anything we do that is morally good is done for the sake of duty. Any good, moral actions we commit are good because its intentions are good. For example, stealing food to feed a family is not an immoral action because the person's intentions are good. If anything the person's actions will just be seen as illegal. On the other hand, if a person is planning to steal food or some money with the intent of killing anyone who stands in his way, the action is considered to be immoral. However, does this mean that the action is irrational.

This man is going to steal something that he needs. He can't rely on anyone else to help him so he tries to take matters into his own hands. He's desperate and willing to kill anyone who stands in his way because he knows that no one would be willing to supply him with what he needs to survive. If he tries to steal from someone and that person catches him, they will most likely try to approach the man and won't even think about trying to reason with him. Let's be honest, when a person is trying to steal from us we won't  to say,"Look, you don't have to steal from me. If you want something from me, just ask me." We would either try to pursue him ourselves or call the police. If the robber can rationalize the possibility of that happening and try to be prepared for it, then can it really be called an irrational action. 

Good Will

     This week in class, the idea of "The Good Will" was introduced. To summarize, it was said that this good will was done for the sake of duty and duty alone and that the outcome did not matter, as long as the action was done with the right intent. While I do believe people are guided to by their own sense of morality or duty to follow the objective principle, I am still a bit hesitant to fully agree that any human action is done for the sake of duty alone.  Essentially, the point I am trying to make is that no action is ever done purely because a person feels as if it is there duty to do so.
     For example, the situation presented in class where you skipped class to help your dying neighbor was not done because you felt like you had a duty to help, but instead was done out of self-interest. If you let your neighbor die, you would have likely been held liable; therefore, you a rational person would choose to help their neighbor to avoid the more severe punishment. Overall, can any action be said to be done completely without our own self-interest in mind? Personally, I cannot think of any instances of when I acted solely on duty alone without weighing the benefits and consequences of doing so. Can you think of any examples? Do you agree with this claim or do you believe a person’s sense of duty guides their actions? Lastly, when discussing this topic in class, I could not help but remember the story of Gyges’ Ring. While I initially did not fully agree with the idea that people follow rules solely to avoid punishment, after this recent discussion in class I cannot help but find myself agreeing with this statement. 

Aristotle

Arguing from Aristotle’s point of view, believe that telling a “noble lie” really isn’t as noble as Plato’s would like to make it seem. Telling people that the only reason they have the social status that they live because of the type of metal they have in their blood is absolutely ridiculous. What happened to social climbing? Doesn’t the noble lie deteriorate the self-esteem? Telling someone that they won’t be anything but a worker for the rest of their life just to maintain “order”, although it won’t make them happy is not moral at all. One should be able to do what makes them truly happy. They shouldn’t be made to do something that they have to do for the rest of their life.

Just as being told what to do regardless of your satisfaction of it is immoral, claiming that you have a certain trait when you never really practiced it is just as wrong. Like the saying goes, “practice makes perfect”. Just because someone says that they are brave when they’ve never been in the situation where they had to show that trait is lack of virtue. Just as saying that someone is moral and has values when they’ve never shown their values or morality.

Although Plato makes a point that having the knowledge of something helps with having that trait or ability, it means nothing when you can practice it. People who are stuck in certain living situations have the knowledge as to how they can come out of bondage of their situation they never had the chance to actually do it because of the “noble lie” that someone like Plato has told them. Their self-esteem has been diminished from the lies of outsiders and those who’ve never had to work more than 2 jobs just to make ends meet. Those people have told them that they could never make it if they climbed the social ladder and someone like Plato would never give them that chance. 

Symposium

I have to admit, I felt torn today. During the conversation, I was being pulled in two directions. I felt myself wanting to argue on behalf of both sides at different times. Did anyone else feel that way? I can't say that I agree fully with either philosopher on all points. I certainly think both of them have interesting ideas and concepts, but I myself would never draw conclusions from those ideas and concepts. In particular, I felt that I was drawn to argue for Plato on multiple occasions regarding the noble lie. I felt that there were some situations in which it was justifiable, but also many that were not. For Aristotle, I felt compelled to make a point at the end, but was unable to. The Plato's of the room were pushing back, and had asked  if it is plausible and right to tell the truth in every single situation. From the standpoint of Aristotle, I felt that the correct answer would be no. I'd defend this answer by saying that it falls in the lap of the decision maker. In this way, it could almost be considered a virtue, though in and of itself, the act of lying is not. However, the person who had to decide whether to lie or not, is indeed in a state that decides; so then, if the scale for the golden mean was shifted depending on the situation... what if the golden mean was to actually tell the lie?

Ultimately, as I previously mentioned, I don't think either side is completely correct; and as a human being with a moral code, I disagree with the act of lying.

What are your thoughts? Is it okay to lie?

When is it acceptable to, and why would anyone ever, lie?

During the discussion in class today, most of the questions were set forth to make Plato seem that he was unjust in his means telling the noble lie. Which forced a good amount of scenarios of whether or not lying would ever be just? Admittingly it seemed that in all situations it is always better to tell the truth than to tell the little white lies, no matter what the situation was. My question that was brought from this is, “When is it ever acceptable to lie?” If it was as easy as what we discussed to tell someone the truth no matter what it may have been; then why do people lie in the first place? Putting myself out there, I used to believe if the means justified the cause, then living would be better than telling that person the truth. Like the puppy reference, I used. I felt that, not telling your child that his/her dog has died and instead replacing the dog with another dog that looks just like the original one, would be an acceptable thing. Even if the child thought something was different, I would feel that it would be better to just say it’s the same one and never tell them.  Or maybe a more controversial lie would be something like your father was really a bank robber but your parents kept it a secret from you so you would never go into that lifestyle.  Then let’s say one day that he was killed in the act of getting away. Would you really want to be told the truth instead of being told that he was killed in a situation like a carjacking, so that you will keep your image of your father who you believe he was a great man? However, the what-if games could go on. I want to see what you think. Is it ever acceptable to lie? If so, what is a case that you think it would be. If not, why do you think anyone lies in the first place?

Truth

What is truth? Truth conforms with fact or reality. Reality, as in what really happened?  People say they would rather here the truth, than to be lied to. The question is should raw truth be known to everyone? We talked about in class that everyone cannot handle the truth, so a noble lie was created. How can a lie be noble you ask? A noble lie is a lie formed for the good of the whole, as Plato would say.  As mentioned before, everyone cannot handle the truth, so there are always ways one can tell the truth without being as vivid as the exact truth. An example given in class was if a four year old child's dad's head got cut off he would begin to wonder why his dad has not home. He will began to ask his mom "where is dad?" Shouldn't the mom just tell the child what really happened to his father, Plato asks? A four year old child is not mature enough to handle a truth at that extreme, therefore, the mother would figure out a way to tell the child the truth without causing too much trauma to the child, responds Aristotle. How can a compatible truth be true if it's not the exact truth? I believe if something contains facts and those facts have the credibility to back up those facts, it is truth. Truth is truth even if some aspects are paraphrased because they would still be of fact. Though I could also prove myself wrong through the act of plagiarism. I could type an excellent paper full of factual statements that I didn't know until researching a source without citing the paper. I even put my name on the paper to make it legit. The facts of that paper still wouldn't make the paper truthful just  because it states facts. It still wouldn't be true to say that the paper is mine, even if my name is on it because it is not my exact work.

Is sugar coating the truth better than being too honest ?

So today in class had me wondering, Why did lying ever become a noble thing to do ? Of course in the context of Plato`s utopian society, lying so everyone could have a purpose made a lot of sense to me at the time. However in modern society why do we prefer to be dishonest than blunt ? In modern day society many times blunt seems to harsh, so one can only teeter on a line of being too honest or not honest enough. When did being too honest become unvirtuous? In my experience sugar-coating does  not always end as a best result. So what is a virtuous person left to do when softening up the truth has not worked ? For example, a you and your best friend has just started college . A few weeks have past and you notice she has developed bad habits and she gets into a relationship. The relationship quickly becomes abusive , however your friend is in love and attached to this guy. After several weeks of trying to tell your friend kindly she has been making poor decisions, One day she asks you do you think she is dumb for maintaining the relationship ? Will you  be blunt or would you sugar coat the lie ? People often times can misconstrue the truth if it is not told direct and upfront. To me, being too honest seems like a contradiction. It is like saying a person is too virtuous.

The Pros and Cons of the Noble Lie

In class today I acted as Plato on the Noble Lie. I defended its use but now I want to defend and attack its use. The Noble lie is not always so noble. And it is at the same time. One could use the Noble lie for a plethora of reasons. They could save lies or destroy them. It just depends on the situation. Say for instance the current event with ISIS burning the Jordanian pilot alive as an offering to Allah (God) without remorse due to the fact that the Jordanian government did meet the terrorist group’s demands. The fact that such a thing could happen is unfathomable and demoralizing, especially to the men and women of the military who have to go against these horrible foes. A government might not want this information to leak out because of the effect it would have on its citizens. I agree with hiding it but I agree with the truth as well. This instance has showed that the noble lie can be very useful. Now I can show how this example can show that the noble lie is not so noble. The effects of keeping such information hidden are more than just revealing the truth and being done with the situation. If this information did not come out it would be unfair to the citizens and the military. The citizens should always know what’s going on with the military actions because they are the source of income for all things that the government does financially. Citizens could also have relatives in the military and they have the right to know what happens to their loved ones. The military and those who want to join the military should know the most due to the fact that they are the ones who actually will face the horrors of war and battle. They should know exactly at all times what they are getting into. Depending on the situation the noble is needed and not needed, these are the choices that our leaders have to make every single day.