Private Property

         Karl Marx's belief on private property is, in my opinion, very rational and clever. However, it would be very difficult to implement this idea into a modern American society. He believes that if one person benefits from his or her private property, then other people do not benefit from it and therefore leads to competition for resources. Marx explains that property is actually the product of another's work or human alienation. What happens in this situation is that work itself becomes a commodity and labor loses its value. Then the worst of things happen: Workers then view their work as being taken advantage of and are exploited by the capitalist. By separating the value of the labor and the product itself, it forms internal anarchy. Alienated labor is crucial and essential in order to fully understand what Marx means when he denounces capitalism. It is apparent that the idea of alienated labor forms an inbalance of class – Marx’s biggest criticism of capitalism.
         Unfortunately, there is a division or gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and this is all due to private property. The bourgeoisie, control the means of production and the proletariat is defined by the worker class, the laborers who are taken advantage of and are seen as a commodity. Back to my original statement about removing the idea of private property in America, I hate to say it but I would hate to lose my possessions. However, by attaching ourselves and supporting the idea of private property, we are indirectly supporting the notion of low-wage labor, child slavery and child labor, and malpractices for the same hardworking class. We are hypocrites in the sense that we would hate to get taken advantage of but we do so. It only affects us directly when we see these malpractices in person. I cannot fully say that I support the idea of communist society but I do concur that it would mitigate the gap between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.  

Harrison Bergeron and Communism

Harrison Bergeron is a story of a parody of communism. Story depicts a society that has all members restricted so they can be equal. The smart are taught not to think. The strong are giving weights to limit them and the beautiful wear mask. 

Full text : http://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt

This passage created a great thoughts in my mind. Why is communism depicted in society as absolute equals? 

Maybe the depiction of communism is what it is because of fear. Fear that capitalism will be destroyed and maybe it should be. 

The Proletariat/Bourgeoisie Conflict In Today's World

American worth is fundamentally based upon the material one owns. Material can be anything such as money, power, fame, and etc. Why is it that we can never have enough of this material? Endless dissatisfaction is what capitalism thrives off of. We are always wanting more and more of things. If the bourgeoisie keep the people wanting more, then the more money they will make.  It’s hard for me to understand why things are the way they are. First its doctors providing medications to patients that sometimes are not necessary just for profit. Now diseases cannot fully be cured, but instead maintained to also keep profit flowing in. I understand that if there were a cure that it would be extremely expensive, but why should it have to be that way? Why not for the preservation of life instead of for some degree profit. The concept of maintaining diseases may not all be for profit though. I can somewhat agree that the proletariat class will overrule the bourgeoisie in Marx's world. Communism "is a socioeconomic system structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes money and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order" Communism seems like a reasonable way to govern society for the fact that it promotes a sense of social equality and that would eliminate the suffering of the extremely poor, but not all of it is good. Communism would be hard to for one to adjust to for the fact that no one wants their stuff taken away from them in a way. In a way communism limits the freedom of the individual. I’m not willing to give up my freedom for the equality of the whole. Want to know why? The idea of having private property or, in other words, having my own stuff has been born into not only me, but in all of us. Private property gives us a since of power and security. I would not feel comfortable with the government being responsible for my daily intake of wants and needs.

Capitalism vs. Communism

Marx was in great support of communism, but not in the sense that everything is bad and it's an evil thing like people tend to think of it today. Marx's view on communism was basically that everyone gives what they can when they can and takes what they need when they need. Everyone should share everything and that tends to scare us in the capitalist society. We highly dislike the thought that nothing is strictly ours in the sense of private property, which is one of the two basic issues that Marx adresses with capitalism. Private property and the division of only two classes are the biggest issues in capitalism.

I think that communism in the sense that Marx intended would likely be a better way to live since we wouldn't have to fight over the right to different things. The Indians are a great example of what I think Marx's version of communism was supposed to be. The Indians didn't stake claims to land and food and items -- to them, everything belonged to the earth so they shared everything. They were a very peaceful people and lead peaceful lives until they were forced to live the way people from the capitalist society made them live.

Thinking of communism in this way, would you rather live in a capitalist or communist society?

Marx vs. Nietzsche Comparison; Which philosopher can you connect more with?

Let's do a comparison of the two philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche. We have gone over the views of both men and even had some moments in which the two's different views came to a collision. 

Marx is a materialist view and is influenced by Hegel's dialectic: everything is matter. Its design is "historical materialism": the political and social changes occur from changes occurring in the material basis of society, modes of production. For Marx, history is a continuous class struggle which leads to the dictatorship of the working class (proletariat). There's a moment when it is pointed out that the business owner earns more than the producers. This is a realistic view the world we live in today. 

Nietzsche believes that morality was received and spawned from a grudge against life. Nietzsche refers to us as value creating animals. In his genealogy of morals, it was stated that at first the noble, the strong, and the beautiful decided what was good and what was bad. As a result of this the poor and the sick were frowned upon. Fed up with constantly being looked down on, the poor revolted and created their own moral guidelines. On top of that, these poor people wanted the strong to stop making themselves appear to be strong. Mostly that the morality was created from the weak as a way to contend with the strong. However to Nietzsche, only the strong survive.

All in all, both philosophers have contradicting viewpoints, but if I had to choose which philosopher I can connect more with it would have to be Marx. 

Product of our Capitalist Society

This week we have been discussing Marxism and basically how it is a critique of capitalism. According to Marx, capitalism is only possible because of the values on private property as well as the alienation of the workforce. I am going to focus more on the aspect of the private property just mentioned and how, after realizing it in class, just how influenced my own mindset is by capitalism.

The capitalist system supposedly favors those who work hard and strive for success, but we all know that this isn't always the case. However, in my own life I have always had the mentality that I need to bust my tail now in order to ensure a good future for myself. I have always envisioned living in a pretty big house, driving a pretty nice car, and ultimately not seeing prices as an issue. So here I see now that the goals I have mentioned are revolved around material goods or private property. Reaching this goal though is going to prove to be very difficult due to the income separation capitalism has caused. With less than 5% of the population holding close to 50% of the nation's wealth, the odds of me making it out of the "working" class aren't in my favor.

Our society has molded most of our minds to think in a way that only looks out for ourselves. We are all wrapped up in fixing our personal status that we are failing to see that it is all of us trying to reach the same goal. Maybe if we all noticed this then instead of seeing our peers as competition or the person trying to take our spot, then the option of working as a unified force trying to change the status of the whole would be recognized and supported. As mentioned in class, over the history of humanity it has proven to be quite effective when we all work together as one, rather than constantly competing over everything.

Marx Versus Nietzsche: Which Leads to Utopia?

Throughout history, mankind has been faced with the problem that this is world is not right. They have seen it through various different viewpoints and have had different ways of dealing with it. Some acted to change the world according to their own worldview and in so doing created wars. Others then reacted by trying to stop the wars and have peace. However, they would inevitably lose and another war would start. Then people would ask why the wars are happening in the first place. Some would say sin, while others would say it is the natural order. There are two classes: the weak and the strong. The weak would dislike their position and overthrow the powerful, while the powerful would simply test themselves against each other. Thus there would always be a cycle of fighting and someone trying to be the strongest and baddest and so on. This is what Nietzsche believed, and thus he wrote as a reaction to it. He claimed that it is all natural and that the weak created morality in order to make themselves strong. Thus with morality we had purposes for more wars and worse wars. All of human history has been and always would be a cycle until the world ended. The only way to stop this cycle was for the strong to realize they are being held down by the stupid chains of morality and break free and return to the old static way of the weak staying weak and the strong staying strong. In this way things would be right and good according to Nietzsche. (265) This morality system contributed to the creation of Capitalism, which Nietzsche despised because of its moral underpinnings. He was not the only one, either. Marx disliked Capitalism as well, but for different reasons. He disliked Capitalism because of the way it worked economically. He thought that a utopia would be formed not by two classes but by no classes. He believed that after Capitalism would come a society in which all of humanity would be united in the realization that we can work together to live. In this society all would have their job according to their strengths and would help each other according to their needs. His philosophy was very different from Nietzsche's but they both tackled the same problem: the world is not right, so what do we do about it?

Grades

This past week in class we discussed the topic of whether or not grades should be assessed to measure success of a student. This topic was brought up due to the Philosophy behind Marx. Marx had four ways in which he felt Capitalism estranged/alienated labor. First, he states the worker is alienated from the product of his/her labor, secondly from the process of production, third, from his/her species being, and finally, from other human beings. The topic that relates to the topic of grades in education is the worker is being alienated from the process of production. It was argued that giving out grades hinders student’s motivation and potential to succeed. If a student knew he would make an A in a course no matter he wouldn’t feel pressured to perform; I would argue and say the exact opposite, if a student knew he/she was going to make an A in a course regardless of the effort, he/she would be apathetic and not concerned about the effort he/she put in. I do agree that grades do not signify how intelligent a student truly is because there are so many other factors that go into intelligence; a simple GPA would not do justice. Some students are highly gifted at cramming last minute and learning what they need to do to pass a test, but soon as the test is over they hardly ever  retain the information they learned. I know personally I’m guilty as charged with this style of study; however, I feel like that’s how our education system has set us up to succeed. As biology major, I feel like grades are very pertinent to have in a class. These grades are used to set aside one student from another and are an easy way professional school programs can see how a student performs in any given class against any other student applying as well. I don’t think assigning grades is alienating a population from the process of production as far as education is concerned.

What is Survival of the Fittest?

To say that a person who is struggling to feed their family off of a $7.50 an hour job is weak is unbelievable. Not everyone is born with certain advantages like having a choice in what college they want to attend or if they want to attend college at all. Those born with silver spoons are called "strong" because of their income, but what about those that lose sleep, work their fingers to the bone, and still don't make enough to take their family out of town for a small vacation?


In my home, I didn't grow up rich, but we weren't poor either. My mom and grandparents made sure that my sister and I had everything that we wanted and needed, and if that's considered weak then maybe some should change their viewpoint on life. I had no choice but to attend college because of the way I grew up. It was either school or military, and school is the one thing I know I'm good at. I'm sure we're all here to get a degree, so we can get a high paying job, and a nice car and home with the white picket fence around it, but everyone isn't afforded the same opportunity we have.


There are those that couldn't attend college due to certain circumstances and aren't' living the most desirable life, but are we, as humans, supposed to outcast them and make them feel like they don't matter? My mom doesn't have a college degree, but she does have a well paying job that allows her to take care of me, my sister, and herself. So what does "survival of the fittest" really mean? Because you weren't fit for college you won't survive? Or because you inherited your parent's possessions, you have a better chance at survival than the one with the college degree who still can't make ends meet?

Weak or Not

I believe in Theory Karl Marx's "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" would only work. It seems rational to think that only the strong should survive and the weak should die off however, in the case of the proletariat and bourgeoisie   classes I believe it is inhumane. I believe we as humans hold the responsibility to be compassionate and loving to one another. Animals have no rational way of thinking, however, we do. Allowing the weaker or financially challenged class to die off would make merely animals. I believe Marx should also consider that everyone doesn't start off with the fairest chance to survive and we should not hold these people accountable.
Marx should try to think of a system that is based off of a "too bad you are not fortunate enough mentality". During this time period the gap between rich and poor was sickening. People were dying on the streets from starvation and disease . Many of the people who were struggling were working for these upper class employers. The employers did not even provide enough wage for their employees to live comfortably. If Marx's theory was to work, I believe people should not have intentionally  made the "weak" situation worse. Overall, its disgusting I believe in the condition of the time period, the strong should have not been defined as strong. They should have just been defined as people who have an advantage, and the weak should have not bee defined by just weak.

Survival of the Fittest

This week in class we started discussing the faults of the Capitalistic system and how such a system reduces people to a mere two classes: the bourgeoisie (the owners) or the proletariat (the workers). In doing so, the workers have been forced into a state of mere subsistence living and have nowhere to direct their anger but towards the owners who dictate their lives. Initially, when hearing about Marx concepts, I could not help but be reminded of the term Social Darwinism . Essentially, this term states that those inherently gifted with the skills necessary to thrive in society will rise to the top while those less fit will wither and die off. This mindset is commonly referred to as “the survival of the fittest” or natural selection when in relation to animals, but now has been used to justify that some people are meant to succeed while others are not. While I personally find such theories to be irrational and egotistical, there is no denying the basis of such a system in America’s political and economic sectors. I would even go as far as saying that such behavior is glorified in America; the idea of going from rags to riches is the American dream after all.

Regardless of your beliefs, there is no denying that Marx makes some good points about modern Capitalism. The real question I want to know is if his theory is correct, when will the era of Communism will arrive, and is such a transition is already occurring without even realizing it? Over the past century, there has a noticeable effort to secure the rights of the working class and the ever lingering distaste for the wealthy one percent. Therefore, it seems to only be a matter of time. So, when do you think this new era will occur? Will it be in our lifetime or do completely disagree that this transition is even happening?

Strenth being good and evil

In class we went over how Nietzsche showed strength and weakness being depicted in society. But where the lines become blurry are when we look at this idea from the eyes of the weak and the strong. As the strong there is no other way to show they are strong then by the display of their strength and to show weakness would be wasting the gift of strength that they have. But only by conquering other strong opponent or obstacles can they really show their strength. On the other side, the weak see the strong as overpowering them and actually brought about the idea of morals coming into play. By the strong not showing their strength and instead humbling themselves they are showing strength. What this does is it allow the strong to be on the same level as the weak and give them some since of guilt. What is the problem with the strength of people is it all is dependent on the person is. We used Hitler as an example in class. He was strong by showing his strength and conquering other people, but some would say that he was evil. I am not saying that i agree with what he did, i am merely pointing out what and Ubermensch could be if there is strength or weakness taken to the extreme.

Strengths

Nietzsche defined master morality as the morality of the strong-willed. The good is the the strong and powerful, while the bad is the weak and the helpless. The qualities of master morality are things such as courage, truthfulness, trust, having self worth.  "The essence of master morality is nobility." The noble man does not seek approval from others. The strong value themselves. They know that what is harmful to themselves is harmful in itself. We should all aspire to be "strong." We do not need slave-morality mentality. We can not shy away from the strong, but we must become the strong. I agree. If this world had more brave, courageous, strong people that stopped looking for others affirmation then we would all be living a happier more fulfilling life for ourselves. The weak shy away from the strong, but the weak need to become the strong in their own way. Today for example we see the wealthy as the strong and powerful, and the poor want to immediately say the wealthy should pay more taxes. Why? Why should the wealthy have to pay more just because they worked hard and made more money? It is their money. The weak should stop complaining and rise up and become strong themselves. Everyone has their own strengths, find them and use them to your advantage. Do not be weak minded. If you don't believe you have a strength; build one, create one. Everyone has something they are good at. Some kind of strength. People need to use their strengths and the more people use them the more successful they will be.

Reading material for next week: Karl Marx's "Alienated Labor"

You can click here to view/download the essay "Alienated Labor" by Karl Marx.

Mill

This week we had a symposium and discussed the pros and cons of Immanuel Kant’s and John Stewart Mill’s philosophical theories. Mills ethical theory was called Utilitarianism and focused on “utility”; utility is the measure by which we judge the moral goodness or badness of a situation. I spent majority of the time talking about the pros of Mill’s utilitarianism approach. One of the things I found while researching Mill’s utilitarianism is that it is intuitive in general. Mill’s theory links happiness with morality, instead of possibly linking happiness against morality (such as Kant’s view). Mill’s approach of consequentialism means he views the consequences before acting on a decision. For instance, in general, this theory backs up murder’s being wrong, lying, and rights. Utilitarianism is good for this because it gives us a system to our intuitions. Intuition is the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. This theory is great at looking into why something is morally wrong. It is often criticized that Utilitarianism is based on people’s self-interest and that people’s desire for happiness may not be morally just at all. The counter to this is that reason doesn’t motivate moral action as in Kant’s approach. Utilitarianism requires us to balance our interests with those of others and is impartial, fair, and promotes social harmony. Additionally, Mill would argue that there are “higher” and “lower” pleasures. Only humans can possess these higher pleasures and these pleasures are set up so that we can experience emotions, intellectual experiences etc. These pleasures are set out to increase happiness which satisfies the Greatest Happiness Principle which states that things are good insofar as they tend to promote happiness and bad insofar as they tent to diminish happiness. Mill is famous for his quote “I’d rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”, this quote is supporting that even as humans that are dissatisfied was can have the benefit of having higher pleasures.

Virtue Trumps Happiness

     In Mill's book Utilitarianism, he responds to the objection that happiness cannot be the rational aim of human life by stating "happiness is not the rational end and purpose of human life and action; virtue is a better end or goal than happiness" (15). Essentially, Mill asserts that acquiring morally desirable traits, such honesty and courage, will in turn promote happiness to higher degree than less favorable traits. By accepting this fact, then it can also be stated that virtue is a means to obtain happiness. Personally, I tend to agree with Mill's notion that by leading a virtuous life, happiness is sure to follow. Alternatively, do you disagree with this statement and believe that a same level of happiness can be obtained through a non-virtuous lifestyle, such as a corrupt politician or scam artist?
     Moreover, do you believe that true happiness can ever be achieved, is such a goal irrational to aim for, and if not what would you say is the goal of human existence? When considering Mill's felicific calculus, I tend to agree with his notion that while maximizing happiness is important, completely eliminating pain would not be ideal. Ultimately, I find that the pain and adversity we suffer through allows us to experience and appreciate the finer things in life.
     Also, when considering this topic, I could not help but see the connection between Mill's idea of leading a virtuous life as a means to acquiring happiness and the Christian notion that leading a faithful lifestyle will ultimately lead to happiness in the form of going to heaven. It also seems to hold true inversely, such as when someone leads a sinful life they will be damned to a life of eternal unhappiness.  Personally, I do not have much experience with the Christian faith so if you anyone could further expand upon this notion, or disagree with this connection, I would love to hear it.

What are consequences

           





 In general, everyone in some shape form or fashion thinks about the outcome of their actions. Whether its vaguely and brief or descriptive and elaborate it comes across your mind at some point of the day. If you do not you may be considered a sociopath (jokingly). John Stewart Mill's theory of utilitarianism is about the most straight forward answer on ethics I have seen. However, being ethical can not simply ever be "satisfying the greatest mass of people". In today's society there are so many different types of people there would be no way to satisfy "the mass". For example if 55% of people voted for slavery to be legal again in the united states and 45% did not, would slavery still be moral ? According to Mill, consequences play a big part in utilitarianism. Slavery produced good long term results, such as the South's economy. We could now mass produce crops and support ourselves. Even with those consequences many people would ultimately agree that slavery was immoral. John Stewart Mill's theory would only work in a perfect ideal society.
 
            Mill's theory oversimplified. Although you do vaguely think about your consequences, it is still hard to base every action a person makes off of them. Because a normal rational human being do not believe they can determine the future, sometimes it is hard to base actions off of desired consequences. Sometimes things turn out completely different than what it may seem .What if there is no possible to determine your consequences ? How about in a situation where you have no choice but death ? How will Mill tell one to make choices about consequences ?