Class Group Discussion

Posted in Uncategorized on October 6, 2008 by thomasmocera

Mill claims that there is somthing very wrong when it comes to lying, when it comes to Utilitarianism. He says that people, alot of the time, act upon what they feel is accurate and what will benifit them more. Mill feels that when Utiliarianism is defined as an action that increases overall happyness, he in fact mean for society as a whole and not just that one person who is committing an act. He does though explain some exceptions in his eyes, such as a doctor holding back information on a patient to save the family of the patient stress and depression. Who is to say this correct though? I feel that the whole track of morality depends on who you are as an individual. Everything happens for a reason, and its somebodys choice to lie, just like it is somebodys choice, for example, to eat pizza for lunch. Choosing to lie is just another option people will always consider when dealing with certain situations.



Posted in Uncategorized on September 24, 2008 by thomasmocera

When Mills says that mental pleasures are infact better than physical pleasures, i feel that this statement is not completely true. This is beacuse i feel that you can always expierience alittle of both worlds. Who is to say that you can only choose between a meal or listening to a song? why cant you eat and listen to the song at the same time? It is like hitting two birds with one stone. Although the mental pleasures may last longer than the physical ones, i feel that it is always nessesary to satisfy yourself with both worlds, a physical and a mental pleasure. If it were up to me i wouldnt even put these pleasures under catagories. In all they are just pleasures, whether it be mentally or physically.


Posted in Uncategorized on September 21, 2008 by thomasmocera

When do consequences come into play when an immoral act is committed?  Is it right to allow such an act in the means of doing something morally acceptable. Many of us dont know where to draw the line when dealing with what our consequences may be when dealing with a ” not so immoral”, immoral act. For example if your cat was stuck at the top of a historic statue in your hometown and you trespassed the property and climbed up the statue to save your cat from killing itself, are you to be penilized for such an act? I feel that the only acceptable conclusion is that, sometimes we must cross the line of right and wrong and no matter what nobody will ever be morally correct.

God in my Eyes…post#3

Posted in Uncategorized on September 15, 2008 by thomasmocera

If the Devine Command Theory was completely false, would God be viewed at differently by the people who follow him religiously? I personally believe that if this theory was false then alot of people would drop god as a belief only because many people follow the “ways” of God, and their actions are based apon what they feel god believes himself to be right. I once heard someone say “God helps those who help themselves”. This basically means that being dependant apon yourself is a way to get on Gods good side so to say. But if people believed that God wanted people to relax and to be catered to then thats what they would do. This saying basically shows that people depend on Gods word and prespective. If the Devine Command Theory was infact incorrect then people would not have a set of morals to follow. The Devine Command Theory in short terms is defined as, “a good act is good because god said so”. So if there was no “..God said so”, then people wouldnt look to him as perfect anymore, because they were basically following morals based on what they thought would have been a good act. Without the Devine Command Theory people would basically say, ” A good act is good because I said so”.

Morality Doesn’t Depend on

Posted in Uncategorized on September 15, 2008 by thomasmocera

When you ask the question, ” can god change the moral truth of a matter”, it’s like asking is god the only person that can never do any wrong. I feel that god cannot change the moral truth of a certain situation because peoples morals are based on how they were raised. Many people disagree on alot of different matters, but who is to judge who is right and who is wrong. For example the Nazi’s thought it was acceptable to kill alot of different people because of where they came from or what they believed in. Many people in other countries other than Germany like America thought that this was unacceptable and felt it was agaist an inocent persons rights to be killed because of the person you are. Who is to say that the Nazi’s were wrong and we were right about the situation? If god was the judge on moral rights who would be say was right? Does god think its okay to kill those people? Obviously god cannot change Moral truthes because if he was in charge of morality every single person living in this world would have one set of morals and they would all be right.


Posted in Uncategorized on September 8, 2008 by thomasmocera

I feel that a legitimate moral cultural disagreement would have to be the dinner arrangement planned by Italians rather than some other culture that isn’t Italian. The dinner arrangements made by an Italian person would be that you prepare all seafood and fish for your Christmas eve feast, which is the day before Christmas. Although this has been tradition for Italians for ages, many people who aren’t Italian eat what ever they want on Christmas eve because they do not follow the Italian culture.

I feel like this statement supports the fact that cultural relativism is infact correct. This is because, although Italians do this and feel like there is no other correct thing to do but to cook fish, other cultures feel that fish is not nessesary on Christmas Eve. This proves that there is no moral truth of what to eat on Christmas Eve.