Kirk Kirkland

PHIL 1000
Group Project Paper
For this paper we were grouped and tasked with discussing a series of
ten powerful questions, and then we were to write about our discussions and
reflect on what we think about the questions ourselves. All ten questions are
fundamental to philosophical thinking, or rather, they are the kinds of
questions that philosophical thinking is supposed to try and answer for us.
Very few of my accounts of what the others in my group said are verbatim,
and it is completely possible that I misunderstood their intentions, should
any of them read this, please forgive me if that is the case. This paper is
solely based on my perspective of the conversation.
The first question asked us if we have any ethical duties regarding
what we do with our money. Ill be honest I was a bit late to the discussion
and missed most of what the others had to say about this subject. Kalisse
said that yes we do and most of the group agreed. We determined that it
would be impractical and possibly detrimental to society if we all did what
Peter Singer suggests and simply give away all of our extra income beyond a
certain point. I feel like perhaps I was the strongest voice against this,
although Luke seemed to be in agreeance with me. As a whole we
determined that it wouldnt be very hard simply to choose who we made
purchases from in an effort to better society. I entered the caveat that as

long as it isnt detrimental, or simply impractical, to us, then its probably of

greater ethical merit to do so. I am still made a little uneasy by the thought
of having an ethical duty of what to do with my money. I feel like I have an
ethical duty to work for and have an income, but regarding what I spend it
on, well, its just too subjective for me to say that there really is a right or
wrong. I can agree that money should ethically be spent to provide for
yourself and your family, but beyond that I will reiterate that I dont feel like
there is a right or a wrong. Whats good for you, or seems like the right thing
to you, may be totally wrong for someone else, and even negatively impact
their livelihood.
Is it unethical to eat meat? This was the second question. Peter singer
seemed to think that it was unethical to eat meat because it caused
suffering, and he feels like it is our moral duty to reduce suffering. Kalisse
stated that it really comes down to a respect for life, but in this same line of
thought it comes out that humans are designed to consume meat. At this
point we all agreed that it is entirely ethical to eat meat, although the
suffering of the animal that is eaten should be kept to the minimum possible,
but for the sake of argument we continued our inquiry. Kalisse asks that what
makes us better than the animals we eat, why is it ok for us to kill them and
not to kill other humans? Luke stated that our technology makes it possible
to live healthy lives without eating meat. Whitney seemed to be in
agreeance. The primary reason technology must be taken into account here
is that we have protein supplements and alternative ways to get the nutrition

we normally get from meat. So that it isnt necessary to cause suffering to

animals. Jennifer then countered that in third world countries and the like
they dont have access to that technology or most protein supplements.
Im an avid carnivore myself and I simply love it. Good meat really is a
pleasure to consume. Although at this point I can say that I do think it is
perfectly ethical to eat meat, I can also say that it should really be
imperative to give the animals we consume good living conditions, perhaps
even allow them to grow old, and humane deaths. I really hate the thought
of any of my pets dying, especially if it were to be caused intentionally. This
is the primary reason why I still have my doubts. I also think that life was
meant to be lived, and have a conviction that robbing anything of that is
wrong.
Question number three asks us what is truth? We came to a general
consensus that it can be relative. What is evil to some may not be evil to
others, in this case, the truth about evil is relative. Kalisse stated that she
considered the fact that the earth is round to be a truth. Jennifer then called
into question a distinction between facts and truth. Is truth fact? I supported
the idea by saying that it isnt necessarily. Even though this doesnt settle
the issue, it narrows down what truth could be by quite a bit. Jennifer then
asked us when do ethics dictate truth and when does truth dictate ethics? Is
it purely a one sided relationship or does it go both ways. I think that we all
agreed that it can go both ways. The discussion on this question ended after

Luke said something to the effect that truth is a product of perspective. This
was a decent ending point for me on the topic, because personally, it would
take me a year and 400 pages of thought in order for me to come up with a
useful definition of truth for myself.
The fourth question reads, How is good and bad behavior
determined? Kalisse stated that the method and the definition of good and
bad behavior have changed throughout time. Jennifer explained this by
saying that the answer has always been relative to society, what is wrong in
one culture, isnt necessarily wrong in another. Luke added to this by saying
that it is also relative to religion. Whitney expanded on this again and
inferred that the answer to the question can also be gained by asking what
is socially acceptable? The conversation turned when Kalisse asked us if
good and evil are constant. Was Hitler in the wrong? Was he always wrong?
Will be always be wrong? If I remember correctly I responded by saying that
just like truth it could be relative. There are many people who think what he
did was right, and for them that is the truth. Whether or not that correspond
to any objective right or wrong is a different matter entirely though.
At this point Whitney noted that the fear of bad decision and the need
for self-preservation should be considered as well. How much sway do these
things have in determining wrong and right? As far as actually answering the
question we didnt really get very far. The last thing Luke said on the topic
was that good and bad are always changing. Whitney brought up the matter

of action vs intention, and said that having good intensions played a role in it
for her. Kalisse stated what I believe most of the group was thinking and said
that both the action and the intentions behind the action have to be
considered in determining if the person did the right or the wrong thing.
Since Whitney had led us into the next question so nicely we moved on after
a final thought from Jennifer, she asked if its possible to quantize morality.
Im a little disappointed that we didnt continue on, as this is where I feel like
the conversation could have gotten very interesting.
Considering what Whitney noted just above the fifth question is a very
natural follow up to the last one. It asks, Is it less moral to do the right thing
for the wrong reason? Personally, my immediate response is no. Whitney
summed up my feelings on the matter just about perfectly by saying that a
good deed was done anyways. Jennifer agreed as well. Kalisse mentioned
that there could be a caveat in that it can be harmful if it were to be made
into a habit. At some point everything you do would have some kind of
selfish ulterior motive. To this Jennifer responded by asking if selfishness is
bad. To be honest I dont think that selfishness is bad, in a way it even comes
back to the idea of self-preservation that we discussed in the last question. It
seemed like for the most part we all agreed that no, it isnt any less moral to
do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
The sixth question follows suit again, asking if it is moral to do bad
things for the right reason. Whitney brought up Robin Hood and we used him

as an example to work us through the discussion. Jennifer wondered if it was

ethical to re-structure society, by stealing from the rich and giving to the
poor. Kalisse brought up a very valid point, that it certain does seem a lot
less moral to do something bad, even for the right reasons if there are any
other options. Whitney then brought us to an even bigger consequence if it
was considered moral to do the wrong things for the right reason. She noted
that it could very easily mean the breakdown of our current social order.
Jennifer and Kalisse added to this by saying that it could lead to a cycle of
stealing, or a feud between social classes. It seemed like the general
consensus to this was that it is not moral to do bad things for the right
reason. I feel like the matter could use a little bit more thought and insight
however. In some cases it seems like there are certain exceptions to this, and
it would greatly interest me to determine the circumstances behind those.
Question number seven. What does living the good life consist
of? The conversation on this topic started off with Luke, who stated that the
answer is subjective and that it has something to do with happiness,
satisfaction and humor. Kalisse mentioned accomplishing good and success
and Whitney added that it has to do with a persons state of mind, stating
that people create happiness. This became the foundation for the rest of our
discussion on the subject. Kalisse questioned happiness because it can
mean a loss of ambition. Whitney and Luke somewhat refuted the idea
however, stating that even a drug addict can be happy and who could really
say that it isnt ok then? This became the bulk of the conversation and I have

to agree with it to a point. They might only be happy because they are
ignorant, but again, why is that wrong? This line of thought makes a pretty
good lead into where we ended the topic. Jennifer stated, and I agree wholeheartedly that the good life seems to consist of a pursuit for personal growth
and that there is a joy that comes in improving oneself. This may not be true
for other people though, so it could still simply be subjective.
For our eighth question we were asked what the qualities of a superior
individual are. One of the most interesting discussions we had was on this.
We started out with a small laugh about how its all relative and that the
answer to every question on this list is well its relative. Kalisse insisted
initially that a superior individual doesnt exist. Jennifer added to this by
entering the idea that labeling people are bad and we all agreed that having
a mindset that anyone is superior to another is a bad thing. Now I cant
remember who brought it up, but we started to back off from this idea a bit
when we considered that it is worth aspiring to someone. Luke mentioned
that a superior person shouldnt think that their superior. Whitney and
Jennifer began to draw a line between the meanings of leadership vs.
superiority. The distinction does seem to matter, but I personally dont think
its as big of an issue as whether or not it is correct to consider someone
superior. I also feel like the group was far too focused on an exterior superior
person. I think the question is much more important when it relates to the
self. What would make me a superior person? I personally think that is the
correct way to phrase the question.

Moving on to question number nine, it asks, How does happiness

relate to living the good life? We spent a bit of time on this, even though we
felt like we had covered it to a degree in question seven. Kalisse mentioned
something along the lines of saying that happiness is relative, but morality is
not, and that both play a role in living the good life. Jennifer responded by to
Kalisse by saying that people who are happy tend to live within their moral
beliefs, and it does seem to be a key factor in being happy and living the
good life. There is certainly a correlation between the two. On top of noticing
this, Jennifer also made the statement that happiness is in the journey and
not the destination. This is another point that I feel I can agree with.
Luke then brought up a counter argument, saying that not everyone is
happy living their morals. There was some kind of example about thinking it
was immoral to eat junk food, and then being happy binging over the
weekend, it was expanded and alluded to several times and put in different
context until we really understood the idea. Jennifer brought into question
whether or not morality was really part of the question by asking if our
theoretical person valued their morals. This was a particularly interesting
question to me, because my single biggest focus philosophically, when I
consider things, is value, what value does something have, is it useful. I do
value my morals, to about an equal degree as my happiness, but this may
not be true of everyone. Luke brought the concept of guilt into play, perhaps
after you weekend junk food binge you cannot be happy until the guilt has
subsided. Therefore, it is possible to assume that maybe happiness is

dependent on morality, which is supported by Jennifers earlier statement

about people living within their moral beliefs. Kalisse then asked if something
is even worth doing if it doesnt make you happy. We decided that it can be
if it is for the sake of someone elses happiness, especially if their happiness
can cause you to be happy.
We got a little bit more on point and closer to answering the actual
question of happiness relation to the good life when Jennifer brought up the
pursuit of happiness, and asked if it could be a relative, fluid or changing
thing. Luke mentioned happiness being dependent on the existence of
sadness, and Jennifer noted that we cannot live in perpetual happiness. The
conversation actually managed to come up with something Im rather proud
of. Perhaps living the good life is dependent on happiness in that it consists
of pursuing greater happiness. I could go on further on this, but we didnt in
our discussion really. The place to pick the topic up again would be on the
last question asked by Kalisse, is there a point to stop pursuing happiness?
There could be an interesting answer.
The final question, and by far the most contentious is To what extent,
if any, does ones duties to society or other people relate to living the
morally good life? Jennifer started this one out by saying that people can
contribute after they reach a certain point of person wellbeing and that at
this point, it becomes key to living the morally good life. Kalisse agreed
saying that everyone can contribute to the quality of life. This was tied in

again to previous topics when Luke stated that doing things for other people
often brings happiness. Most of us were in agreement and Jennifer refined it
slightly by saying that helping people makes people happy. Kalisse included
the concept of the selfless good deed.
The counter argument to this began when Whitney went on to
discuss the concept of obligations, and how having an obligation takes away
from that happiness. A good deed that is obliged seems like a larger burden
for the doer. Kalisse brought up our obligations to society, and stated that we
absolutely have an obligation to society. To which I rather heatedly
disagreed. She stated that society is a living thing, and that everybody, no
matter their background, owes something to society. The way I see it
however, is that I really cant expect society as a whole to help me when Im
in need, why is it fair for society to expect me to help it. Society has its
flaws, and sometimes people are just left hung out to dry. Im certain that a
man wrongly accused of a crime and sentenced to prison time would agree
with me. After our discussion took place however, I took some time to clarify
Kalisse meaning and word usage, and I found that I couldnt really defend the
point that I dont owe society anything at all, because I am in school, being
educated despite the education systems many flaws, for which our society is
responsible. I will concede at one point, I do owe society my presence in it,
and my influence upon it. If I think that something is unjust or isnt working
the way it should, I owe society my opinion on it.

This is where we ended our discussion, and although it was rather

disappointing to end up disagreeing with someone on a topic at the very
end, I found it to be a fruitful and engaging experience. Several of us really
wanted to meet up again, and follow up on a few things, but we never really
got the chance. So we never really did get to come to solid conclusion on the
final question. I have spent quite a bit of time thinking about it since
however.