the materialist

Do you agree with Karl Marx when he realizes that the material conditions of life do control reality?

Yes, I do agree. I think our material condition really does control reality. I think that as a society, unfortunately we are fueled by material possessions. The more we have, in terms of things, the more we think we will be happy. We base our happiness and fulfillment of life on what we have because what we have demonstrates our financial status and determines social relationships. People group together with their social and economic order. The divide Marx distinguished is between the class that were owners and governed and the exploited working class. In the Manifesto, Marx asserts that “man’s ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, his social relations, and his social life.” (1959, p. 341). I find that I too am essentially motivated by materialism. I want to enjoy the finer things in life. I go to school for of course an education, I truly do enjoy learning, but the intention is not just expanding my knowledge. Like many other students that go to college, I want to earn a degree and get a good job. I want a job that pays more so I can afford things that are more expensive, even if they are unnecessary and not actually needed. I have been conditioned by our capitalistic and materialistic society to think that I not only should have these things to “fit in” where I want to be, but that I also need them to be happy. I come from a family that could give me what was necessary to live and be happy. There is no excess wealth to fund this education that I have been told I needed from a young age. To afford college, I have taken out student loans. Once I graduate, I will have this better paying job I was conditioned to need with hefty loan payments. So sure, I’ll be earning a little more cash, but in exchange I’ll have more to pay for. This vicious cycle is difficult to break.

I am lucky to not have lived in poverty, but in theory, couldn’t this scenario be considered willing economic exploitation? Marx calls this co-option. It occurs when workers identify with the economic system that oppresses them by confusing the possibility of gaining wealth with their actual living and working situation. We are taught from a young age to go to college, to have a career, to fulfill our duty of contributing to our society. I feel as if I am obligated to do so. I am supposed to want this for myself, right? The more money I owe these large loan companies, the more power and control I give them over my life. Am I just helping the rich get richer? There is a great chance I have been lured by the greener grass on the other side to voluntarily sign my life away for endless loan payments with little to show for it. We must make ourselves aware. Marx says we are the happiest when we engage in personally meaningful work, whatever that may be. We shouldn’t need money and material possessions to live a full life.

 word count: 549

The Utilitarian, John Stuart Mill

Do you think John Stuart Mill is too optimistic thinking that a refined utilitarianistic society could exist?

I do think that John Stuart Mill was indeed too optimistic wanting to reform the behavior and character of society. The book states that Mill asserts that, ultimately, utilitarianism rests on “the social feelings of mankind; the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures.” (pg. 354). A key goal of his was to make as many people as happy as possible. He believed that the main cause of unhappiness is selfishness. He wanted to create an altruistic environment, which is the ability to encourage the welfare of others, and that no person’s self-interest is more or less important than another’s. The way he believed to attain a general happiness was through universal education. For Mill, the use of education was to instill the skills and knowledge needed for a person to live well and productively, and create altruistic members of society. The job of these well intended people is to deal with the root of society’s misfortunes that can be fixed or evaded.

The idea he had, in my opinion, is truly noble and selfless, but how can you impose those ideals on everyone and think that is what will change the core motivations of others. I feel as though he is almost a little bit naïve thinking that people can be truly motivated only by helping create a general happiness, and not their own first. How can you trust that everyone has that same intention to apply reason and good will to their actions? I think Jeremy Bentham’s egoistic foundation of social concern makes more sense. Bentham claimed that psychological egoism, always being interested chiefly in our own welfare, whether or not we admit it, is natural and universal (pg.341). The care we place on things and other people is based on how it or they affect our own happiness. He acknowledged that we motivated from our own personal hedonism, and that pleasure is good and pain is bad. That we try to maximize our pleasure and minimize our pain. He expanded on that and added a general ethical obligation to it. Bentham thought if people could be shown how a better society for others would cause less pain and more pleasure for them, then a true social reform would happen. This innate self-interest shows how our personal welfare cannot be separated from social welfare. The correct role of the government is to make sure the enlightened self-interest of each person is permitted to grow.

I think that Bentham is more than correct when he says we operate essentially for ourselves. We want to know what is in it for us. The textbook states that “Bentham declared that careful observation of actual behavior makes it crystal clear that pain and pleasure shape all human activity.” (pg.342). People’s motivations are reduced to what gives them pleasure. People want to help themselves before helping others. The key to the social reform he was looking for was motivating people to consider the welfare of others, as well as their own. People must realize that helping society as a whole can benefit them as an individual as well. Bentham wanted to show that clear thinking selfishness could be seen as positive and used as an advantage instead of seen as a bad quality to possess. His principle of utility, act always to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number, is a simpler and more sensible utilitarian philosophy compared to Mill’s approach in my opinion.

WORD COUNT: 591

The Philosopher-King

Can the philosopher's republic work in today's society?

In chapter 5, The Philosopher-King, section 8c states "The Republic reveals Plato’s view that a good life can be lived only in a good society because no one can live a truly good life in an irrational, imbalanced society. Nor can one live a truly good life without having some social activities, obligations, and concerns. Plato said that society originates because no individual is self-sufficient. The just or ideal state meets three basic categories of needs: (1) nourishing needs (food, shelter, clothing); (2) protection needs (military, police); (3) ordering needs (leadership, government). These needs are best met by members of three corresponding classes of people: (1) workers (computer programmer, banker, truck driver); (2) warriors (soldiers, police officers, firefighters); (3) guardians (philosopher-kings). A state is “just” when it functions fully. An unjust state is dysfunctional; it fails to meet some essential need. Only when all classes of people are virtuous according to their natures is the state whole, healthy, balanced, and just. The good life is nothing more—or less—than each individual functioning well according to his or her own nature, in a state that is well-ordered and wisely ruled."

The idea behind the republic that Plato suggests makes sense. If you look at the larger picture, not everyone is fit to lead. Some people are better workers, some do better as protectors, and others are meant to lead. If everyone played their role in society, in theory, people would live happily and with an understood order. Those who were chosen to rule have been enlightened and have more knowledge to rule for the community. The book states in chapter 5 section 8, The Rule of the Wise, that "Plato’s fundamental vision is deliberately hierarchical and aristocratic rather than egalitarian and democratic."  Plato thought there were different types of people with different strengths to be used for the community as a whole.

In today's society, Plato's idea of this Utopia would not work. People would not willingly submit themselves to a certain role based on their level of intelligence. The idea of a class system would not be seen as Plato meant for it to be in our democracy. I do not think some people are better than others and should be forced to a way of life they are not happy with, but if this theory could be implemented in a just manner, we would benefit. Even today we have those who lead naturally, and those have proven to be much more intelligent than others. Because our culture has almost become spoiled with participation metals and given credit just for trying, we have given ourselves a false sense of confidence. People think they all are fit for the highest job, and it just simply is not true. Different people excel at different things and that is okay. There is too much pride and ego to play any other role other than the philosopher or king. Our reason has become a dim light to our appetites.

WORD COUNT: 504