Phil’s Blog

There is a disaccord between the moral structure of human relationship and the practical structure of society. Through the discovery of science, mankind made his world more comfortable to live in. He is far ahead in the knowledge of technology, while at the social level he seems lacking of moral values. His history is mainly the stories of his wars. History can be illustrated through different perspectives. For example, through the scientific evolution of mankind, and his control over natural laws; it can be demonstrated through the ethical evolution of man’s morals, man and his moral values. And, within the practicality in man’s actions, history can be evaluated at a collective level, or, and following one’s opinion in how he may perceive himself, a member of history, history in its making. The discord that exists is the wide contrast between the technological development of society and the development of man’s social behavior. This essay will deal with the discrepancy that exists in the moral evolution of man, within the practical development of mankind. The lack of awareness about the moral structure brought mankind to moralize the immoral. In the action of killing another human being practicality won over morality.
The lack of awareness about the moral structure of society can be underlined through human history. Within two fundamental structures mankind evolved. One, the practical structure of society, which is built through the scientific discoveries. They gave to mankind the tools he needed in his search for concrete knowledge, the scientifically proven reality. In this field of development man gained a higher control over the natural world that surrounds him. This development is defined as the physical evolution of mankind in the realm of the practical structure of society. Sciences are the foundations of the practical structure following which one discovers the laws that affect him; they will be used either to reproduce life or to destroy it.
Mankind evolved also through the social relation within itself, the relationship between human beings. It is defined as the moral evaluation of man’s actions. This philosophical development of human awareness is the essence; its tools are the moral and ethical virtues that defined humanity as a leader in the world evolution. History shows us that in this field mankind is lacking. The discrepancy that exists between the development of sciences and the philosophical etiquette of virtue is enormous. A man can call himself superior to another man, and decides whether or not he may live. While it is scientifically proven that all men had started as embryo, and all will end as carbon. Therefore, a man can not be called superior to another. Still mankind will find a reason to develop a wide variety of weaponry with enormous power; some can annihilate thousands in a blink of an eye. Where are the moral values that originated man creation? For which purpose science is used? To destroy life! In this moral argument practicality won over morality. Man found many reasons for the killing of another human. Mankind desires to live in peace, but he lives in constant wars, not only at a national or international level, but also at the individual level. The battle that each man is engaged in within himself, the struggle between the forces of right and wrong. It is the moral dilemma behind each of his actions. Einstein said: “Peace is the time between two wars.” The war is the moral dilemma that exists in each man. But as he chooses and acts, his actions are to be done in a peaceful manner. In the actual relationship between man peace is a must. Man overlooked morality in its evaluation of the value of life. He putted a price on a man’s life. Now he seeks inner peace, within the daily struggle of his life.
The moral structure that was developed by early philosophers was based on the premise that man is the ruler of his world; the need then to have a high set of moral values was a necessity. They are the foundation to the constant evaluation that a man does within himself. It is between him and his creator. History shows that a man was not able to hold on such a strict moral structure. He started early to show the need of more practicality in his life than morality. Early family disputes ended in the killing of a member of the family. When a Greek philosopher by the name of Socrates stood firm in his opinion that the youth should be taught the virtues of honesty and humility he was put to death. Plato, one of his students, defined a well ordered individual as one who acquired the virtues of wisdom, courage and temperance, and unifying all justice. They are the basis for human development. These moral virtues would be acquired through the teaching of music, gymnastics and philosophy. The power of few men stopped the momentum of the teaching of philosophy and pushed the military training to gain power over other men. Other philosophers tried to bring man to a higher level of awareness. Voltaire, a French philosopher, once declared that it is in the hand of a man to form his path. This is hidden in the famous sentence that ends the book of Candide, “go and cultivate your own garden.” He also published the first philosophical dictionary, from which man will be able to comprehend a higher meaning to his life. Jean Jacques Rousseau a French philosopher from the eighteen century wrote and essay on the origin of the foundation of inequality within mankind. Expressed in the essay is the opinion of one moral for all as the basis for man equality. The social competition between human being forced man to find reasons to abolish morals. It was not practical enough, too serious. The practicality in the battle for success was to acquire wealth, power and fame. To be a moralist was not practical. Still, more people will come and battle on the side of morality. For example, Gandhi in India stood firm in his conviction that non-violence was the way to go. Marthin Luther King would have wished for a peaceful world, where a man’s color will not determine if he will be free or will be a slave. And many more stood firm in their belief that man is the ruler of his world. Still, it seems that mankind developed a different opinion; he is no more that a sophisticated ape. Therefore, he does not need a moral structure to limit his development. To wage war against his own kind, his moral foundation is the one of an ape, no offence to the apes.
It is time to awake, and live peacefully between each other. Through the scientific evolution man perceived himself as a cultivated animal. He will seek power to acquire and fulfill his deepest desires. He will give up the identity of man, man as a higher form. A man that has control on his desires, and does not need to fulfill them. It is time to understand that history is repeating itself. If it is peace that man wants, in his hand the power to achieve it. He needs to start at the individual level and progress through a well established system of education. Where the main purpose is not to have more than others, but to grow as a whole, the growth of humanity. History shows us the need to reeducate ourselves. Each man needs to understand the danger that awaits him in the development of humanity. If evil prevails it is the end of mankind as we know it. The power of science could be used to heal the wounds it produced. The need to develop a higher level of awareness in the realm of collective identity at each individual level should be the priority in man’s development. If he keeps on making weapons with greater power of destruction, he will then use the power of science to destroy life. On the contrary, if man concerns himself in the learning of philosophy, and uses science’s power to produce life, he will then attain a higher level of awareness in the structural foundation of morality at the practical level, in every actions that he will experience.

What is integrity?

As defined in Wikipedia: “Integrity is holding true to one’s values”, or it is the value of a man’s words. If one proclaims that one will do a certain action, one must follow up. To have integrity, then, seems to relate to honesty towards oneself-one does not lie to oneself-

If in the pursuit of self development, one realizes than one must change a behavior, if one hope to improve. It is then to one’s responsibility to do so, and change the behavior, not doing so, will mean that one has no consistency, and no integrity with one’s thoughts and awareness. Or, just that one has no confidence or faith on one’s philosophy.

To have integrity, one must do which one knows to be beneficial or good, and if not towards others, than, a priori towards oneself.

Integrity is given to development, for it is closely connected to Will. More one trains oneself to follow one’s commands, then one becomes curiously enough, more free.

So it appears that developing integrity is more beneficial to freedom, than some other option today in the balance.

This blog is a continuity of a previous blog title: “Simple Observations.”
In the process of self evaluation and development, one first set an ideological view of the characteristics of being Human. Such ideological individual is a moral person that uses reason to set forth the development process. A just man whose purpose is to do good and avoid evil.
What are morals? Are morals man made, given by a god, or found within the natural law? It is suggested that the law of nature is the law of the fittest (strongest) and that no morality is involved. Do animals do bad for the sake of doing bad? Or are they acting upon instincts? When a cat plays with a live mousse and does not kill it, or even after the kill the cat does not eat the mousse, did the cat had pleasure causing harm and suffering to the mousse or is it the way of the cat?
To answer such question, one would have to ask if animals have a conscience that permits them to differentiate between good and bad. I would not say for sure that they do, or that they don’t. But observations would permit me to come close to a conclusion, and I may advance that it appears that the animals do not have a conscience, and act primarily on instincts, as assumed.
However, mankind has a conscience, and knows which is good from which is bad; therefore, mankind has the capability to do harm for the sake of doing it. And this since to other human I am writing is evident and does not require any more explanation.
From that conclusion, comes forth the concept of morality, which is to do good and avoid evil. So that such characteristic is intrinsic to the Human concept. However, it does not mean yet that all human are moral individuals, it just implies that the concept of morality exist within each of us. It is now left to each one to define a set of moral principles to which one will adhere and forge one’s life. Those morals are the foundation for the standard of living that one will choose for oneself.
It is important to add here; that such concept then obliges another concept which is that mankind has a free will. And with that will, one will decide to either do good or do bad.
But as advanced earlier do all human have that characteristic, and do all human have control or the potential for control to make a decision? Trough observations of oneself, one realizes that many of one’s thoughts and actions are impulsive or spontaneous, and by such do not result from clear reasoning, but from habits. Some pushed through by outside stimulus. In such light it is then evident that not all actions or thoughts are willed. But the potential to gain greater control is indeed a value option, since through reflections (after the actions or thoughts) one has the possibility for change. Those reflections create hypotheses for one’s possible development.
Hypotheses can be defined as either Live or Dead. A live hypothesis is one that appeals to us, and is seen as a real possibility, while a dead hypothesis is one which notion does not make any connection and has no credibility for us.
The decision between hypotheses is called an option. Options can be living or dead, forced or avoidable, momentous or trivial. And a genuine option is one that is forced, living and momentous.
It result that morality is a live hypothesis and a genuine option, and such the ideological human is one that has chosen to be a moral and rational individual not just by desire but as a result of duty, the duty that comes from being a human being. This theory is very similar to Kant’s theory of obligation. For those who will wish to have some further readings I posted a blog on Kant’s theory of obligation.

During the observation of one’s actions in relation to one’s thoughts and feelings, one can observe that certain thoughts bring out certain body reactions and specific feelings. It seems that the physical movement is given to control only when one is thinking. The bringing of specific ideas causes the body to react, and through the observation of the action, one brings to light specific feelings in regard to that action. It is evident that an effort is needed to form the thought for a desired action, and an effort is needed to act and create a thought relating to that action. So that the control over a physical reaction, or a change in direction in relation to one’s thought can change one’s reasoning, or can permit the individual to return to the process of true reasoning.
So that the observation of one’s life (thoughts, feelings and actions) brings to light the potential of one’s human condition, the potential for growth and elevation. Such observations show the necessity for Free Will, and such for Reasoning, promoting the beast to the level of manhood.
However, man is not logic alone, but has a heart, or as Pascal once wrote,” man is not reasoning alone but heart which within the essence of the soul, the motion maker, is the embodiment of life”. The development of a healthy body walking hand to hand with a healthy heart, “the house of love”, and a will to search for truth, is what defines a man.
The journey of life is the journey towards truth, truth about oneself, one’s position amidst the whole, truth in regard to the ideal man. So the necessity to observe one’s thoughts, feelings and actions is primordial for that journey. Being aware however, that true objectivism can not be achieve, one must strive to be honest with oneself, and only then, one can get a clear image of the man one is, so that he can put in motion the necessary steps to become the man he wishes to be, or to be more exact, the man he “will” himself to be.

Destiny, Will, or is it a combination of the two? How much control does one has? Even within one’s thoughts, who decides the order? Behind every decisions one has control over one’s actions however, one has no control over the circumstances surrounding him or her. One forges a belief, a hope, a reason and purpose for his or her existence. Some will say it is all predestine; such is the way of the many religions. The Muslims believe that, “all was once written”, where the statement, “Coulo Maktoub”. The Jews view each day as new creation, where the statement, “meradesh col yom mi radash”. The Christians followed the Jews in the statement that nothing new is found under the sun, “ain radash mitarat a shemesh”, in the sense that the creation is at it was created in the beginning, which permits the belief in prophecies. However, all religions agree that in the hand of man to change, and become good. According to those it will appear that it is a combination of the two, destiny and will.
Now, what do I think, and why?
It is evident that I did not choose to be born, or chose my gender, race or nationality, nor did I choose to be a member of the human specie, so it is easy to conclude that at least in regard to those factors I had little to say, and such may have been related to destiny.
Now since, a human I am, I see that a gift was bestowed upon me, the one of awareness, and in particular, self-awareness.
Why is it necessary for me to understand my own being, and understand my surrounding? Could human not be as the stone, the plants or the animals, which live or are without much conflict within themselves (and I do not mean with others- but inner struggle)? I will also not argue with those that will propose that we are in all just energy, energy which vibrates at various frequencies and such defines our consistency, for this I am not aware of it but from the studies of others, and their eloquent theory printed in many books.
One thing I am aware of is that the awareness of my surrounding is essential to my survival, and it is acquired through the process of learning. So here already one characteristic is discovered, and this is the capability to learn, and adapt. But here I already hear, the argument that animals and plants do alike, and they too seem to adapt to their environment and learn to live within it. But we all know that this is not completely true, for if it was, we will see animals in the cities, which were built after the destruction of natural ground, where animals of all kinds did live. It appears that they were removed form their environment and even some got extinct. While the human seems to keep on moving from place to place, and develop new things, new tools, and new surrounding to fit its necessities, and this is very specific to mankind.
So we agree that indeed mankind has he capability to learn. One first learns to differentiate between which is good to which is bad for its survival. And this started from the first man, even if today one learns all this from one’s parents or society.
This learning is done simultaneously within me, self awareness, and towards the outside world, the understanding of my surrounding. From this one can conclude that Learning is inert to mankind, and imperative for its survival.
If all was destine to be, then learning will have no purpose, and we will be no different than the animals and just behave according to our instincts. So already it seems that we arrived to the understanding that both are intertwined, and that the greater part of one’s life is into one’s hands.
But what is the will? In a previous blog, I presented the concept of freedom, which was connected to the necessity for rationality, for to be free but not being able to develop a decision making would be futile and even ridicule of a characteristic. However, how much of one decision is willed, rather than being forced by one’s surrounding?
I would like to have some of your input on the subject, before I continue with my thought process, and post the next part of this philosophical question.
What do you think? Is will a predominant part of one’s life, or is one mostly react to things?

 The Neo-Malthusian argument:
 World hunger is caused by overpopulation
Food production cannot keep up, even with great technology.
Too poor to buy the food, and too overpopulated to grow enough.
Most of the misery, hunger and poverty happens there.
At current rate, it will be misery for all.
 Countries cannot sufficiently control their population growth rates
Population doubles every 35 years and triples every 55 years.
Even the ones that succeeded as Bangladesh will double in 30.
 Therefore feeding those in developing countries will produce great harm.
 The Humanitarian argument:
 Life is intrinsically valuable.
‘Complete justice, complete catastrophe.” (Robert Watson)
 Affluent nations have the resources to eliminate hunger.
23,000 die daily from malnutrition
Suffering and misery is bad, if it is in our power to prevent it, without sacrificing anything, we ought, morally, to act.
There is enough food for all. (Food and Agriculture Organization 2002, FAO 1998)
 Therefore, we are obliged to prevent evil whenever we can, and whenever doing so does not harm us
 The Developmentalist argument:
 Political and economic decisions are the causes of poverty.
Poverty causes hunger.
 If rich nations contribute to the effort, poverty can be eliminated
$60 billion a year cuts global poverty in half by 2015.
$165 billion a years goes to U.S. military contractors. (US Bureau of International Organization Affairs, July 15, 1997
 The economic development of poor countries will eliminate world hunger.
They adhere to Confucius’ proverb: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and he will be fed for life.”
The economic vitality of a wealthy nation, depend on a healthy international economy.
 Therefore, the economic development of poor countries will benefit both rich and poor alike.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/hardin_g_living_on_a_lifeboat.htm (Life Boat Theory)
http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/richard.robbins/legacy/population_readings.htm
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=217102005 (Population)
http://www.duke.edu/web/ddha/geopolitics/Geopolitics-of-Hunger.htm
http://www.pej.org/html/print.php?sid=1635 (The ecology of hunger)
http://www.landreform.org/wp6.htm (Dependency on food aids.)
http://costofwar.com/ (Cost comparison)

It seems evident, following the foot steps of the previous paper, that the theory this humble writer will choose, is Kant’s theory of obligation. In an attempt to present a personal view about the theory, this paper will refute the arguments presented against the theory in the book by Thomas F. Wall, Thinking Critically about Moral Problems. The first objection brought forth, is that the theory violates the criterion of universality; since it requires all moral rules to be absolute. The second objection is that it violates the criterion of external consistency, because the only worthwhile motive for an action is duty (p. 43).
To bring forth a counter argument, it must be shown that Kant’s theory explains more facts than its antagonist. Furthermore, it will be shown that Kant’s theory not only does not contradict the moral beliefs hold as true by most, but is a priori for all morals to be.
The basic concepts within the theory are that man is a rational being with free will, and that he has a duty to use that rationality and will, in the development of its human identity. To be moral is to be rational, and the only necessary motive to be moral is the duty, or the obligation that ensued from rationality. All members of the human species are obliged by the sole fact that they are human. This fact does not change, because of time or surrounding, it is universal.
Rational thinking is a priori for moral decisions. A rule is said to be ethical, not because it appears to be so, but, because reasoning led us to that assertion. It is therefore to say that strength in simplicity is found when a rule is absolute. It does not give way to misinterpretation. It is also just, since it applies to all alike. To say that a rule has a priority over another and that the secondary rule could be violated, so that the primary rule could be fulfill; violate the criterion of internal consistency. Is it morally right to break a rule? If a rule could be broken, it implies that the reasoning that established that rule is faulty. And, if one would ask the many, which will be more just, a rule with exceptions to the rule, or, a rule that applies to everyone no matter the occasion. The answer may show us that the majority believes that a rule should apply the same for everyone.
By creating reasons for the superiority of an ethical rule over another, one is saying that there are good reasons to break an ethical rule. So, if one would make a rhetorical argument in favor of overriding a rule with another, and if the argument appeals to the majority of the people (if it is an accepted fact), then the actions that follow the rule would be moral. All are aware that one rule say “thou shall not kill”, this fact is accepted by all. However, one reasoned at time that one can override that rule; such is the case in time of war. That action is viewed by the majority as just, and right. Was not “do not kill” a moral rule? Was it not wrong to kill? How one would go and do which he knows to be wrong, and argues that now it is right? According to our book, war is a moral act, since the killing in war is morally right. The absolute rule states that killing is morally wrong, and that at no time could it be morally right. Kant’s theory accounts for all possibilities, since it does not change according to the situation. And even if the many see fit to violate a moral rule and use reason to justify their deed, it does not imply that the action is right. The many could be wrong. Kant’s reasoning stays firm in asserting the validity of the moral absolute. The moral is based on rational thinking, and it fulfills the criterion of universality.
Furthermore, if one is not in the development of oneself, how one would know the reasoning behind his or her actions? Could one be call free, if rationality does not lead him or her? And is it not the desire of all to be at peace with oneself? Does any one wish for conflicts, and distress? To be a rational man is to seek to be one with oneself. According to Kant, the only reason for following the path of rationality is duty. This assertion bring the objection that it is not consistent with the accepted believe of the majority. Most believe that the motives for being ethical are numerous, and that the important factor is that the result of the action is good. Simply said, the result justifies the means. Kant rejects that assertion by declaring that the only motive for ethical behavior is the duty that ensued when one decides to be ethical.
The decision is neither based on the emotional whim of the moment, nor, because it feels good, but on the understanding of one’s identity. If one follows the desire to do good, even for altruistic reasons, does his or her feelings encompass all being? If one views the motive as a duty, then one must be ethical with all. As a member of the humankind, one is obliged to be rational. One is obliged to act ethically even toward one’s enemy. One is ethical because one is rational. Moreover, will not the majority agree that with status come obligations and duties? And, is not to be human a status amidst species? Then, obligations and duties ensued from being human. Furthermore, is not the duty to act in accordance with one status a priori to fulfill the status? If so, than Kant’s theory does not violate external consistency. The majority of people will agree that mankind is a status, and that one must live in accord with one’s importance. One is ethical because one has the duty to be human.
This paper has shown that Kant’s theory of obligation does not violate the criterions of universality and external consistency. It is true that by establishing moral absolute, the theory does not consider various alternatives to a situation, but it is more consistent; since, if one knows the moral absolute, one knows how to act, no matter the situation. Therefore, the theory answers all facts. It has been shown that human are rational entities, and with rationality come obligations. Within the same format of an absolute, the sole obligation worth considering is duty, since it is an elementary part of being a rational being; a status that requires an ethical behavior, and as shown a fact agreed on by the majority. Those two aspects of Kant’s theory are appealing to this writer. They create a simple theory to follow, however difficult it might be to implement. It can be argued that Kant’s theory is not practical, since it requires that man be always at his best, and that one’s individuality converges with the collective. To be rational, and to live a moral life, one must make many sacrifices. As Pythagoras said: “Reason is immortal, all else mortal.”

The ethical problem that this paper explore is war; within the concept of the just war theory expressed in an online article “The Ethics of War”, retrieved from www.bbc.uk/religion/ethics/war/jwintro.shtml . Only the introduction will be used as a reference for the paper. This issue is current, since the U.S military forces are involved in a war in Iraq ; however, this paper will not deal directly with that situation, but instead focus on the ethical perspective from the act utilitarianism theory. The conclusion may bring forth the opinion that the Iraq war is just or unjust, depending on the condition of the theory of the just war to be incorporated or not in the act utilitarianism theory; either opinion is a mere circumstance.

The introduction defines the concept of the just war as an attempt to reconcile some Christian principle. The problem of taking lives does not fit the principle of not killing another human life, so reasons were needed to do war. The theory is design as to be a framework of references for an individual or state in the evaluation of the possibility of war. The theory has two elements, first it defines the condition under which warfare is acceptable. Second, it specifies the appropriate conduct during warfare. This paper will explore the concept of the just war through the eyes of an act utilitarianism theory follower.

Act utilitarianism was introduced by Jeremy Bentham. The basic view is that what is right is which produces the greatest good and least evil. Jeremy Bentham believed that only pleasure is valuable in itself, and that all actions should lead to pleasure. The theory is not based on rules, however, Bentham developed, the hedonic calculus, a system of evaluation for deciding which action will produce the most good. It is through that system that the evaluations of a just war will proceed. The first element is the intensity of the good produce by a just war.

How strong of a pleasure will be produce by a just war. First, a question must be asked, is there any pleasure produced by war? According to St Augustine , peace will be one, he wrote: “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.” However, a state should only go to war if it has a reasonable chance of winning and bringing peace, if not the war is unethical. So, we must assume that the war is just. Therefore, if peace is the produced pleasure, we could say that the intensity is strong. Peace includes many pleasures, it ease social and economic relations. Furthermore, if the war is conducted according to the just war principle, civilians casualties are minimized, and the least damage to civilian’s infrastructures are caused. Consequently, a just war will produce more pleasure than evil.

We must now evaluate the duration of the pleasure. Since, one goes to war when there is a good chance of success; and it is common knowledge that war is a great evil, and that it is wrong to cause suffering, pain, and death especially with no chance of success, then it must be assume that the just war is waged only when it fulfill that criterion. Then peace will have some duration, however, the war must be won swiftly.

Next, how certain are we that pleasure will be produced if we wage a just war? Since, we agreed that the war was waged in accordance with the rules expressed in the just war theory; such as: that the war must be justified, and have moral weight, and it is “to put right a wrong”. Then it can be assumed that pleasure will ensue when peace will be restored. Nevertheless, we need to evaluate to when that pleasure will occur.

Even as we assumed that it is a just war, and the intent is to defeat the enemy swiftly; it is unknown how long this would take. Consequently, we can not state to when the pleasure will occur. When a state fights a just war, it is restricted in the might it could use to terminate the war. During WWII for example the U.S used nuclear weapons on two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki , killing many civilians, and by such would not be considered a just act within a jut war. It was justified as a speedy end to the war. Accordingly, a just war may have difficulty in winning a quick war.

The next step is to see whether it will lead to more pleasure, the fecundity of peace. One could easily agree that peace has many pleasures, and as a result, would be desired by the many. Thus, it can be said that peace will fecund pleasure. In the same instance, we could agree that it would be of the same type. Meaning that the pleasures produced by a state of peace will have some peaceful characteristics within them, they will ease social and economic relations, and permit coexistence. Hence, we could conclude that it will have the same purity. The last step in our evaluation is to weigh up the number of persons affected by the just war.

A war of any kind affects the whole population of the country at war; for that reason, peace will affect them all. Even, the enemy combatants would gain from peace. They will be no more killing, and daily routine would resume. Moreover, when a war is just and both parties respect the rule of engagement, then both side benefits from such a behavior. Then, it can be concluded that more people would be affected positively than negatively.

It seems that according to the act utilitarianism theory, a just war would be a right action, since it fulfills most of the criterions. The only criterion left uncertain, is on the propinquity of the pleasure. However, this concept only relates to a just war and not to wars in general. Then, and only then can it be considered a good action by the act utilitarianism.

This question assumes that one has acquired a set of standards by which one governs one’s life; and not just follows one’s desires and wants. However, everyone was taught right from wrong, good from bad, and whatever one would later do with it, is up to each one. This paper presents this writer’s education in the ethics. It is not intended to be an in-depth analysis, but a chronological overview of various ethical principles and rules encountered during one’s development. Moreover, the focus is to present a personal view on the values taught. A summary of this writer’s philosophy of ethics will conclude the paper.

One first encountered the idea of right and wrong at a young age from one’s family, and school environment. At an early age, one was taught the societal point of view about ethical standards. One was told not to lie, not to steal, not to kill, and the difference between good actions and bad ones. The main motivation to follow those rules was fear of punishment. Those rules, therefore, would have been followed not because of acceptance and understanding of their values, but as a necessity, and when the opportunity to transgress would occur, the rules would be broken. However, it was not before one began one’s education that one developed an opinion about the meaning of being human, and the obligations that ensued.

The elementary years of education were spent in a Catholic boarding school. There, one was taught religion and God’s moral principles, and rules. One was told that God was good, just and merciful. However, if one would transgress the rules, one would find oneself in “hell”. Furthermore, one was told about the son of God, the savior of man. One was told that He showed compassion, even toward the wicked; however, those that taught so didn’t show any. Moreover, He was said to be just and forgiving; however, those that preached so were not. One came across many of the moral principles and rules taught in the Holy Book, however, one did not encounter in one’s surrounding, a person, with such qualities. Therefore, one rejected that indoctrination, and one did not comprehend the value of those virtues. However, one gained the knowledge of the characteristics of a “good man” as projected through the son of God. Family, school, and lived experiences were the first sources for this writer’s personal ethical view. However, one did not embraced those ethical principles, and thought of them as a mean for control by the one in power and place of influence. But one’s conscience could not be kept silent.

The idea of an ideal human was born. One wished to become such a man. That desire pushed one into the study of philosophy, and through the study of philosophical arguments one developed one’s belief. Those philosophers were the main source for a personal ethical development. The primary influence was the teaching of Socrates through the writing of Plato, especially in the Republic . In the search of defining happiness, the discussion explored the various characteristics of a moral man, a good man. Some of the virtues present in such an individual are integrity, justice, honesty and compassion. It was through the reading of Jean Paul Sartre, that one realized the greater potential of mankind. As Sartre wrote in Existentialism and Human Emotions : “Man is nothing else but what he Will himself to be”, that principle one had to accept, for without it there would be no reason for ethical standards. One must have free-will to be responsible, and decide on a certain path. From this point on, the foundation for one’s ethical principles was established. First, man has a will and it is a priori to fulfill one’s identity. Rational thinking and emotional desires to have a purpose for human life eased the acceptance of such an ethical philosophy.

Other philosophers were the source for further understanding and reinforcement. Jean Jacques Rousseau expressed in Emile , that not only the learning of academics is necessary, but that the self-development of human awareness is primordial for the development of a good man. Virtues are not taught, they are discovered. The same principle is found in the ending of Candide, a book by Voltaire, “Go and cultivate your own garden.” Many more helped forge the belief that a good man is a moral man, a rational man that took on as his duty to become human. It will take too long to list them all, however, a few, need some attention.

During a period of time one was involved in Judaism. One studied the teaching of a few scholars of Cabala, the Jewish mysticism. During those years, this writer was a religious man, and found connection to a creator. The main principle in their wisdom that appealed to this writer is the concept that one should do, and direct all actions for the sake of heaven. This principle requires that not only the actions be good, but that the motivation be for the sake of duty. One’s soul was lifted, however, there too, one found more hypocrites than righteous men. Till these days this writer is struggling to find happiness. However, one now embraces those ideals, and attempts to follow a few ethical principles, such as integrity, honesty and compassion. Those principles are the foundation for this writer’s philosophy of ethics.

Various sources helped forge those personal ethical principles. Family, society and the view of a few philosophers were the main sources. However, later on, experiences and reflection helped define those principles. One pondered on those problems that forge the human condition. Through the philosophers’ wisdom one learned the method of critical thinking, and the value of rational thinking. One learned to revere virtues and seek wisdom. This writer’s theory could be defined as an ethic of principles. It is quite similar to Kant’s theory of obligation. It requires that one has a good will, and be a rational individual. It also requires that one’s actions be done for the sake of duty, the duty to fulfill one’s identity, the identity of mankind. However, it also incorporates the concept of leading a good life as expressed by Aristotle, or, of following the golden path defined by Confucius. Those theories require temperance and wisdom; they teach a life of moderation. By following those paths one not only will fulfill one’s identity, but one will also discover happiness. However, this writer has a long journey ahead before being a moral person.

I see that many of my friends like to converse about GOD, many as it appears do believe in its existence. I must tell you that I am yet convince of it, especially in regard to the way it is defined.

Many are basing their opinion or belief on the words of a book, the bible. It is my opinion that if such concept (god) exist even without the book one should be able to find it, and knows its purpose, for Abraham found it even before talking to him (according to the story, he is the father of monoteism)

But to ease in the discussion I will take the position that it does exist.

So, let’s assume its existence, and agree that it is not a form, that it is not bound by time or space, nor bound by man understanding or knowing of it (meaning even if man does not recognize it, it will not infere in it existence). So why should god worry about man’s love of him or her?, and be so pissed if man does not recognize him or her?

It creates all that is, what is seen and what is not. (since mankind is bound by time and space..its knowledge is relative to those limitations) so man knows little of the whole. Nor it needs mankind worship or love to be. For if he or she is not, then god has a limit, and so a form, which contradict our first assumption about god.

It is the whole and each part. It is one but not one as a part..
And so it is in (within) mankind.–for example: if mud is used to create man, man is mud, but mud is not man.

So god is the mud that made man, so man is god, but god is not man.

God is not ouside the whole, for it would have then a form, and such be bounded. This is similar for those in philosophy of the view of Spinoza.

I assume that mankind is a free rational being, so that it has the power to make a decision, and choose to either recognize god or not..If god forces man’s hand by making a wrong path for man to fail, and the right path for man to follow, then this god does not respect man’s free rational attribute, and behaves as a dictator.
For example: Saddam has established a rule of law for Iraq, and who followed his views was well treated, they formed his own clan, and those that oppossed him, were outsiders, and seeked and destroyed, for their lack of love for him.
If such is god, according to those mentioning the bible, then god and Saddam have much in common.

So such god I do not presume to be.

So now if mankind is a free rational being, then mankind has the option to make a decision..to have a choice a few things are needed.:

First a decision must be needed, meaning to chooce to believe or not. It is evident that decision making is intrinsic to mankind existance. In such the decision is to believe or not..and by such it will form mankind existance, or philosophy of life including all actions, thoughts and emotions. For example: if I believe honesty is a good value, then I will have to be honest with myself and my surrounding , if not then my belief in such value is irrelevant, and just a fake, so if I believe in a god, I would have to behave in such a manner that shows my faith, if I go and kill other, than it shows that I believe in a god that love violence, for why should I do, which go would not?
So it is apparent then one must make a decision, if to believe in a god, or just one’s own philosophy..therefore, the decision is needed.

The second part relates to the beneficience of one’s decision. If one chose to belief does it benefit the whole, rather than not. Any rule or principle descending from the decision must fulfill the criterion of beneficience..it must benefit more than it harms. If my belief in god, force me to reject those that don’t, and as many are doing calling them sinners, and damning them to hell, such belief creates more harm than good, and such would not be valid.

According to history, it appears that the choice of believing has brought more harm than good, and such it will be more favorable not to believe. How many wars have been done on the name of that god? Till today, mankind is killing his brother in the name of a belief in a god..and this has started since the beginning of religion.

Third: Does it respect autonomy (man being a free rational)

If man does not choose, god’s way, does god punish man..it appears to be so, according to the bible..In such god would not respect autonomy..and mankind would be better to choose not to believe. For as stated such god would only be a dictator, and a narcissit one I may add.

However, the choice is in man’s hand..would it not be better for man to behave ethicaly and humanly with its kind and surrounding, and not believe, or believe and behave without no rationality and inhumanly.

I choose at the moment to not focus on God, but rather on mankind, and try to behave as humanly as possible.
I would love to live in a world where we will all be good with each other no matter what faith or lack of one will have. But I am a dreamer.
Peace No War