Alison Higgins
April 19th 2017
Professor Waterman
Take home midterm 2
- Pascals Wager
Pascals Wager is centered around whether or not a person should believe in the existence of God. Pascal believes that it is better for someone to believe in God than to not believe in God. If someone believes in God and when they die they find out that they are right they will receive endless praise and reward for being a devoted believer. If someone believes in God and when they die it turns out that God is not real they would have lived a God life and only missed out minutely on on some experiences in life that would be seen as sinful. Alternatively if someone does not believe in God and they die and find out that God does exist they will have to face the repercussions of living a life of sin and be punished by God for not believing, where as if they die and find out God is not real than they have only gained a little in that they got to live their life free of the fear of God’s wrath. When it comes to Pros and Cons Pascal argues that it makes sense for people to believe in God because the reward is greater than the possible losses compared to someone who lives a life without the belief in God. Pascal also makes the argument that it is better to live like a believer even if you are not because if you act like you believe in something eventually you might actually end up genuinely believing in it. This poses the best option in Pascal’s eyes. You live like you believe in God and if you’re right you get endless reward and praise and if you are wrong you have still lived an honorable decent life.
Pascals belief can be applied to any different situations, for example, man made climate change. There has been an argument for decades as to whether climate change is exaggerated by mankind. Many people believe that climate change is a naturally occurring event that is not affected by the actions of mankind and that our inputs are on too small of a scale to have any lasting damage. From Pascal’s view, we should compare believers of manmade climate change to believers of God. If we live like climate change is happening than we can work on fixing it, and if we are correct then we have improved the world and made a lasting impact. If we are wrong than we have still lived a life that proves a healthy future for the world. There is very little in the way of a downside. Pascal would argue that everyone should act like they believe in climate change even if they do not. Acting like a believer could potentially turn people into believers, and even if it does not they had still lived eco-friendly lives which would benefit themselves and the world around them. Believing in climate change and ating accordingly would make the world a better place regards of whether or not it it actually caused by man. It can only cause good.
- Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill along with his father and a few other men came up with the ethical reform known as Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism focuses on the idea of making moral decisions based on the maximization of happiness and the minimization of pain or unhappiness. Mill and his compared believed that everyone should make their choices in life based on the overall effect they can have on others. This means taking into account how any one decision could affect everyone involved and how much happiness, compared to pain is the result. This can be concluded using math. Everyones happiness and sadness from anyone decision is assigned a numerical value, if the value for happiness is greater than the overall value for sadness of pain than the decision can be deemed morally sound where as if they pain and sadness outweighs the happiness a decision causes than the decision is seen is morally wrong. Of course life is not as cut and dry as this.
There are exceptions to Mill’s idea. Some things in life are necessary and can be the right decision while still causing pain. An example of this is working a job. Jobs are necessary in order to make money and afford to live on this earth, however one can argue that they cause more pain than happiness.Most people do not actively enjoy the jobs they are working. When working a job there are a series of reasons why it may make someone unhappy. Most people do not get a job that they truly enjoy, one that makes them happy to go to work every day. For the most part a job is a means to an end. Working a nine to five job means that the majority of a person’s waking hours every week are devoted to doing something that they would rather not be. Jobs cause stress which is bad for someone’s mental and physical state. They keep people away from their families and friends. I job is a necessity in life but it can be argued that it is not a moral choice in the eyes of utilitarianism. If the math was drawn out the negatives of working a nine to five office job for example would greatly outnumber the happiness that comes from the money being earned. It is important to remember that even the money being earned is not entirely devoted to things that make a person happy. The money from a job partially goes towards paying bills, fixing cars, making house repairs, or savings. When it all comes down to it very little of the money earned actually goes directly toward something that makes the person happy. Of course some jobs do fit into the utilitarian theory.
If a person gets a job they truly love that causes them very minimal stress than if could be said that the pros outweigh the cons. There are some jobs that allow people to work from home, this would minimize time spent away from family and offer more freedom for an employee. On the other end of things jobs in the medical field, although time consuming and stressful are serving a major purpose in society. Doctors and nurses are improving the lives of others and saving people who would otherwise have died without them. In this instance the happiness of the people being treated outweighs the negative affects the job has on the employee. In some cases a job can fit into the standards of a morally right decision based on utilitarianism but for the most part they are an exception to the rule.
