How does Mill explain the fact that some people choose lower pleasures over higher pleasures? Do you agree with his assessment?

Mills concept of Utilitarianism is distinguished by his focus on the quality of pleasurewhat he refers to as eudaimonistic utilitarianisminstead of mere quantity, unlike Benthams concept. The pleasures can be split into two categories: higher pleasures and lower pleasures. The main dividing line between these has to do with what the actions actually please. A higher pleasure stimulates the very thing that makes us human: intellect and rationality. A lower pleasure is something that simply stimulates sensation, which can be seen in other animals. The major dilemma here is the fact that many humans tend to seek the lower pleasures, placing the higher ones aside. Why is that?  Mill states before they devote themselves exclusively to one, they have become incapable of the other. This is caused by an inaccessibility to actually enjoy the higher pleasures, where the lower are much more readily available. Their choices are not deliberate, simply they are a victim of circumstance. When we must focus on survival, the higher pleasures are delayed, as they depend on a certain stability in life.

I want to agree with Mills assessment, but I have some apprehensions. It does make sense that those who are victim of circumstance fall back into more carnal and hedonistic pleasure to compensate for their lack of ability to attain the higher. But say we do believe that pleasures of sensation are lower, and are caused by this lack of opportunity. What of drug addiction? This takes on many forms, and I believe Mill would agree that drug abuse would be a lower pleasure. However, lets get more specific: what of the high-functioning drug addict? Opiate addicts can actually lead a perfectly normal life if they are able to keep a steady dose, and participate in the higher pleasures. Or even the image of a dentist who uses laughing gas in between patients to gain pleasure. They have the opportunities to satisfy their higher pleasures, yet they still partake in the lower. I would say that pleasure is subject to something much more physical, something psychological, instead of simply a philosophical concept. Is love a higher pleasure? This is caused by a release of monoamines like serotonin. Is cocaine a lower pleasure? Again, it is caused by the release of the monoamine dopamine, which is also tied into love. The pleasures are bound by the very same chemical reactions. If we want to judge pleasure, we must rank these chemicals somehow. And at that point, things become a bit muddy.

This clip from the TV show Bojack Horseman shows the beginning of a relationship between the titular character and Wanda, who had just woke up from a 30 year coma. Up until their first sexual encounter, Bojack had no plans to follow through with a committed relationship with Wanda. However, after their first time, Bojack developed feelings for her and expressed interest in a romantic relationship (which would soon blossom as the season progressed). I believe this especially addresses a few points that Punzo and Goldman argued.

Although he would initially disagree with Bojack and Wandas first sexual moment, and find it unethical in itself, Punzo would consider any more acts ethical as their relationship built up. At first, their relationship did not address the insecurities and overall issues surround Bojacks life, which had been full of hedonistic activity such as spontaneous sex and drug use. But over the course of the season, Bojack revealed his vulnerabilities to Wanda. This respects Bojacks historical self, as Wanda wishes to support him and help him overcome his insecurities brought up by his previous experiences. Respecting ones vulnerabilities and historical self is central to Punzos view of what constitutes moral sex. Of course, Punzo would still take issue with the fact that they are in a premarital relationship.

Now Goldman would approve of their sexual relationship from the start. Bojack had no romantic attachment prior to his first encounter with Wanda, it was simply not a a desire to reproduce, to love or be loved, although it did eventually develop into a desire to be loved. Near the end of his article, Goldman states Just as sex can express love and take on a heightened significance when it does, so love is often naturally accompanied by an intermittent desire for sex. Bojack and Wandas relationship has examples of both sides of the statement: Bojack at first only desired sex, but eventually developed into a need to express love.

In opposite to Goldman, Punzo takes on the argument that premarital, or better stated preceremonial sex, is in fact an immoral act. Punzo considers the relationships that a man and a woman may have between one another, such as economic and work relationships, and the idea of a physical and historical self. He compares the idea of premarital sex to an exchange of goods between two humans: one party is offering a service (sex) to the other in return for some sort of good (pleasure) in a completely honest and upfront way, which could be seen as moral purely from an economic standpoint. However, this does not encapsulate the action of sex in his eyes, as the exchange of bodies isnt merely some service, but a surrendering of bodies towards one another. As selves, we have our own aspirations, we have our own identity forged by our historical experiences. Premarital sex only accounts for our physical bodies, and not our historical ones. Even in an honest exchange of sex, the fact remains that such unions are morally deficient because they lack existential integrity in that there is a total merging and union on a physical level and a conscious decision not to unite any other dimension of themselves. What Punzo is stating here is that the merging of bodies isnt quite complete, in fact it completely disregards major parts of ourselves and renders them useless and irrelevant, despite literally being who we are. Punzo even states that, even though there may be no physical or psychological harm, the incorporation of human sexuality has somehow been failed.

Punzo seems to have already taken a moral stance against premarital sex by defining a part of us that requires commitment, and somehow linking that to sexuality. I cannot actually see this link, I cannot see how human sexuality is so sacred and requires commitment no matter what. He does bring up the point that we are more than our physical bodies, and maybe that should be considered in a sexual partnership. Disregarding each others historical selves may be detrimental and outright disrespectful, but that is a moral lesson that expands into other sectors beyond sexuality, and isnt exactly intrinsic to premarital sex.

Goldman tackles an issue which would be considered taboo to many: sex, and what constitutes as moral sexual activity. While some believe that sex is intercourse and must be tied to love (at least consensual sex), Goldman rejects this notion and presents the idea that sex doesnt have an attachment in and of itself to romanticism, but simply to pleasure. His argument brings up what morality really is, and its disconnection to the act of sex. This is best expressed by his line Sex is not in itself a moral category although it invariably places us into relations with others in which moral rules apply, stating that morality is separate from the action itself unless the act breaks moral rules, such as a breach of consent or causing harm to one or more parties. In order to separate love from sex, Goldman brings up a point that love typically develops over a long term relationship, but that the act of sex is essentially, self-regarding and doesnt have to promote a romantic relationship. An example of this would be prostitution or casual sex, where needs are simply met without commitment or a desire to develop romance.

I definitely agree with Goldmans philosophy on sex, as it challenges many issues derived from Western societys prudishness and judgment regarding sexual independence. There is a, I believe toxic, view that sex must be moral through a monogamous action, and a promotion of virginity, which may stem from a lack of desire or opportunity of a long-term relationship. This extends into policies that restrict contraception and womens autonomy, which ironically result in unsafe sex and unwanted pregnancy, the latter then being denied by the very same ideology of the sacred idea of sex and reproduction. I also see a disagreement between Hume and Goldman, in that Hume believes pleasure is moral while Goldman believes pleasure isnt, in itself, moral through sexual activity.

In the end, this reading has reinforced my position of sex in that it should not be judged negatively due to some subjective morality. The only problem I have is that Goldman hints that certain sexual activities, mainly BDSM, would not be considered moral as it harms another human being. But if a person gets pleasure from this activity, would it not challenge this notion that harm is immoral when one actually enjoys it?

The second noble truth addresses a major problem that binds us humans to the material world: cravings and wants. Suffering derives from these cravings for physical and mental stimuli, which are impermanent or transient. By this, The Buddha means that they do not last, and are overall detrimental to the journey towards Nirvana. We crave these physical and mental objects, and seek them out in the physical world. We would not want to ascend, because without obtaining these objects, we would not accomplish something that we falsely believe to be a need. When we cannot obtain them, we suffer, as the cravings can evoke vices such as greed and jealousy. These emotions run strong in us. The power behind them holds us back, and extends beyond ourselves into the actual world. They remind us that we have a self, which the Buddha believes to be an illusion.

Although my own personal beliefs hold that these cravings can be valid and lead towards peace with conviction, I do see that my life would be better without them. Happiness is a great example. I have always sought happiness for myself and others. But when I am unable to obtain this happiness, I delve into a deep depression. These carnal desires leave me begging for more. Desperation may arise from this, and plunge me further into suffering when being denied the objects of desire, or sacrifices some of my own virtues. Without cravings, these would all disappear.

However, happiness would also follow suit. I would be left with a deep comfort and peace with the world, replacing happiness with a sort of stoicism. Motivation would all but disappear. And with it, my wish to impact the world in a positive manner. Emotions drive my motivation, to seek a change in the lives of others must be fueled by something strong and not stoicism and detachment from our physical world. I ask myself, is this sacrifice worth it? To relieve myself of suffering and vice, I must also take the extreme of abandoning the very foundations of my humanity. And all of this to be released from Samsara, a place beyond our universe that I have so sought balance with? These emotions cloud my perspective to really see the ultimate benefits of releasing desire. I cannot see this peace without desire, as I view that peace depends on desire. It is just a double-edged sword, and I have found peace with that.

In The Ethics of Belief, Clifford argues that ones beliefs can be judged as right or wrong based on the evidence that they follow. If the evidence of a belief is faulty, insufficient or nonexistent, then the belief itself can only be judged as wrong, as stated on page 5: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. If the evidence is sound and true, then the belief can be judged as right. To Clifford, it is important to judge the basic belief, as it is the belief that follows into action, where the consequences can affect humanity at large. Yet even if an action does not follow, Clifford still believes it to be wrong to hold a belief based on insufficient evidence because it promotes a weakness in the individual. If they refuse to challenge their beliefs, they may stack on even more false beliefs, as they are not used to discerning what is true and what is false. I see no fallacies in Cliffords reasoning.

Cliffords first argument to support his reasoning involves a shipowner who has become enamored by his ship, and refuses to have it repaired before a voyage. The shipowner knew the ship was old, and held doubts that it would be able to make its voyage safely. However, these doubts were fleeting, as the shipowner only reflected on its perfect track record as evidence that it would be able to make the voyage. The shipowners argument can be broken down as so:

Inside the shipowners mind, the argument seems valid and sound. Unfortunately, the shipowner was disastrously wrong. The shipowner believed his ship would not sink only because it had yet to, and held that as the only vital factor in its success. In fact, he omitted the specific factors that would disprove his conclusion, namely the poor condition that his ship was in. It is difficult to say that his argument was valid as the premises began from faulty logic, and completely laughable to say it was sound, as the conclusion clearly did not follow in practice.

Cliffords thesis resonates with the world, providing a sort of objective light to view ones beliefs in, regardless of differing opinions due to culture, religion, politics or otherwise. It is elemental, the building blocks of right and wrong are composed of evidence. With true evidence, we are lead to true beliefs and, potentially, good outcomes. We believe in medical treatments as we have scientific evidence through experiments. These treatments can be applied to aid the world at large, extinguishing disease and ailment. With false evidence, we are lead to false beliefs with potentially bad outcomes. The Salem With Trials were a breeding ground of false evidence leading to horrific beliefs that resulted in the deaths of many innocent women. If only we were willing to inquire further and try to establish some sort of objective line in our judgment, then we could have prevented these tragedies.

1. Give your own, original example of a valid argument with a false conclusion.

The season of Summer includes November, December and January.

Today is November 17th.

Therefore, it is currently Summer.

2. Give your own, original example of a valid argument with a true conclusion.

The only way to pass a class is to receive at least a C.

My final grade was an A.

Therefore, I have passed the class.

3. Give your own, original example of a sound argument.

If my chromosomes are XY, then I am biologically male.

After a genetic test, my chromosomes have been confirmed as XY.

Therefore, I am biologically male.

4. Give your own, original example of a persuasive argument based on induction.

Garfield is an orange Tabby who loves lasagna.

My friend insists that his Russian Blue who eats dead rats is the real Garfield.

Im pretty sure my friends cat isnt Garfield.