I thought this reading was really interesting. At first, I was a little confused about where it was going as I have never fully stopped to think about morally in the form of arguments. I have always let my own morals guide me and that has not really failed me yet. However, when you look deeper, there is clearly a lot more there. I thought that argument forms for moral actions were really fascinating because I could understand them. It feels like a natural progression from our readings in Warren and about logic. However, I do think it is easier to wrap my brain around. While all the forms varied slightly, the main concept of “should you do or not do this action and why” remained. I think this will make it a lot simpler going forward when it comes to mapping and breaking down these arguments.
Moral arguments are basically trying to prove why you should act a certain way based on one’s morals, but there is an issue when everyone’s morals are different. I thought the section differentiating between universalism and egoism (pg 156-57) was extremely important. Not everyone bases their morals the same way and will act differently according to that. Some find it advantageous to only act in their own self-interest, while others believe that it is moral to act if it will maximize happiness for all. I think that while the latter is an amazing goal, it is very unlikely. In this day and age, there are very few things you can actually improve the lives of all. This is why I think it is important to not focus on helping everyone, but helping the most you can. What frustrates me the most about this is that there seems to be a pattern of people we put in power (aka like the whole government) being egoists. A lot of their policymaking is based on whether or not they think they would get reelected or what they have a financial interest in. I think it is really sad that we (or at least I) cannot trust the people who are supposed to protect us to always do so. Either way, I hope that one day I could be in a position where I get to work on completing actions that have the most net happiness!
I definitely agree that although maximizing happiness sounds amazing, it’s extremely unlikely to occur. With philosophy, I’ve always found that attempting to adhere to the principles in their entirety is irrational and often impossible. Hopefully, policymakers look past individual gains and look towards bettering society as a whole. We can only hope.
On the note of putting people in power, I think it shows just how divided people are when it comes to morals. I think it’s a fair assumption to say that nearly all political issues are moral issues, and these are the things that divide countries. For a multitude of reasons and societal structures, it is very difficult for a utilitarian-type individual to be elected, as egoists and populists take advantage of the moral/political divide among society.
I think now more than ever we have seen people’s true colors come out, in the sense of how they act and what they value during a global pandemic. I’ve seen people who are traveling and going to bars and people who haven’t even been to the grocery store and only use curbside delivery. I feel that people have been acting extrmeley selfish during the pandemic and that is a large reason as to why it is still bad as it is today.