A. In a situation in where one person is being harmed and the other is doing the harming which is the most to be avoided, harming the other or being harmed by another? ect.

My honest answer would be that it is usually "better" to be the harmer then it is to be the one being harmed, but I think the question is a little vague. Different situations call for different values, the situation that is "most to be avoided" changes as goals and contexts change. For example I was a vegetarian for three years but if it came down to me eating a cow or a cow eating me there was really no choice. I don't think in that situation a person would be called unethical, even though I think eating meat is ethically dubious, just rational or perhaps a better word be "sensible."

B. What skills should we work to possess? The skills to persuade people that we are right or the skill to actually be right.

This question assumes that objective truth exists while the last one simply hints at the idea of a universal ethical maxim that exists outside of perception. Both questions are similiar in that they seek to find whether the person answering believes in a reality outside perception in which absolute truth, including absolute ethical truth exists. I think this question sets up the idea that particular beliefs can be shown to be "correct," whereas in the case of things like ethics I don't think our language conforms to reality, or at least perceived reality, enough to make a "correct" statement that could be verifiable.

My first answer to this question was that I'd rather be actually right then be able to persuade people I was right. After reading the question closely, however, I saw that it was only in regards to "beliefs." A belief can't be right or wrong, that's what makes it a belief. This opens up a whole discussion regarding the status of belief statements and the difference between these statements and others that I hope will help me better crystalize the problems and discussions in the field of ethics. Currently I am having a lot of trouble putting the concepts of ethics (or even the idea of ethics) in a way that I can understand.

It's a little embarrassing (maybe even a little more than embarrassing) to admit that this is my last class before the completion of my philosophy minor and when it comes to ethics my mind just goes blank. This occurs in religion as well but ethics especially just shorts out my brain. However, I still feel like if a situation arose I'd be able to say what a moral outcome would be- as long as the situation was simple enough- but I wouldn't be able to tell you what that decision was anchored to and what made it moral. I don't think there is anything static enough or universal enough to warrant blanket moral justification- at least I don't see it. I'm extremely interested in how philosophers have approached and are now approaching an idea like "ethics" that to me sounds so broad, nebulous, and packed with such a long history spanning so many cultures that the term almost loses all meaning.

That's not to say I don't think ethics aren't important. Ethics guides our lives- and our lives guide our ethics. But just because something is socially or personally important does not mean it has a philosophical justification (except that perhaps it is socially or personally important). Of course not having a philosophical justification is not necessarily a bad thing- I would point to art and religion as two great things that in my opinion don't have or don't need justification and there are many more. In the end I see ethics as a constantly negotiated (both inter and intra-personally negotiated) field in which no maxim will ever be complete, universal, or capital T True. However, I also don't think this is the tragedy that many of the 19th century philosophers that we are reading made it out to be.

First Post

Well it's a little belated but here's my first blog post. This is a test.