Philosophy Question Essay Sample
Question 1:
In Living to Some Purpose, Singer talks about the transcendent cause, which singer defines as the main purpose of living. According to Singer, every individual has the obligation to identify a central or core purpose for living. While Singer seeks to impose no rules or principles to anyone, he advocates that every individual should identify their own purpose for living and thus a transcendental cause to base their lives comes into place. Singer recommends that living an ethical or moral life as one of the effective ways that one can chose to live their lives and thus the transcendental cause to follow in living one’s life. On a closer look, Singer’s views relate to both Mill’s Utilitarian and Kant’s Categorical Imperative in a number of ways. To begin with, Mill defines utility as pleasure and the absence of pain, thus to him utilitarianism is all about the greatest happiness principle. The principle presents the view that actions are considers right to the extent by which they result in happiness and on the other hand, they come out as wrong to the extent that they result in pain and unhappiness.
Mill’s principles relate to Singer’s views in that the greatest happiness principle views the chief principle of life as the pursuit of happiness, pleasure and the avoidance of pain and unhappiness. For this reason, the pursuit of happiness, pleasure and avoidance of pain can be termed as the main purpose of life thus people ought to engage in all the right and ethical actions as a way of life. On the other hand, Kant’s Categorical Imperative relates to Kant’s moral philosophy that holds the view that morality by itself is universal and a common factor in all human existence (Paton 22-25). Kant asserts that morality sums up to one central moral command (categorical imperative) from which everything morally right derives from. In relation to Singer’s views in Living to Some Purpose, Kant’s Categorical Imperative likens to Singer’s transcendental cause. By living on the principle of the Categorical Imperative, one finds the true purpose of life since the Categorical Imperative is the ultimate source of morality and thus anything good (Paton 24).
Question 2:
Singer views conspicuous consumption as the lavish spending of finances to acquire luxury goods and services that we really do not need. The desire and accumulation of material possession for public display and status are all sings of conspicuous consumption. Singer views this burning desire to buy and have all the luxurious things we want as a principle cause of unhappiness in the lives of many Americans (Cupitt and Hyman 139). Singer asserts that true happiness does not lie in the material possession we have and hence more people soon realize that material possessions do not provide the true happiness thus they end up in despair and unhappiness (Singer 174). A good case and example comes out from the recent global economic meltdown crisis. One of the factors that led up to the crisis was the levels of lending and borrowing in the U.S. People in the U.S were borrowing money from banks to finance conspicuous consumption as opposed to investing. This led up to a situation where people spent more than they earned after which they found themselves in massive debts that had adverse implications on a national level.
Question3:
Both Mill and Kant have different viewpoints on the kind of life one has to live in order to be good and thus live a happy life. Both of them seem to have a different route to arrive at the same point. According to Kant, the Categorical Imperative is the source of all morality and serves to justify morality thus living by the imperative ultimately results in a good and happy life. On the other hand, Mill holds the view that being good and living a happy life is the consequence of doing the right actions. In essence, Kant’s views focus the moral worth of action on the agent while Mill focuses the moral worth of the action on the actions and consequences. For instance in the case of helping a person, by use of the Categorical Imperative the action of helping a person may be evaluated as morally right and thus making a person good. On the other hand, in the case of Mill’s principle, if helping a person enables that same person to do something wrong then helping that person is not morally right
References
Cupitt, Don and Gavin Hyman. New Directions In Philosophical Theology: Essays In Honour Of Don Cupitt. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2004.
Paton, Herbert J. The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant's Moral Philosophy. Pennsylvania : University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971.
Singer, Peter. How Are We To Live?: Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest. New York: Random House Australia, 2012.