paper.

Student: Vlado Vukovic
Paper: Being India's colonial ruler....


What we have before us is a very delicate situation that needs to be addressed in a very delicate and thoughtful manner. I will present before me list of possible scenarios and at the end attempt to pick the most logical and most fruitful one as a solution. I will try to eliminate as much as possible the feelings factor in my choosing and the reason for that would be that feelings often get in a way of making logical and sound decisions.

First and foremost let me state my understanding of what appears to be the situation before me. I have been assigned to be the colonial ruler of British India (title that is referred to as viceroy) and what I might have in front of me is an ethical dilemma (of course only if I choose to do anything about it). The situation that I am referring to is old Indian tradition where after the husband dies all his properties (including his wife) are to be burned with him.

As a British viceroy I have to realize that my power within India is of very limited scope (consists of primarily insuring that British interests within the colony are not challenged). As a British viceroy I am of course of a aristocratic English background with close ties to the British crown. Being aristocratic might imply that I am not familiar (nor no I care for part) with the problems experienced by common folk as would be the case with British mineworkers back in England or Indian peasants within Indian countryside. I would most likely be of primarily materialistic nature which for most part would be in direct opposition to common concerns that might affect any poor populations (for I am here to exploit them and not to improve their own lives.)

But lets sidestep the most logical definition of what a British viceroy within India might be like and lets assume that there is some trace of humanity within him that makes him at least partially concerned about the fate of the poor Indian peasant wife that is scheduled to be burn with the rest of her deceased husbands properties during his upcoming ceremonial cremation.

In my own aristocratic manner I will plot different scenarios and attempt to play them out and finally try to choose the most mutually beneficial one (mutually of course meaning for me, for her and for ultra traditional Indian peasants including involved families that are participating in this 'event'.)

First and most logical of all scenarios is to allow the traditional event to occur as planned. We are talking about tradition that spans over centuries if not millenniums and who am I to challenge local traditions. Not only that but in case I challenge it I should consider the likely scenario of making many enemies almost instantly that will attempt to eliminate me on the first chance they get. That in turn will or at least might endanger the lives of my family members that are residing here with me. Not only that by my meager attempt for social change will be soon after my 'departure'(rather after my assassination) be countered and reversed. One girl would have been saved but my and my families lives would have ended for this to occur thus we are talking of clear suicide.

In such a traditional society as is the case with 19 century India any change needs to be introduced on gradual basis and within cities first. This would be done in a manner that local well to do Indian families would send their sons to be educated in England who afterwards would return back to India and represent the basic catalysts for change within Indian society, change that needs to be done by Indians themselves. If one is to argue that I am being ethnocentric well then I am guilty for I am placed into this situation by the very nature of this subject (for we are talking about reforming some 'backwards' society and since social alternative would be needed then the of course England society is a perfect guide for change.)

Either way the change that will occur within Indian society will be very gradual or it might take decades if not longer that that for any meaningful changes to occur.

Class: Ethics and Moral Issues
Professor: Sonja Tanner
Student: Vlado Vukovic
Paper #1: Being India's British colonial ruler – Viceroy.



Question: Imagine yourself a British viceroy in colonial India, where custom is to burn the possessions of a deceased man on his funeral pure. Included in the idea of his “possessions” is his wife. As a viceroy, you have the authority to legislate against this practice. Do you do so? Why/Why not? Support your answer with Ruth Benedict reading, those pertinent in the book and other relevant materials discussed or viewed. Feel free to be creative in how you respond to this, but be sure to do justice to the question and the theories underlying your answer.



What we have before us is a very delicate situation that needs to be addressed in a very delicate and thoughtful manner. I will present before me list of possible scenarios and at the end attempt to pick the most logical and most fruitful one as a solution. I will try to eliminate as much as possible the feelings factor in my choosing and the reason for that would be that feelings often get in a way of making logical and sound decisions.


First and foremost let me state my understanding of what appears to be the situation before me. I have been assigned to be the colonial ruler of British India (title that is referred to as viceroy) and what I might have in front of me is an ethical dilemma (of course only if I choose to do anything about it). The situation that I am referring to is old Indian tradition where after the husband dies all his properties (including his wife) are to be burned with him.


As a British viceroy I have to realize that my power within India is in actuality of very limited scope (consists of primarily insuring that British interests within the colony are not challenged). British empire is modeled on very ancient traditions of ruling over many different cultures. The tradition traces its origin to ancient Assyria, ancient Persia, ancient Alexandrian Hellenistic Empires and finally to Roman Empire (first being the oldest and second empire following the earlier one). The way each one of these huge empires (and among first empires) ruled was by giving big autonomy in much of decision making to local cultures which unabled increased stability within the given empire. The logic was that if any social change was taken hol it would have to be of gradual nature for it to be successful. I believe and so this British that History is the perfect guide and they were right.


As a British viceroy I am of course of an aristocratic English background with close ties to the British crown. Being aristocratic might imply that I am not familiar (nor no I care for part) with the problems experienced by common folk as would be the case with British mineworkers back in England or Indian peasants within Indian countryside. I would most likely be of primarily materialistic nature which for most part would be in direct opposition to common concerns that might affect any poor populations (for I am here to exploit them and not to improve their own lives.)


But lets sidestep the most logical definition of what a British viceroy within India might be like and lets assume that there is some trace of humanity within him that makes him at least partially concerned about the fate of the poor Indian peasant wife that is scheduled to be burn with the rest of her deceased husbands properties during his upcoming ceremonial cremation.


In my own aristocratic manner I will plot different scenarios and attempt to play them out and finally try to choose the most mutually beneficial one (mutually of course meaning for me, for her and for ultra traditional Indian peasants including involved families that are participating in this 'event'.)



First and most logical of all scenarios (which with also have elements of other scenarios) is to allow the traditional event to occur as planned. We are talking about tradition that spans over centuries if not millenniums and who am I to challenge local traditions. Not only that but in case I challenge it I should consider the likely scenario of making many enemies almost instantly that will attempt to eliminate me on the first chance they get. That in turn will or at least might endanger the lives of my family members that are residing here with me. Not only that by my meager attempt for social change will be soon after my ‘departure’ (rather after my assassination) be countered and reversed. One girl would have been saved but my and my families’ lives would have ended for this to occur thus we are talking of clear suicide and over what over tradition that was not imposed by me by the local population.


In such a traditional society as is the case with 19-century India any change needs to be introduced on gradual basis and within cities first. This would be done in a manner that local well to do Indian families would send their sons to be educated in England who afterwards would return back to India and represent the basic catalysts for social change within Indian society, change that needs to be done by Indians themselves. If one is to argue that I am being ethnocentric well then I am guilty for I am placed into this situation by the very nature of this subject (for we are talking about reforming some 'backwards' society and since social alternative would be needed then the of course England society is one of the alternatives since we are viewing this from western perspective.)


Either way the change that will occur within Indian society will be very gradual or it might take decades if not longer that that for any meaningful changes to occur. Again history is the guide since the very England took centuries after the arrival of the Roman legions to have local ‘primitive’ (for Roman standards) British tribes to become civilized, tribes that lived naked within forests and where direct human sacrifice was a norm. I cannot see another feasible solution for one drop cannot affect the ocean in a meaningful manner.

Class: Ethics and Moral Issues
Professor: Sonja Tanner
Student: Vlado Vukovic
Paper #1: Being India's British colonial ruler – Viceroy.



Question: Imagine yourself a British viceroy in colonial India, where custom is to burn the possessions of a deceased man on his funeral pure. Included in the idea of his “possessions” is his wife. As a viceroy, you have the authority to legislate against this practice. Do you do so? Why/Why not? Support your answer with Ruth Benedict reading, those pertinent in the book and other relevant materials discussed or viewed. Feel free to be creative in how you respond to this, but be sure to do justice to the question and the theories underlying your answer.



Answer: What we have before us is a very delicate situation that needs to be addressed in a very delicate and thoughtful manner. I will present before me list of possible scenarios and at the end attempt to pick the most logical and most fruitful one as a solution. I will try to eliminate as much as possible the feelings factor in my choosing and the reason for that would be that feelings often get in a way of making logical and sound decisions.


First and foremost let me state my understanding of what appears to be the situation before me. I have been assigned to be the colonial ruler of British India (title that is referred to as viceroy) and what I might have in front of me is an ethical dilemma (of course only if I choose to do anything about it). The situation that I am referring to is old Indian tradition where after the husband dies all his properties (including his wife) are to be burned with him.


As a British viceroy I have to realize that my power within India is in actuality of very limited scope (consists of primarily insuring that British interests within the colony are not challenged). British empire is modeled on very ancient traditions of ruling over many different cultures. The tradition traces its origin to ancient Assyria, ancient Persia, ancient Alexandrian Hellenistic Empires and finally to Roman Empire (first being the oldest and second empire following the earlier one). The way each one of these huge empires (and among first empires) ruled was by giving big autonomy in much of decision making to local cultures which unabled increased stability within the given empire. The logic was that if any social change was taken hol it would have to be of gradual nature for it to be successful. I believe and so this British that History is the perfect guide and they were right.


As a British viceroy I am of course of an aristocratic English background with close ties to the British crown. Being aristocratic might imply that I am not familiar (nor no I care for part) with the problems experienced by common folk as would be the case with British mineworkers back in England or Indian peasants within Indian countryside. I would most likely be of primarily materialistic nature which for most part would be in direct opposition to common concerns that might affect any poor populations (for I am here to exploit them and not to improve their own lives.)


But lets sidestep the most logical definition of what a British viceroy within India might be like and lets assume that there is some trace of humanity within him that makes him at least partially concerned about the fate of the poor Indian peasant wife that is scheduled to be burn with the rest of her deceased husbands properties during his upcoming ceremonial cremation.


In my own aristocratic manner I will plot different scenarios and attempt to play them out and finally try to choose the most mutually beneficial one (mutually of course meaning for me, for her and for ultra traditional Indian peasants including involved families that are participating in this 'event'.)



First and most logical of all scenarios (which with also have elements of other scenarios) is to allow the traditional event to occur as planned. We are talking about tradition that spans over centuries if not millenniums and who am I to challenge local traditions. Not only that but in case I challenge it I should consider the likely scenario of making many enemies almost instantly that will attempt to eliminate me on the first chance they get. That in turn will or at least might endanger the lives of my family members that are residing here with me. Not only that by my meager attempt for social change will be soon after my ‘departure’ (rather after my assassination) be countered and reversed. One girl would have been saved but my and my families’ lives would have ended for this to occur thus we are talking of clear suicide and over what over tradition that was not imposed by me by the local population.


In such a traditional society as is the case with 19-century India any change needs to be introduced on gradual basis and within cities first. This would be done in a manner that local well to do Indian families would send their sons to be educated in England who afterwards would return back to India and represent the basic catalysts for social change within Indian society, change that needs to be done by Indians themselves. If one is to argue that I am being ethnocentric well then I am guilty for I am placed into this situation by the very nature of this subject (for we are talking about reforming some 'backwards' society and since social alternative would be needed then the of course England society is one of the alternatives since we are viewing this from western perspective.)


Ruth Benedict supports the theory of cultural relativism since she rejects the notion that any one universal cultural norm should be superimposed on the whole planet. I believe also to some extent in this theory but I also believe in being practical. The world is becoming smaller and smaller and different regions within the planet are becoming more and more similar do to gradual cultural Americanization that is being also called Globalization (imposed by ‘global’ media dominated by US).

I would call my position in this given example neither a relativist nor a universalist one. The reason for this is that although I might be to higher extent more on the side of the universalist position we have covered in class (which believes in one moral standard for all of humanity) I also understand that human cultures are very different and it will take a lot of time, effort and education before any universalistic approach becomes a global approach (if that ever happens). Therefore I would call myself first and foremost realist (more closer to being cultural relativist) and then idealist (more closer to being ethical absolutist).


The change that will occur within Indian society will be very gradual or it might take decades if not longer that that for any meaningful changes to occur. Again history is the guide since the very England took centuries after the arrival of the Roman legions to have local ‘primitive’ (for Roman standards) British tribes to become civilized, tribes that lived naked within forests and where direct human sacrifice was a norm. I cannot see another feasible solution for one drop cannot affect the ocean in a meaningful manner.

Class: Ethics and Moral Issues
Professor: Sonja Tanner
Student: Vlado Vukovic

Paper #2: Peter Unger's 'Bob and his Bugatti'

Situation: The situation is such that Bob is close to retirement. He has invested most of his savings in a very rare and valuable old car, a Bugatti, which he has not been able to insure. The Bugatti is his pride and joy and its rising market value will ensure Bob's financial future. One day he parks his car next to railway siding and goes for a walk and in the process he sees approaching train that is moving in a direction of another railway track where a child happens to be positioned. His dilemma is should he flip the switch that would divert the train towards the siding where his Bugatti is parked. Such action would save the child and destroy his financial future and greatly decrease the survival chances for this older man. He decides to do nothing and enjoys Bugatti and financial security that it brings for many years to come. Was it wrong for Bob not to pull the switch? Why or why not? In case you think that it was wrong then isn't this situation very similar to avoiding helping many children, which are suffering or dying from hunger across third world countries through agencies such as Unicef where a small donation could go a very long way.

The paper: Do you think that it was wrong for Bob not to throw the switch that would have diverted the train and save the child's life? If so, then isn't it also wrong not to send money to one of the aforementioned charities? Who and what does Bob's (and yours) moral responsibility extend to? Analyze Bob's situation (and perhaps how/whether it differs from Dora's) from a Utilitarian point of view and then from yours, if this is different. Then discuss your responsibility.


I don’t think it was wrong for Bob not to throw the switch. The reason I state that is that by doing so he would in effect endanger his very life. Living in a capitalist society where the government feels no responsibility towards its people can greatly influence ones decision in such moment. One might state that a moral thing is to throw the switch but I can think of at least four reasons why it is not.

One reason is that in any given situation (especially where it is you versus and total stranger) ones own interests are the one to be given the most attention for. In this case throwing the switch would mean destroying ones own financial future and in a capitalist society, where only money matters, that is equivalent to destroying ones future. Such approach would not only make Bob feel like an idiot afterwards for saving the stranger (child or otherwise) but would also likely make him resent the child.

Second reason is that the child, being a complete stranger, is of no importance as far as Bob is considered and as a result Bob has no responsibly towards the child one way or the other. Bob would be no exception for vast majority of humans routinely and daily ignore all the homeless people as if they don’t even exist (but hey, they are only being guided by the very government that conducts the same approach towards majority of its citizens).

Third reason is where are the parents of such child for it is their responsibility to take care of it and protect it from danger for no one else feels any responsibility towards it. If they, who are its parents, feel no need to take care of it (their own flesh and blood) I certainly feel that Bob has no responsibility to even think twice for this child. If the cases is that parents had too many children and are poor to boot then my compassion for them or any of their seeds is even lower. This approach can be explained even from nature’s point of view for nature rewards only the strongest (in whatever form) the philosophy that Spartan society so perfectly followed.

Fourth reason is again associated with the same low of nature ‘strongest survive and weak dies’. If this child’s intellect (I will assume it is old enough to walk/claim to the track giving it at least 4-5 years of age) is so inferior that it can realize that the approaching train is a danger then I fail to see any reason for interfering for the planet being so overpopulated as it is will certainly not miss another meaningless humanoid.

To ethics have to make sense and therefore humanistic approach towards every situation in itself is simply put blind and ineffective for each situation is to be judged separately and each human life is to be assigned value for one might impact humanity more then others (Alexander, Caesar, Aristotle, napoleon are fine examples). I am interested in advancing the human kind and not merely reproducing more ineffective humanoids.

As I stated in the reasons above I also think the same way when it comes to sending money to the agencies, which were mentioned. Not to repeat my words I would go (when it comes to explaining my position here) with my reason number three combined somewhat with three (or speaking of inferior intellects of parents who, although poor, create huge families). In this case even my second reason would have some place within my decision. If my stand in this case remains unclear then let me summarize it by stating I would not send because those people are strangers for whom I have no obligation. I would not send to help out to some inferior seed whose parents are so intellectually void that they cannot even comprehend that poor families should not have ten kids per family in already overpopulated world. Such stupidity should not be rewarded in any form in fact it should be punished for the sake of planet Earth by forced sterilization of such people and their seed, their kids. No human life(s) override(s) the importance of the planet on which it’s living. Call this extreme environmentalism I call it ultimate realism void of any humanoid defective emotion-driven decisions.

Bob’s and my moral responsibility exceeds to my self, my family, my land and mother Earth above all. Mother Earth’s interests should supersede all other ones, for its demise would mean our own. Considering I am from Balkans would easily explain why, in my opinion, moral responsibility would extend to my family and my land or country (meaning in both case Balkans). The fact that I am strongly environmentalist I also feel some responsibility towards other regions especially if the destroy nature, its resources and if they are overpopulated (in such case mass sterilization should decrease such big numbers over period of time as well as stopping western driven over-consumption reminiscent somewhat of the swarms of locusts in western Africa that wipe out vegetation and some other elements of nature before them).

Analyzing Bobs situation from utilitarian point of view might take some people towards different approaches depending what is the end-result that they seek, what do they deem as pleasure and what do they deem as pain or what is exactly the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Utilitarianism is in my opinion void of any defective human driven decisions, therefore it is primarily logic driven.

In Bob’s situation, according to my view of utilitarianism, the most favorable end-result is the one he too. The reason is that it makes no sense to have him destroy his financial future (meaning his own chances of survival in capitalist society) over a situation he didn’t start in any way thus is not guilty of and for what a intellectually inferior child that doesn’t realize the train is threat, a seed of parents who view their own child as non-important otherwise they would be taking care of it. In this case not saving Bob’s car and future to me equals pain and greatest happiness for the reasons I have mentioned on several occasions. As far as my own responsibility goes I have mentioned it on several occasions though the views of what Bob should do and why.

Class: Ethics and Moral Issues
Professor: Sonja Tanner
Student: Vlado Vukovic

Paper #2: Peter Unger's 'Bob and his Bugatti'


Situation: The situation is such that Bob is close to retirement. He has invested most of his savings in a very rare and valuable old car, a Bugatti, which he has not been able to insure. The Bugatti is his pride and joy and its rising market value will ensure Bob's financial future. One day he parks his car next to railway siding and goes for a walk and in the process he sees approaching train that is moving in a direction of another railway track where a child happens to be positioned. His dilemma is should he flip the switch that would divert the train towards the siding where his Bugatti is parked. Such action would save the child, destroy his financial future, and greatly decrease the survival chances for this older man. He decides to do nothing and enjoys Bugatti and financial security that it brings for many years to come. Was it wrong for Bob not to pull the switch? Why or why not? In case you think that it was wrong then isn't this situation very similar to avoiding helping many children, which are suffering or dying from hunger across third world countries through agencies such as Unicef where a small donation could go a very long way.


The paper (Question): Do you think that it was wrong for Bob not to throw the switch that would have diverted the train and save the child's life? If so, then isn't it also wrong not to send money to one of the aforementioned charities? Who and what does Bob's (and yours) moral responsibility extend to? Analyze Bob's situation (and perhaps how/whether it differs from Dora's) from a Utilitarian point of view and then from yours, if this is different. Then discuss your responsibility.




The Paper (Reply): I don’t think it was wrong for Bob not to throw

the switch. The reason I state that is that by doing so he would in

effect endanger his very life. Living in a capitalist society where the


government feels no responsibility towards its people can greatly

influence ones decision in such moment. One might state that a moral

thing is to throw the switch but I can think of at least four reasons why

it is not.



One reason is that in any given situation (especially where it is you

versus and total stranger) ones own interests are the one to be given

the most attention for. In this case throwing the switch would mean

destroying ones own financial future and in a capitalist society, where

only money matters, that is equivalent to destroying ones future. Such

approach would not only make Bob feel like an idiot afterwards for

saving the stranger (child or otherwise) but would also likely make him

resent the child.


Second reason is that the child, being a complete stranger, is of no

importance as far as Bob is considered and as a result Bob has no

responsibly towards the child one way or the other. Bob would be no

exception for vast majority of humans routinely and daily ignore all the

homeless people as if they don’t even exist (but hey, they are only

being guided by the very government that conducts the same

approach towards majority of its citizens).




Third reason is where are the parents of such child for it is their

responsibility to take care of it and protect it from danger for no one

else feels any responsibility towards it. If they, who are its parents,

feel no need to take care of it (their own flesh and blood) I certainly

feel that Bob has no responsibility to even think twice for this child. If

the cases is that parents had too many children and are poor to boot

then my compassion for them or any of their seeds is even lower. This

approach can be explained even from nature’s point of view for nature

rewards only the strongest (in whatever form) the philosophy that

Spartan society so perfectly followed.


Fourth reason is again associated with the same low of nature

‘strongest survive and weak dies’. If this child’s intellect (I will assume

it is old enough to walk/claim to the track giving it at least 4-5 years of

age) is so inferior that it can realize that the approaching train is a

danger then I fail to see any reason for interfering for the planet being

so overpopulated as it is will certainly not miss another meaningless

humanoid.


I will add fifth reason. Saving child of inferior intellectual cababilities

(likely inherited of its parents for sciences is proving more and more

the enormous power of genetics on an offspring) in this case means



making Bob the same as its parents who are most likely social

parasites whose existence depends on other factors as opposed to Bob

who doesn’t depend on society but in effect gives back to it in the

shape of taxes and spending his money in a given society.



To ethics have to make sense and therefore humanistic approach

towards every situation in itself is simply put blind and ineffective for

each situation is to be judged separately and each human life is to be

assigned value for one might impact humanity more then others

(Alexander, Caesar, Aristotle, napoleon are fine examples). I am

interested in advancing the human kind and not merely reproducing

more ineffective humanoids.


As I stated in the reasons above I also think the same way when it

comes to sending money to the agencies, which were mentioned. Not

to repeat my words I would go (when it comes to explaining my

position here) with my reason number three combined somewhat with

three (or speaking of inferior intellects of parents who, although poor,

create huge families). In this case, even my second reason would have

some place within my decision. If my stand in this case remains

unclear then let me summarize it by stating I would not send because

those people are strangers for whom I have no obligation. I would not


send to help to some inferior seed whose parents are so intellectually

void that they cannot even comprehend that poor families should not

have ten kids per family in already overpopulated world. Such

stupidity should not be rewarded in any form in fact it should be

punished for the sake of planet Earth by forced sterilization of such

people and their seed, their kids. No human life(s) override(s) the

importance of the planet on which it’s living. Call this extreme

environmentalism I call it ultimate realism void of any humanoid

defective emotion-driven decisions.



Bob’s and my moral responsibility exceeds to my self, my family, my

land and mother Earth above all. Mother Earth’s interests should

supersede all other ones, for its demise would mean our own.

Considering I am from Balkans would easily explain why, in my opinion,

moral responsibility would extend to my family and my land or country

(meaning in both case Balkans). The fact that I am strongly

environmentalist I also feel some responsibility towards other regions

especially if the destroy nature, its resources and if they are

overpopulated (in such case mass sterilization should decrease such

big numbers over period of time as well as stopping western driven

over-consumption reminiscent somewhat of the swarms of locusts in



western Africa that wipe out vegetation and some other elements of

nature before them).


Analyzing Bobs situation from utilitarian point of view might take some

people towards different approaches depending what is the end-result

that they seek, what do they deem as pleasure and what do they

deem as pain or what is exactly the greatest happiness of the greatest

number. Utilitarianism is in my opinion void of any defective human

driven decisions, therefore it is primarily logic driven.



In Bob’s situation, according to my view of utilitarianism, the most

favorable end-result is the one he too. The reason is that it makes no

sense to have him destroy his financial future (meaning his own

chances of survival in capitalist society) over a situation he didn’t start

in any way thus is not guilty of and for what a intellectually inferior

child that doesn’t realize the train is threat, a seed of parents who

view their own child as non-important otherwise they would be taking

care of it. In this case, not saving Bob’s car and future to me equals

pain and greatest happiness for the reasons I have mentioned on

several occasions. As far as my own responsibility goes I have

mentioned it on several occasions though the views of what Bob

should do and why.



Apart from all the logic driven opinions (which I consider my true

opinions thus only ones of any value) that I have attempted to display

within this paper there is another side of the coin. Considering I am

human and thus faulty, imperfect and at the same emotion driven (at

least to some extent) in actual situation where Bob is I might do an

illogical and humanistic move such as diverting the train towards my

car. This I would not consider a rational move but rather a moment of

human animalistic weakness, that does not deserve any real attention

for it can not be explained rationally or using logic.



For me ethics needs to revolve as much as possible on logic based

formulas whose primary concern is upholding the laws of nature and

protection of nature. I also believe like some environmentalist circles

that ethics can in effect be determined through scientific formulas and

that human opinions (especially ones which are primarily emotion

driven, thus in effect void of any real substance) need to be given

less merit then the ones which are scientific and logic based.

Class: Ethics and Moral Issues
Professor: Sonja Tanner
Student: Vlado Vukovic

Last Paper: An ethical Portrait
(Framed around the context of Plato's Allegory of the Cave)

I will start an an ethical portrait of myself by stating what are the five beliefs or values that are important to me. The five beliefs or values are Wisdom, Truth/Honesty, Individualism, Fairness and Morality. The way I listed them is also from the first being the one I consider the most important one towards the last which would be the one I consider the least important of all.

Class: Ethics and Moral Issues
Professor: Sonja Tanner
Student: Vlado Vukovic

Last Paper: An ethical Portrait
(Framed around the context of Plato's Allegory of the Cave)




I will start an ethical portrait of myself by stating what are the five beliefs or

values that are important to me. The five beliefs or values that are

important to me are Wisdom, Truth/Honesty, Individualism, Fairness and

Morality. The way I listed them is in a way that the first one is the one I

consider the most important one while the last one is the one I consider less

important one then the previous ones.



The first one I choose is wisdom and the reason I choose this one as the

most important one is that I firmly believe that wisdom (which I believe is

contained in all of us to some extent) is what ultimately human kind needs

to propel it forward. Wisdom I believe can be achieved by allowing ourselves

to be exposed to new ideas, experiences and knowledge and if we are

capable of deducing meaningful data from those we might be able to become

more wise or even wise period. The extent to which we might allow

ourselves to become wise will depend on numerous factors some of them

being open-minded to new ideas for example. I believe that this belief has

more of a utilitarian element to it then the other four since I believe that

achieving wisdom would benefit all of human kind and thus make greatest

good for the greatest number of people.



Truth and honesty are also very important but they are not to be

implemented equally to all human groups, for example children might not be

able to dissect the data given to them with the same precision and

understanding as adult humans can therefore the given situation when it

comes to kids should be given individual attention and evaluation and the

most logical and productive path (in terms of most productive it comes to

rearing children with the most desirable outcome) should be the one chosen

(therefore Kant’s perception of Truth as humans having ‘absolute duty to

always tell the truth’ should certainly be taken with at least some grain of

salt). Achieving universal truth is doable primarily through science which

should supersede in importance to for example dogma and propaganda that

might be used by government or other institutions that have influence on

human though and behavior (such as religion).



Individualism is also of utmost importance since conformity only breeds

more robots instead of humans and limits the human kind to new ideas

which are essential to the further progression of human kind. Human kind

has evolved (ancient Greece being one of the earliest examples) to

understand the important of the positive impact that individualism can

produce in the overall progress of the human kind. Some theories such as

the ones about egoism (psychological, ethical) warn us that there is a

possibility to a darker side of human nature (as expressed by Plato’s story

“Myth of Gyges”) and therefore even individualism should be taken with at

least some grain of salt. I believe that one of the ways to achieve Aristotle’s

happiness (Virtue Ethics) is by one embracing their own individualism.

Fairness should also be given attention and its importance should be

respected. The reason fairness is important is because preferential treatment

apart from the fact that it doesn’t practice equality and giving everyone an

equal opportunity to become who they might be able to become (thus to be

able to live up to their fullest potential) it also could possibly prevent human

kind from increasing the overall progress it might be able to achieve.



Last value I give attention to would be morality. The reason I have placed

this one as the last one is because morality apart from some universal

aspects that might be implement-able globally speaking has also much of

cultural relativism and even ethnocentrism contain within since whoever is

the one judging morality is still the one judging it from a point of view of

whatever culture they might or wish to belong to (exception to this would be

very rare if even impossible to state). Morality should also be taken as a

guide rather then as a absolute rule for a different reason and that is since it

does seem to have relative (cultural relativism and also ethnocentrism) side

to it as well.



Regarding the Plato’s cave I stated in the response on internet blackboard at

the start of semester that “my understanding of the Cave is perhaps little

more abstract and complex then what most of the other forum participants

here have presented” and it remains as such. I still believe that the Cave

that Plato us talking about is our every day reality. The reason why we are in

the dark is because this ‘reality’ consists of many elements which are not

logic based.



The reason why our ‘reality’ is at least partly non-logic based is because are

human organizations such as religion or government that present this reality

in the ways they find most suitable for their own agenda. This is especially

the case with the religion which has managed to create a fantasy and

expects us to hold it as absolute truth (I still hold the organized religion in

its pure and unaltered form is a step away from sheer madness or it is even

there or was there in such form the entire time and here inquisition would

certainly attest to that).



Another reason why I believe our reality is not fully logic based is because I

firmly believe that humans as species are not entirely logic based thus the

other element that makes them who they are is their emotional side. The

emotional side is also of up most importance and it would be next to

impossible to envision creating a society that would void its importance (for

in such case family units would cease to exist, so would sports and its fans,

patriotism, pride, hate or love.)



In an analysis of Plato’s cave I would state that for me the truth or good

Plato mentions would be achieving the wisdom to create ability to rationalize

the world for what it is rather then what we perceive it to be. The reason in

my opinion Plato believes that we are chained is because we are bound by

the confounds of our own emotions and to some extent irrationality that is a

product of the very society we live since no society can be a perfect creation

for it is produced by humans who are anything but perfect. Shadow that

Plato mentions is the data that is given to us by this society that is still

influenced by something as irrational as religion. The projection of reality

within the cave is not the actual projection of reality but more a type of

matrix that is pulled over our eyes by the establishment which is insecure or

unable to present the reality for what it is. In such conditions of course we

can deduce that our interpretation of reality would have to be flowed to at

least some extent and this extent directly depends to the level to which we

are fooled by the pseudo reality as created by the establishment (whether

religion or government).

Regarding how exactly can the humanity achieve what I deem as truth or

good in Plato’s cave I already stated in my earlier writing of this paper when

I was referring to wisdom and how it can be achieved. Is wisdom universal

good? I believe that it is since wisdom is a universal quality that I believe in

its pure form would remain unaltered throughout any culture problem is that

human perceptions (guided somewhat by their emotions and cultural

relativism) makes it next to impossible any region where universal wisdom

would be implementable. As far as where do I consider my self on this

journey to wisdom I believe that reading the works of various philosophers

would at least guide one closer towards it.



As far as why do I have the beliefs and values that I due I would say that I

attempt to use logic as much as possible as opposed to the guides given by

emotions or society and the logic that I have access to has simply send me

to a conclusion that the five most important virtues are the ones I already

stated. I would not say that my beliefs have changes in any meaningful or

even detectable way since I have been aware for some time aboyt much of

the material we have covered over the semester.

Class: Ethics and Moral Issues
Professor: Sonja Tanner
Student: Vlado Vukovic


Take Home (Final) Exam: Choose any three questions.


1) Regarding the practice of amniocentesis (aborting female fetuses because

they are female fetuses) in regions such as northern India or China one can state

that they can be justified from a cultural relativist point of view. This point of view

believes that if a certain custom or practice exists in certain part of the world as

long as such custom or practice is accepted by majority of the people that it is

moral for it to exist. Selective abortion in light of cultural variations in definitions

of moral community can be justified also from an egalitarian point of view from

two different angles. The countries we are talking about have two problems (that

pretty much goes hand in hand) and one is overpopulation and another one is

women’s right or rather lack of. By people practicing such behavior there will be

a certainty that there will be (talking about future) a much bigger proportion of

men then there will be of women. As a result of this the overall population will

have no option but to shrink which is a desired outcome from environmental and

even utilitarian point of view when (reason: best possible outcome form both

environment and humanity since that also means that more resources will be

freed by having less people.) A second angle is that when these children grow up

they will grow up in a world where there will be few women and therefore bigger

attention will be given to women who simply put will not have to put up with such

sexist behaviors in the future hence the increased women’s rights are almost a

certainty in such environment. In such environment (meaning in a future where

there is few females and many males) it will be women who will be able to

choose as to who their partner is. Therefore, even though there is a clear case of

discrimination based on sexes in those countries the paradox is that this will

indirectly lead to almost quarantine equality of sexes in the not so distant future.

Needless to say, this example shows that that there is discrimination directed

towards disabled people. I don’t find that alarming and it exists in every part of

the world (at least to some extent) and represents nothing abnormal for it is

constant in the nature that an animal that is disabled is the one first targeted by

predators (thus certainly not favored in any positive manner from nature and its

devices which humans are part of). This is truest example of utilitarianism for it

truly benefits as many parties as possible (meat for predators, genetic elimination

of defective samples).




4) This utilitarian solution was the best solution from the moral point of view

(talking about the manner in which the allocation of kidney dialysis machines was

performed in). The reason it was moral was first we have to understand that to be

moral and to be fair is sometimes similar and sometimes is not. He we have a

situation where we have surplus of people as opposed to the number of

machines therefore fair and equal distribution is out of question. Then the

question arises as to how such distribution can be performed. First the values

have to be assigned to these people (not the end of the world since it is done on

an almost daily basis in at least some manner). Now I think it is fairly obvious that

different people will have a different value assigned to them and this value

directly correlates to the level to which they might be beneficial to the society and

environment. Thus a person that younger, healthier, involved in community

activities etc. would have a bigger assigned value to it then would a decrepit, old

and disabled person have. This kind of analysis is not to be confused and or

compared with compassion since one is much more scientific then the other

which is primarily emotion based and thus unrelated to logic.




5) What Keating meant by the statement “to conduct these tests. It is an

expression of contempt to the people they wish to call their neighbors.” (talking

about to the French underground nuclear testing of the Coast of Pacific Island

that belongs to France). France is technically a neighbor to Australia in a sense

that it has a colony (they call department or something similar) in a relative

vicinity of Australia but in actuality it main territory is in Europe thus very far away.

Therefore any nuclear testing will not affect France itself while it will and might

affect vicinity of this island (in the vicinity of Tahiti). Therefore such behavior as

performed by France does indeed seem as if France has contempt for its Pacific

‘neighbors’ since they are the one that will suffer any negative effects of

underground nuclear testing. I agree with him that France has no moral right to

perform such underground nuclear tests (even though they claim they are

perfectly safe) in this part of Pacific. If they were to be fair and impartial they

would have done it first on their own soil (especially if it truly is fully safe as they

claim, or is it). In discussing my answer in light of Kant’s cultural imperative I will

state that it is not that different from it. The maxim basically state for one to act in

manner which would be easily a universal law (thus no-one would find it

impartial). A cultural relativist would not exactly have a clear response to this

particular situation. The reason for that is that the cultural relativist would nothing

traditional about underground nuclear testing nor is there a large segment of

French population that actually support this immoral behavior as performed by

their government. A Utilitarian would also be against this testing since there is no

desirable outcome that cam be deemed as one that can be classified as the one

most beneficial for most number of people and certainly for the environment, on

the contrary. The response that I think is the best from a moral point of view is

for France and all the nuclear power to cease testing. Also for them to stop using,

and finally having nuclear weapons -- which are the biggest threat to the humans

and to the life forms on the planet have faced in a very long time (and all as a

result of human stupidity or the pinnacle of it). And this is from a utilitarian point

of view of course.