Group Blog Post #1 – Romance and Disclosure

Jeff Latimer, Damon Land, Alexa True, Michael Grava

Group 1

When we become romantically involved with another person we somewhat take responsibility for this person's emotions.  There are critical things to consider when choosing what is appropriate and whether it is necessary to disclose certain information.  The most significant element of these deciding factors is the seriousness of the relationship. . 

 Casual flings are perfectly acceptable and are normal occurrences in a person’s life. If the relationship is strictly sexual the only crucial information to be disclosed is if you have an STD, for the obvious reason that this could be potentially physically and mentally harmful to the other person. An STD has the potential to do enormous harm to a person’s life and someone is carrying an STD should always let his/her partner know before they have sex so that proper precautions can be taken. One may argue that sharing information such as marital status is important because it may be against the other person’s beliefs to cheat or be involved in any activity of that sort. Most people believe in the commitment of marriage do not want to make someone cheat.  Disclosing too much information on a one night stand can lead to awkwardness.  A strictly sexual relationship only requires a physical relationship.  Sharing extensive information would only create emotional involvement. Furthermore, the other person has already made the judgment to become sexually involved with someone they don’t know any personal details about. 

Serious and long-term relationships have a contrasting system because hiding information causes a break in trust, which leads to relationship failure.  We generally respect those who we become emotionally involved with, so as a sign of respect for this person it is necessary that we disclose any information that could be considered relevant or controversial to the relationship such as; marital status, children, mental disorders, or drug use. They should share their expectations for the relationship and where they see it going. In long term relationships it is also important to know if they had been in love before, if they ever cheated before, if they have pets or kids, and the things they are looking for in the future. In order for any long term relationships to be successful there has to be communication in which information is disclosed. The intentions of the relationship need to be discussed and future planning as well, though the timing of this should not be too early in the relationship where I feel the decisions will be heavily more emotional based, or too late in a relationship when expectations are already set.  There are many other things to consider when it comes to disclosing information to your significant other, whether you just met them or they have been in your life for quite some time. If a person feels uncomfortable when talking about certain things, why ask questions pertaining to that subject? The best thing to do is to be completely honest from the beginning so that way there is no confusion. If something is said at the wrong time or misunderstood, that could ruin the chance with that other person. Something that should not be disclosed is how many people the other person has slept with. For example, a guy and lady have been seeing each other for about a year. The guy asks the lady how many people she has been with and she is uncomfortable telling him. It shouldn't matter how many people the other person's been with, what matters is they have been together for enough time to form a relationship and allow each other to trust one another. If the number of people she says she has slept with is higher than the number he had in her mind, then thoughts start to run through the brain of the concerned partner.

Romantic Involvements

Alexandra Spencer

Victoria Murphy

William Vasquez

Group #4

            Romantic involvements can be a complicated thing and deciding what should be disclosed, what does not need to be disclosed, and what needs to be disclosed under certain circumstances. Things that our group felt always needs to be disclosed when romantic involved with someone especially in a long term or serious relationship are things like STDs, past relationships, any prior engagements or marriages, if they have any kids. What are their basic beliefs as far as any religious background. Employment status if they have a job and what kind of job. Means of transportation do they have a car and a license, we would want to know why if they did not because it could mean they have had DUIs. Also a big thing would be if they have any of criminal records, would not want to date anyone that could be potentially dangerous. Both people’s expectations need to be disclosed, if they want a serious relationship or if they are just looking for something casual. Where this person is going in their life meaning with their job and if they are in college and working towards something or are just in a dead end job going nowhere. Expectations in both types of relationships either serious or not would there would need to be respect, responsibility, and monogamy and faithfulness towards the other partner. The male in our group felt that beliefs do not need to be disclosed and the two female did so this could be a borderline argument depending if you are male or female.

            As far as things that never need to be disclosed would be the amount of income a person generates. Another thing that would not be disclosed would be the sharing of a person’s private possessions like going through a person’s phone, computer, wallet or purse. A borderline argument would be going through a person’s phone because if they are being sneaky about their phone or computer that could mean they are being unfaithful. This argument also depends on if you are in a serious or short term relationship. If it was short term this might not matter as much but in a long term it can be very important to a relationship.

            Things that depend on the circumstances would depend if you are in a serious committed relationship or if it is something that is casual or short term. For short term or casual relationships we felt that not everything needs to be disclosed right away. Obvious things that do need to be disclosed right away are STDs, or other illnesses anything that could potentially harm the other person. We would want to know if the person has a job and what kind of job, as in are they in college and working towards something or do they just have a minimum wage paying job. Things that do not necessarily have to be disclosed in the short term would be past relationships, beliefs, and talking about the future things like marriage and kids might turn a person off.  Depending on the circumstances a person may want to know their social circles like what kind of people they hang out with because this could reflect on the person this could also be a borderline argument of something that may be very important and not as important to some people.                                          

Relationship Status

Amanda Vergara

Cooper Dubuque

Gabriella Sampaio

Group 8

When entering into a sexual or romantic relationship there are many different obligations that need to be taken into account. No matter if the relationship is just a casual fling or the complete opposite, a long term relationship, there are still obligations that one must follow. Although some of these obligations may differ with the severity of the relationship. A casual fling consists of just hooking up here and there. The obligations that are due to each other are completely different in casual fling than those in a long term relationship. A long term relationship consist of the thought that, the relationship will continue to grow forward and there will be more obligations as things get more serious.

Participants in a casual sexual relationship should assume less obligations and commitment to one another than in long term relationship. Its the nature of casual relationships, being less serious, that attracts people looking for casual relationships and the company from the opposite sex; not interested in being confined or accountable by a complex or serious relationship. In pursuit of keeping it casual, less disclosure is appropriate. Exposing relationships or other romantic interests would be immaterial to those expectations and goals of a casual relationship. Religion or other personal traits that could be detrimental to some people in a long term relationship shouldn't affect casual encounters. Basically only admitting to having an STD which would cause lingering physical harm is a moral obligation. If a member of a casual relationship begins changing their expectations to a more serious romantic relationship, they should disclose that to their partner, to avoid confusion and potentially hurt feelings.

In a long term relationship partners are more serious and that has many obligations that should be discussed. As in a casual fling STD’s should be talked about before becoming physically involved. Things like religion might be an important issue to disclose, incase of strong religious beliefs that may cause issues in the future. Other important things to discuss would be marriage and children. If both people are not on the same page about marriage it would not be a good idea to be in a long term relationship together. Disagreeing about marriage could lead to problems when one partner is ready to commit and the other is not. Some other issues that could arise is if the relationship ends in marriage and one partner does not want marriage. This will lead to divorce and will cause a money loss and a waste of time. If people are on the same page before hand no hardship will come. Having children is also another big issue that people should be on the same page before hand. A criminal record should be disclosed with a partner before becoming committed in a long term relationship. A person should know about a criminal record because it can affect the future of the other person.

Things that do not need to be discussed for a long term relationship are past relationships; unless they involve having a child. Past relationships could bring up issues that are not relevant in the new relationship. Also are menial things such as food preferences and clothing preferences.

In a casual fling there are not many things that should be discussed. The more serious a relationship becomes the more partners should disclose to each other. A long term relationship involves partners to discuss important information that would lead to a successful relationship. Therefore the more serious things become the more partners should know about each other. 

Group 2 Blog Post 2

Michael Flanagan

                Mads T. Larsen

                Marissa Ortiz

                Cody Fitelson

Within romantic relationships it is necessary to have trust. Determining what and what not to reveal to a partner early on is important. In long term relationships something’s need to be revealed early on in order to be fair to the partner, however some things are ok to keep a secret until later on. Within short term relationships not much is important in the long run so most information can be kept secret but a few things should be revealed beforehand.

                When it comes to long term relationships the group agrees that celibacy should be revealed at the start. This idea relates back to religious views and cultural background.  This is because no one should invest time in a relationship if they aren’t going to get all they expect out of it. It is necessary at the start of a relationship to reveal you intentions of the relationship and make sure that both parties are on the same page. Make sure that both are equally invested and expect the same things from the relationship.

We don’t believe it’s important to reveal at the start of your relationship all or any of your past relationships. We feel this way because this is not a factor that really impacts the relationship in anyway. Sometime in the future, past relationships can be revealed and discussed but not at the start. This gives both parties a chance at starting a stable relationship.

In a short term relationship we don’t feel it is important to reveal much of anything to the person your with, as long as general safety is enforced and you’re having fun it doesn’t matter. It’s important to reveal or discuss that both parties want the same thing from the relationship. This avoids mixed signals for a longer relationship or leading the other person on, when the other partner was only interested in a short time relationship. Otherwise issues of religion, past partners, or other things aren’t important.

In the end we feel that there are certain things that should indefinitely be revealed in certain relationships. It is common sense to be able to discuss the importance of anything in your life but in other instances not everything has to be discussed, unless you want to be serious with someone and both are on the same page.

Kant vs. Utilitarianism

Victoria Murphy
Philosophy
Professor Gilliland
2/3/13
Kant vs. Utilitarianism

    Between Kant and the Utilitarian’s I would choose Kant’s system over the Utilitarian’s or the Greatest Happiness Principle which states that “actions are right in the extent that they promote happiness.” Only when we sacrifice are own happiness. This confuses me considering peoples “own” happiness would obviously not be the same as every other persons. Kant’s believes are more defined as a persons rationality and autonomy. He believes that pain and pleasure define us. Kant also believes that the intention behind an action is what determines whether it is ethical, not the consequences of the action. Promoting rationality and autonomy is more important in a human setting than pleasures. Happiness is based off pleasure and pleasure could be wrong doing to some people. Autonomy is ones moral responsibility. Rationality is being reasonably about life and perceptions. Kant’s systems are self-perfection, and the duty to promote happiness to others. He states “we have a general duty to promote the morally legitimate goals of others”. Kant believes we do not have a moral duty to promote our own happiness since by nature we have happiness as an end and that we are strongly inclined to promote our happiness.
I think if we are born with our own means of self-perfection than we work towards this and receiving happiness from reaching our duties we as people will promote our own happiness since by nature we have happiness as an end and we are strongly inclined to promote our happiness. I think if we are born with our own means of self-perfection than we work towards this and receiving happiness from reaching our duties we as people  will promote self-perfection to others. Like a domino affect. The Utilitarian’s say life is all above happiness and the means of it. I do not believe that human life can not be depicted from happiness. Also Utilitarian’s seem more into the “neighbor” aspect of life. I don’t think people should be self centered but asking people to trust others with their all and take pain for their happiness is a lot to ask out of people who habilitate so many emotions.

All bad choices are immoral
All acts under minding persons are injustice
Therefore all degrading of persons are immoral

Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism

Kantian ethics is Kant’s view that human beings are defined by rationality and autonomy. He says you never use yourself or someone else simply as a means. Kant feels that forcing someone to do something is an example of this. Another example would be suicide and drug addiction because it undermines your rationality and autonomy. Utilitarianism promotes the idea of doing whatever gives the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain. They want to maximize happiness as much as possible even if it makes them like an animal.

            In my view, Kant’s view is a more plausible way for human beings to live than the Utilitarian view. Kant believes in doing what is right and not what simply makes us feel good. Those can be two completely different things. There are a lot of things that make us feel good that are no good for us such as too much alcohol, being unfaithful to a spouse, or drugs just to name a few. No matter what your view is, Kantian ethics leads a person down a road of self-perfection and promoting the happiness of other people. That is a good road to be on even if you can never achieve perfection. There are more examples throughout history of peopke using Kant’s view and they are considered great human beings.

            To use the Barbara example, all acts that are unethical are wrong. All cheating is unethical. All cheating is wrong.      

Kant vs Utilitarianism

1-Utilitarianism believes in egalitarianism, which is that everyone's happiness is equally valuable. Utilitarianism also believes that the persons actions are right if they bring that person happiness. Kantian ethics teaches that nothing is more important to a person than rationality and autonomy.

2- In my opinion, I think that utilitarianism is more plausible because I believe that society's happiness is more important than just one persons happiness. For this essay we were told to choose which type of ethical position we preferred. Both these ideas have valid points but for this essay I believe that utilitarianism is a better ethical theory. Utilitarianism tells us that we as humans strive to increase pleasure and decrease pain. This idea is to help those around you by increasing their pleasure and decreasing their pain. For example, if I was walking down the street and saw that an elderly woman was having trouble walking, I should help her even if it delays me from my destination. Humans by nature have hedonistic ideals built into them. Our fight or flight reaction tells us to either run from a something that puts us in danger or to face it. Finding pleasure and decreasing pain is a basic human instinct.

3-All students in the class are fine people.
    Jessie is in the class.
    Therefore, Jessie is a fine person

Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarinism

Cooper Dubuque

Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism represent two different moral philosophies. Proposed by German philosopher Immanuel Kant, Kantian ethics believes that humans are defined by their rationality and autonomy. Kant continues that the good intentions of actions are more important than their outcomes, coming from a sense of duty rather than meeting desire. Utilitarnism proposed by Bentham and elaborated on by John Stuart Mill defines humans by their ability to feel pleasure and pain. It is hedonistic, and states that the outcome of actions is more important than their motivations, as long as greater good or pleasure is achieved.

Kantian ethics seems very rigid or black and white in that it leaves no room for negotiating moral actions while the ability for Utilitarianism to deal with matters that are gray might seem more appealing to some people.  Kantian ethics seem more practical to me for when it comes to morality there should not be any compromise. Utilitarianism is hedonistic, whose self-gratification seems backwards to the goal of greater good.  Pleasure and pain shouldn’t be the measurement system in which actions are morally weighed instead of human rationality. Pain and pleasure can be irrational and how can the moral truth of our behaviors be derived when there are not reasonable or logical means to ascertain them. Kantian ethics has been criticized as unattainable or undesirable to the greater good; the scenario given in class was a neighbor hiding in your house from a serial killer and being unable to lie you would have to give the neighbor up. It’s unfair to think that Kantian ethics would restrain you in certain instances of creating greater evil with little good by giving up your neighbor as there are many moral means to preventing this situation or other hypotheticals. Not answering the door and calling the cops for example or self-defense against a lunatic is appropriate. Utilitarnism doesn’t even place Humans and animals on different moral tiers, and I don’t feel my moral obligations and understanding are on the same level as beasts.

Kantian Ethics v.s Utilitarianism

As we saw in class last week, Kant and the Utilitarian’s disagree about the nature of moral responsibility. Kantian's ethics defines us as persons and believe that we should never undermine our own rationality or autonomy let alone anyone else’s. Kant believed if you acted morally that you are doing the right thing with good intentions. The intention behind that action is what determines what it is ethical or unethical not the consequence itself. He states that we should promote our own and other people’s rationality and autonomy. This means that we need to start thinking of others before we think of ourselves first. You know how we make other people happy without little white lies or doing anything just for the pure good. Acts out of good willed intentions for no reason are what we need to succeed in to promote happiness to others so we are happy ourselves. Like walking down the street you see an elderly woman who needs help crossing street you help her because it’s the right thing not because you have something to gain. Kant's ethic teaches you how to become selfless.

Utilitarianism tells us that we as humans are morally based on increasing pleasure and decreasing pain. The idea of Utilitarianism is to act in a way that produces the greatest amount of happiness for all people who are affected by it which would mean to always act in the greatest interest of others. It’s a theory that your actions should be motivated by happiness and be free of pain. These are the moral benefits of an action that are determined by the outcome of the action and don’t matter if it was done for personal reasons or just as a gesture. Like giving one of your friends a ride if you see them walking. The gesture would be asking them do they need a ride the personal reason would be you would want them to do the same thing if they saw you walking one day.Utilitarianism doesn't teach you anything but to only do things so that they can help you as well, whether right after the good dead or in the long run there is nothing selfless about that.

Between Kant’s ethics and Utilitarianism I believe that Kant’s moral ethic theory is the more plausible. Because in reality that’s how all people should act in and around the world. The problem with utilitarianism is that by waiting for the outcome of someone’s action, that person doesn't have a reliable standard to determine what is good or bad and can only wait and see what the outcome is afterward. It’s basically like gambling with ethics and philosophy, a moral dice that you roll and take a chance on, better luck next time. Kant’s ethics are about just doing the right thing for the right reason and not wanting anything back in return. To me doing something good for the right the right reason is selfless. By flowing Kant’s ethics it teaches you to want to do well and bring happiness to others and feeling good yourself as well. This makes you a rational person instead of an irrational and it will make you a better person. By you doing the right thing you will feel happier within yourself.

The Barbara Theory

1. All selfless acts are morally good.

2. All acts of kindness are acts of selflessness.

3. Therefore all acts of kindness are morally good.

Kantian Ethics vs.Utilitarianism

Both Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism are two of the most well know conceptions on human nature and how we as human beings should go about living our lives. Kantian ethics is what defines us as a person is our rationality and autonomy.  While Utilitarianism is what defines us as persons is our ability to express pain and pleasure.  

Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism have strong cores and there purpose is very clear.  However, Utilitarianism is the more plausible theory out of the two.  Utilitarianism central idea is “Always act in the way that generates the greatest amount of happiness for everyone affected”.  This idea is extremely similar to the golden rule, which is “Treat others the way you want to be treated”, which is a moral that many people live by including myself.  In Utilitarianism actions are right to the extent that they promote happiness and wrong to the extent that they promote unhappiness.  This means that the core of this theory is to always have happiness and to only express and hold pleasure rather then pain.  The morality for utilitarian’s is to only intake pleasure and to not express any sort of pain.  That you should not privilege your own happiness over the happiness of others.  Which therefore represents that in Utilitarianism equality and respect play a huge factor in the theory, which seems more plausible.  This leads to the theory that if, all acts that minimize pain and maximize pleasure are morally accepted.  All acts of good are acts that minimize pain and maximize pleasure.   Therefore, all acts of good are morally accepted.