Brianna Moulton

Professor Teresa Welch

Philosophy 1000
02 May 2016
Group Project Paper
Philosophy can be described as a love for wisdom. But with each varying individual, the
concept of wisdom becomes very blurred both in nature and definition. When it comes to
aspects of our lives that spark great controversy within ourselves and among ourselves, we must
turn to wisdom to come to a conclusion on what to do. These topics include ethical duties
towards money, the food we eat, what truth is, how are good and bad behavior defined, the
correspondence between good and bad action for right and wrong reasons, what living a good
life means, what makes us superior, what happiness is, and the relationship between service and
living the moral life. In a group discussion, my team and I were able to come up with some
philosophical answers despite our sometimes differing opinions.
When it comes to ethics and money, what are we obligated to give away? My team and I
had quite a problem with Peter Singers claim to give everything we dont need away to those
who cant afford their basic needs. We all agreed that Peter Singer was a little, if not very,
extreme in his statements towards ethical duties and money. We believe that what we do with
money relies more on the morals of the individual rather than having an obligation to give it
away. Here in the United States, we are given the opportunity to make something of ourselves
through hard work and perseverance; and no moral obligation should take away the fruits of
ones labor unless that individuals personal morals and happiness depend on it. We believe that
nobody should be obligated to have to work so hard for another, and that people should get what

Moulton 2
they earn, and if they want to give it away, that should be their choicethey shouldnt feel guilty
about keeping any for themselves.
On the topic of whether or not it is ethical to eat meat, my group and I found ourselves at
a very circumstantial answer. While a member believes that eating meat is required of nature to
balance population, and another believes our genetics determine that we should eat meat, we
decided that there definitely is a problem with the way animals are treated in their lives before
their deaths. Personally, in addition to not being able to eat animal by-products due to my own
genetics, I have a very soft spot for animals and their feelings, because I believe that all animals
have them. So morally, yes I do have a problem with the way animals are treated, however, I am
aware that no action of mine will be guaranteed to influence anothers concerning what they
choose to eat.
Truth was a difficult topic to arrive to an answer to, because in the group, we had people
with conflicting beliefs about truth in a religious sense. So when we boil truth down to the
individual and what they perceive as truth, we agreed that its ultimately up to the individual to
determine what truth is. Because truth to an insane person wouldnt be true to what a sane person
may believe, but just because theyre not sane doesnt degrade the amount of truth something
merits to an insane individual. I believe we arrive at truth when we obtain what we believe is
evidence of the truth, because again, everyone needs different levels of evidence to support what
they believe as fact. So to come to an answer, we believed that the individual determines the
truth, and the level of evidence needed to prove something as truth.
When it comes to the topic of good versus bad behavior and its relation to intention, we
turned to cultural norms to define the behavior. Although intention is such a powerful factor in
behavior, I think that that can actually help further define a behavior as good or bad. Depending

Moulton 3
on cultural norms, any action or behavior can be acceptable, even ones we may deem to be
completely unacceptable or even illegal or evil. But within a society, a person who deliberately
decides to do something that is culturally accepted as bad behavior, that would be defined as bad
behavior. Morals also play a role in the definitions of good and bad behavior in the sense that the
individual can have a different set of morals than the society in which they live, and their
behavior can be defined by themselves as good or bad. But since that behavior may endanger
others around them, the morals of the society trump the morals of the individual, and therefore,
the behavior should be defined by society, ultimately.
When it comes to our views on doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and the wrong
thing for the right reason and their relation to morality, Immanuel Kant said it the best: the
inclusion of good will is essential to the moral aspect of actions, meaning a person must have
the charitable intentions in order for their action to be classified as moral (Soccio, 130-131).
Though in our own opinions, any level of charity, whether given out of the kindness of
someones heart or for some other extrinsic reward is still the right action, though with an
ulterior motive in our opinion, becomes less moral, but can still be considered the right action
because it is helping another person.
In answering the question, what does living the good life consist of? I found my
opinion changing from the time I had the discussion with my group. Prior to being exposed to the
stoics and the hedonists, we decided that at the end of ones life, they decide for themselves what
the good life would have been like for them. Not a lot of people share similar life stories or
backgrounds, so its hard to determine what exactly is good for each person in particular since
we are all different. So as a group, we decided that it is up to the individual and their desires to
determine what is a good life for them. However, since being taught about the Hedonists and the

Moulton 4
Stoics, Ive changed my opinion to better match the stoics view on quality of life. Though I
disagree that a disinterested rational will (Soccio, 201) would bring happiness to an individual,
I do think that acceptance of pain and trials and learning to overcome them can contribute to the
good life; because when trials are handled with grace, like in Marcus Aurelius circumstance for
example, trials are belittled to the point of no existence, and therefore the good life may be
liveable for anybody and everybody who handle negativity with an amount of grace.
The qualities of the superior individual brought my thoughts immediately to the Asian
Sages, and Confucius example of the Chun-Tzu, or literally, the lords son. The superior
individual, according to Confucius, was a person able to balance needs of themselves as well as
the needs of others, while obtaining a level of charisma to lead and influence others. This person
should also be benevolent and be a beacon of humanity (Soccio, 39-42). When it comes to
Confucius theory of the superior individual and his qualities, I full-heartedly agree more. As a
group, however, we disagreed on many different qualities of the superior individual, but agreed
that a hard worker who works hard in the best interest of those he/she loves builds a good
character frame for the superior individual. This includes selflessness and sacrifice in a healthy
balance.
When it comes to happinesss relationship with the good and moral life, I personally
believe that living morally will bring happiness inevitably. I think this because there has never
been a time where I felt good about making a wrong decision, and in fact it made me feel sick
every single time I deliberately chose wrong. Ive never felt sick about telling the truth, and in
fact, quite recently when I admitted to my superior at work that I messed up and needed help
fixing a problem, I felt more human, and therefore I felt happier and more at peace with myself
and my flaws. Generally, a person like me would try hard to hide flaws and only let people see

Moulton 5
the good, perfect things and conceal the imperfections and immoral struggles, but when I
accepted those flaws, I realized that it somehow opened a door for happiness for me because it
also allowed me to construct a plan to fix them. So by fixing our morals, we can become happy,
and the more we try, the more happiness we can obtain, and its something that rewards itself and
hardly ever lets its user down. As a group, we struggled to keep this subject contained within
itself because of its broadness, but for the most part we agreed that being moral generates an
amount of happiness in the individual.
We as a group believe that nobody can go into life without affecting others, so living a
life in which you fulfil your duties to society can result in a good moral code for the individual.
Since morals are tied so tightly to culture and society, I think its nearly impossible to have one
without fulfilling the other. However, we did agree that being willing to do ones duty does make
a significant difference in whether or not it is truly moral. So if one fulfilled their duties for more
than the reason of just simply doing their job, it adds value to the duty itself. They are tightly
woven, the moral life and fulfillment of duties, and they relate to each other inevitably, but the
addition of willingness makes it more valuable.
In conclusion, our discussion on these highly-popular philosophical questions developed
both very direct and very circumstantial answers. Our views on our ethical duties towards money
were nearly opposite to Peter Singers opinionwe dont owe it to anyone if we earned it
ourselves, but being charitable can benefit the person morally, but it should be left up to the
individual to decide what he/she ought to do about their money. When it comes to having ethical
views on the foods we eat, we felt that it was natures design that we, as humans, should be able
to eat meat. However, we did believe that treatment of animals before they are killed is what is
ethically wrong with the food industry. Truth we also left up to the individual and their necessary

Moulton 6
levels of evidence to support their truth. Good and bad behavior and their relation to morals are
more so governed by the society in which people live rather than the persons personal opinion or
view of what is right and wrong. Our beliefs about doing the right/wrong action for the
right/wrong reason fell pretty directly into Immanuel Kants opinion that the involvement of
good will in a decision or action determines the morality of the behavior. We agreed that the
good life consists of whatever the person deems as good for them, because of the various
lifestyles people live. The superior individual, we believe, is someone who works hard and
sacrifices for the good of the long run. And finally, morality generates a guaranteed amount of
happiness in ones life, as well as fulfilling their social duties to those whom they share the
society with. Philosophy, as diverse as it is, asks many questions, and can provide various
answers of which some are shared by many people, and some shared by few. Philosophy is a
love for wisdom, and wisdom is what allows us to answer lifes deepest questions.

Moulton 7
Works Cited
Soccio, Douglas J. Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. 8th ed. Boston:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.