Search This Blog

Monday, April 4, 2016

O'Dell Rolls Out 'PLAST' Drone From The Barn

O'Dell 'PLAST' Drone Rolls Out of 
The Family Farm Barn
"What we do out here on the farm 04.03.2016"

Veterans Administration is in default
The Subjects of Texas VA Entitlement Extortion Manipulation Is Malpractice and Is A Texas Problem 
Not A National Problem
"Focus On the Real Problem"
Texas Abused Veterans
VA Still Using the Web To Establish Fact from Fiction?
What ever happened to Science? 
First Blog Post 1998 “Don't Leave Your Vet in the Car Get Help!”

We Left the Veteran at A Federal Facility Outside of Texas Peripheral Perception for Positive Identification -
Service Connected Quadriplegic waiting 20 years for an Official Appeal. 
Don't Break Murphy's Law

Veterans Administration is in default

Hackers Use a Ranch hand as a Means to the Hackers Own Ends
First Post 04/25/2015

Put Hackers In Jail
The Problem with College Aps Such As Blackboard Used To Target and Harm These Applications are
'Bush Admin Mandates That Kill'

*Note Google CEO Confirmation of these applications concerning Black Board 'Some are really bad'
By The Subject of VA Veterans Administration Human Experimentation Bone Study The Subject of Research Password hill591 2011-2015
Online Bone Health Study
University of Maryland School of Nursing
655 W. Lombard St.
Room 455C
Baltimore, MD, 21201
1-866-902-6563 (toll-free)
This Vietnam Veteran is still waiting for his VA entitlements since 1996
by Just a Freshman Paper in Basic Philosophy A Linguistic Link to ADA Complaint

When BlackOps is not BlackOps
Every Printer and Fax machine in town
hacked including your own business plans, contracts, sealed bids, grant applications, patent pendings, copyrights, last wills and testament, ect ect ect

Other Examples: The Ebola Scam : ChimpanzeesLast of the Great Apes?
Another Example: is forced clicking 'N' 'L' 'T'
Put Hackers In Jail
Law of the Land in the Kingdom of Ends

                        Humanity’s struggle to understand the world in which we live is conditioned by the unique capacity to reason. The very nature of reason in itself drives us to try and understand who and what we are. It is of the utmost importance that we understand ourselves as not just rational beings but what makes us human beings. All functioning humans have this need and it is outwardly expressed as personal identity. Right or wrong, in order for a human to reason, he/she must stake a claim in space, time, and philosophy.  If for a moment, we concede and accept reason as a secondary cause, then we begin to appreciate Immanuel Kant’s “Universal Good Will” as a primary cause. If we look at history and history alone, Thomas Hobbes’ “Social Contract” of warring tribes would best describe the human at the other extreme. The comparison of the two theories leads to a rounded version of why humans act as they do and what it is to be a human being.

            Both theories address the law of nature or natural law in a similar way. Nature seems to have a purpose and for that purpose has incorporated the quality of instinct. Nature supports natural selection or favors the organism that is dominate and has survival capabilities as a means to itself. In this way both philosophers extend this law into the human realm as self preservation and differ in their approach. Kant explains that if human self preservation is the goal of nature then reason is a poor choice over instinct (8). Instinct overrides the questioning and takes the direct course to its goal. He suggest that just as nature has a end purpose so does reason, but that end is unknown (8). Hobbes’ establishes that this natural law is a original state of affairs that differs little from the animal kingdom other than humans have reason at their disposal.  He explains “The right of nature,…is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature;… of doing anything which, in his own judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto” (Hobbes Oregon State). Both opinions develop a distinction between a lower realm of instinct and a upper realm of reason; however differ in the application of moral law. 

First, Kant’s “Universal Law,” which rejects consequentialism and applies not to the results of an act but the cause or will of the act. He departs Christian Wolff’s “Universal Practical Philosophy” and depicts a higher world of causation or priori principles (3). In other words, the structure of the mind is universal activated by causal will. Kant distinguishes between two types of imperatives; the first is hypothetical and is any desired action of the will with some type of reward and second a categorical imperative if the action is represented as good in itself and no thought of reward (25). The categorical imperatives that relate to this universal law are:

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (30)."Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature” (30). “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always at the same time as an end and never simple as a means only” (36).

Acting in accordance to the universal law subjectively and objectively constitutes ones duty. Ones duty is a condition of the will if duty is good in itself without some interest.
            Next, Kant arrives at a distinction or definition of a human being that he calls the autonomy of human beings also known as the “Kingdom of ends”. He explains that the structure
of the mind is universal and the higher faculty of humans dwell in this realm. He claims that humans have no need of an external authority of morality and have sufficient reason to govern themselves without a system of rewards and punishment. Kant explains that we have a natural duty since we are rational beings we should act like rational beings. That all humans are the legislature of universal law and should as an end and never a means. Humans are free, conscious,
and rational (Kant 15). The universal theory is plausible to the intellectual but is it practical for the common person in this hostile world?

            In comparison Hobbes’ “Social Contract Theory”   seems to be more realistic in a world with acts of violence such as oppression, murder, and war. A world in which every choice directly effects self preservation. Where the thought of leisure is rest for the human body not an
opportunity to explore ideas of how one should act. It is a world where humans act in accordance with those in power and everything is done in the defense of themselves.  Hobbes’ “Social Contract” is therefore more of an observation than a set of principals. He records his observation of natural law as a state of war in which we naturally seek peace. Hobbes explains that reason is the only thing that separates us from the animal kingdom and reason arrives at the idea of peace or compromise in order for each human’s survival. This compromise is the social contract in which your only duty is to survive (Lemos 17-18). He explains:

“And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of every one against every one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body” (Hobbes Oregon State).

Ironically the “Social contract” theory arrives at a similar definition of a human being as Kant’s theory. The social contract necessary for peace usually provides for a universal law (hypothetical) that is necessary, easily understood and benefits people. Within the realm of this theory each human being is an equal, free, rational being.

            Freedom is described by Hobbes as a spatial freedom where we are free to move in any direction we want until something stops us. There is no contradiction in Kant’s theory for he only mentions our freedom to will and specifically says that the consequence of our desires (will) are of no concern because we do no know what the universal end is or what makes life complete.
An example would be a person in jail for a crime he did not commit. Willing universal good does not mean the inmate will be released; however the prisoner can make the best of his position
by knowing that he is acting in accordance to the universal good which in of itself is a satisfying event. Kant poetically describes this scenario as:

“Even if, by some especially unfortunate fate by the niggardly provision of step motherly nature, this will should be wholly lacking in the power to accomplish its purpose; If with the greatest effort it should achieve nothing, and only the good will should remain (not, to be sure, as a mere wish but as the summoning of all the means in our power), yet would it, like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has value in itself” (9-8).

            A final comparison reveals that natural law or self preservation contradicts Kant’s “Kingdom of ends,” that is, never treat another as a means but as an end. He describes a primary cause (the will) or that creative process within each of us individually. He uses the philosophical assumption,  that because of the very nature of reason, we cannot understand anything outside  our world of experience such as the universal realm or consciousness (Decker 7). Since we are all connected to this universal idea we are all of equal value and deserve respect. Hobbes insists that because of fear, reason urges us to respect other human beings. Both theories are from different extremes, respect for the benefit of others, and respect for the fears of others, both command the law of respect. It can be argued that granting (willing) the autonomy to the “Kingdom of ends” is a hypothetical imperative because self interest may be involved. Therefore, if self interest is involved their little distinction between natural and universal law. If the law of respect is used to define how a human should act certainly we will and act from the same universal source. So it can be concluded that respect is a higher human quality that applies both to natural law and the universal. Reason with respect not only operates on the lower level of survival but is a universal reality that is peculiar to humanity so it applies as universal law.
  In order to define what a human being is we must define the universal or humanity as whole. In the universal idea each individual has equal value and best serves the purpose by operating from universal respect. Because humanity is incomplete or to say it has not reached it        
end it is undefined. Kant describes the universal as first cause which is action. So to be human is to operate from a higher causal realm (Kant, Beck trans 71). The paradox is that we know that we are and we know how to act but we do not know where we are going. Such is the nature of our position in space and time; however, we must stake a claim. If we do not find higher ground, our lives are governed by others and we live by the social contract.

            In conclusion, to be human is to act in accordance to the higher idea of universal law.  It does not matter if we are a lowly laborer, wealthy merchant, live in a slum or village in the jungle, each of us is just as important as the next. We are not concerned with the consequences of our action because we do not know our end. Through reason we direct our will to universal good and every thing we do is precisely what needs to be done.  By yielding our desires to the benefit of the whole we begin to enjoy the bliss of acting in accordance to that which is universal good. Above all, if by chance we meet with misfortune, may good will, the jewel of our consciousness, shine ever so brightly and light the way.
  In conclusion
Not The Veterans Problem Named Above Seven Years IS Way Too Long To Wait

Works Cited
Dicker, George S. Hume Epistemology and Metaphysics; an Introduction. New York, 1998
Gauthier, David P. The Logic of Leviathan, The Moral  and Political Theory of Thomas       
            Hobbes. Oxford Press: New York, 1969
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan.
Kant, Immanuel. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans Lewis white Beck.  Bobbs-     Merrill Co., 1959
Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. James W Ellington. Hacket:    Indianapolis, 1983
Kant, Immanuel. The Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy., Lemos, Ramon,  N. Hobbes and Locke. Athens GA, 1978

Claiming Texas Crime Stoppers Rewards One Conviction at A Time

Gauthier, David P. The Logic of Leviathan, The Moral  and Political Theory of Thomas       
            Hobbes. Oxford Press: New York, 1969
Kant, Immanuel. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans Lewis white Beck.  Bobbs-     Merrill Co., 1959

The Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Post a Comment