1. Why do we enjoy playing games (video games, sports, card games, etc.) when they are actually a form of work? And given your answer, how can we make it more enticing for people to be engaged in doing good in the world?
• The reason people enjoy playing games is to be able to work toward minor fulfillments and be separated from reality for a moment of their choosing. A person is able to logically know the game’s outcome has no effect on their life, but in that moment the thought of succeeding or failing makes them emotionally connected. They feel they are in control of their virtual well-being. In lecture, the analogy of Descartes’ thoughts was given on how our minds are on a separate plane from our bodies and how videos create that similar type of separation. I agree with this analogy, but Aristotle’s views on how to live a good life made me think of why people play games. When I play video games the reason I play is to be able to feel eudemonia and areté but to have no real obligation. When I play I want to say to myself, I solved a problem or completed a task with no real judgment from the outside world. I think that most people who play games strive for excellence in the game and want to be able to say they were able to complete something with no commitment involved. I think that if people felt a responsibility to succeed, they would not play games a much. I think the sense of accountability makes the game less enjoyable because if there is a possibility of failure then there is a possibility for nonfulfillment and disappointment. Based on that answer, I think the only way to make people more engaged in doing good in the world is to make the task enjoyable. I think this is necessary because people want to do the least amount of work possible and have the most fulfillment. By having pleasure while they work makes it seem less like work and more like satisfaction. 2. Hobbes famously says that the life of a person left to her/his own devices is “solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.” What does Hobbes think we must collectively do to avoid this nasty sort of life? • Hobbes thinks that we should live cooperatively to lessen the burden that comes with survival. He thinks that because every individual has the ultimate freedom to do anything, if we do not help each other we will be eventually hurting ourselves. Meaning, if each person is trying to live a life alone without using the knowledge and value of everyone else, consequently they will live a life of struggle and die young. We all require the expertise someone else possesses to survive in modern society. An individual is not able to possess the expertise in all fields themselves, but they can possess the expertise if they utilize other individuals and everyone exchanges their skills with each other. He thinks that being social, not only in personal interactions but in relationships used to survive, is fundamental to the goal of not living a nasty, short life. 3. In Virtue Ethics, what does …show more content…
Compare and contrast Deontology and Utilitarianism by explaining how each theory answers these questions: Which is more important, my intentions or the consequences of my actions? How is “good” defined? How do I decide which possible action is the right action?
• What is more important, my intentions or the consequence of my actions?
1. Deontology- Intentions are more important. Deontology wants to know if something is right or wrong.
2. Utilitarianism- Consequences of actions are more important. Utilitarianism wants to know if the consequences cause harm or good.
• How is “good” defined?
1. Deontology- The good is defined as the duty to perform the right action. The intention to do the right action is most important rather than the outcome.
2. Utilitarianism- The good is defined as maximizing utility. The wellbeing of all members involved maximized is good.
• How do I decide which possible action is the right action?
1. Deontology- An action is right if it was intended out of duty. Regardless of the consequences, the moral action is the right action.
2. Utilitarianism- The right action is the one that provides the most good. If the consequences of the action cause harm then that is not the right
• The reason people enjoy playing games is to be able to work toward minor fulfillments and be separated from reality for a moment of their choosing. A person is able to logically know the game’s outcome has no effect on their life, but in that moment the thought of succeeding or failing makes them emotionally connected. They feel they are in control of their virtual well-being. In lecture, the analogy of Descartes’ thoughts was given on how our minds are on a separate plane from our bodies and how videos create that similar type of separation. I agree with this analogy, but Aristotle’s views on how to live a good life made me think of why people play games. When I play video games the reason I play is to be able to feel eudemonia and areté but to have no real obligation. When I play I want to say to myself, I solved a problem or completed a task with no real judgment from the outside world. I think that most people who play games strive for excellence in the game and want to be able to say they were able to complete something with no commitment involved. I think that if people felt a responsibility to succeed, they would not play games a much. I think the sense of accountability makes the game less enjoyable because if there is a possibility of failure then there is a possibility for nonfulfillment and disappointment. Based on that answer, I think the only way to make people more engaged in doing good in the world is to make the task enjoyable. I think this is necessary because people want to do the least amount of work possible and have the most fulfillment. By having pleasure while they work makes it seem less like work and more like satisfaction. 2. Hobbes famously says that the life of a person left to her/his own devices is “solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.” What does Hobbes think we must collectively do to avoid this nasty sort of life? • Hobbes thinks that we should live cooperatively to lessen the burden that comes with survival. He thinks that because every individual has the ultimate freedom to do anything, if we do not help each other we will be eventually hurting ourselves. Meaning, if each person is trying to live a life alone without using the knowledge and value of everyone else, consequently they will live a life of struggle and die young. We all require the expertise someone else possesses to survive in modern society. An individual is not able to possess the expertise in all fields themselves, but they can possess the expertise if they utilize other individuals and everyone exchanges their skills with each other. He thinks that being social, not only in personal interactions but in relationships used to survive, is fundamental to the goal of not living a nasty, short life. 3. In Virtue Ethics, what does …show more content…
Compare and contrast Deontology and Utilitarianism by explaining how each theory answers these questions: Which is more important, my intentions or the consequences of my actions? How is “good” defined? How do I decide which possible action is the right action?
• What is more important, my intentions or the consequence of my actions?
1. Deontology- Intentions are more important. Deontology wants to know if something is right or wrong.
2. Utilitarianism- Consequences of actions are more important. Utilitarianism wants to know if the consequences cause harm or good.
• How is “good” defined?
1. Deontology- The good is defined as the duty to perform the right action. The intention to do the right action is most important rather than the outcome.
2. Utilitarianism- The good is defined as maximizing utility. The wellbeing of all members involved maximized is good.
• How do I decide which possible action is the right action?
1. Deontology- An action is right if it was intended out of duty. Regardless of the consequences, the moral action is the right action.
2. Utilitarianism- The right action is the one that provides the most good. If the consequences of the action cause harm then that is not the right