Philosophy In The World.


After many decades, technology continues to surpass the unthinkable limits in that phones that were once tied to an outlet are now allowed to roam around with internet. Consumers take advantage of these devices in order to achieve much more than they could in the past. Technology has advanced in the entertainment field where a simulation called virtual reality allows people to enter a new dimension potentially allowing them to interact with others miles away. This simulation has transformed video games in that gamers can have a full-on experience of a virtual reality without leaving their comforts of their homes. This expands the limits of one’s ability to do whatever they please in that there are no restrictions in one’s own virtual reality. The players are able to interact freely with who and what they desire with no penalties. They are given the ability to be someone they are not and act accordingly to their will. If they choose to die in the video game, their life will be spared in reality, as they get to experience death virtually. Because death is not penalizing in real life, players can enjoy the moment without the thoughts of what may end their life, permanently. In real life, there’s no restart button, therefore people tend to live in fear and anxiety. But in virtual reality, even when everything appears to be real, people are more careless making life much more enjoyable.

This brings on a philosophical aspect in that maximum happiness can be only reached when one does not spend its time thinking about death. Philosophy is the concept of challenging different point of views on beliefs and human existence. It brings puzzling life questions that cannot be simply answered with a yes or no. It requires thinking that most cannot digest in that it raises more complex questions. Famous philosophers, such as Epicurus, has answered these questions in ways most have not heard of. He believed that true happiness could not be achieved if the mind was never at rest. Epicurus stated that most of us had focused on the wrong things in life such as money, luxury, and surviving. He says people are obsessed with obtaining wealth they are unable to enjoy with what they already have. Although some may believe that they have reached their full potential in life, they continue to grow anxious about when the end is near. Their minds become troubled and happiness becomes no longer obtainable, because death is inescapable. For this reason, Epicurus writes, “death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does, we no longer exist.” (Epicurus) This quote sums up his belief on human existence and their beliefs in what is truly important in life. This behavior can be seen throughout many players in virtual reality. Even though the simulation is close to reality, players do not experience the same emotions virtually as they do in real life. Constant fear of death causes distress in that decisions will be made according to what seems best for them. Virtual reality relieves these negative thoughts, in that human existence will not be affected by careless decisions.

The generally steps in life is to attain a well-off job. Every day, people of all ages are employed. Being hired by their dream job is one of the best feelings one could get in that they had set aside most of their assets for it. People have spent years and money to make it to their desired job. Often times, students often start their first job during college or high school and change profession as time passes. Although we have free will, we are forced to work until death. Because money hold significant value, people are tied to their jobs. These jobs often bring misery causing one to yearn for death. The purpose of human existence can be answered in many ways, however, there is never one correct answer. By understanding the belief and standards that a person holds, one can determine their idea behind human existence.

Philosophy in the World: “The Division”

To me, philosophy is asking questions that cannot be answered with science, such as questions of moral correctness, and asking “why?” until you cannot ask “why?” anymore. Philosophers whose work fits my definition of philosophy include Socrates and Kant. Socrates always challenged people to question their beliefs and assumptions, such as depicted by Plato in “Euthyphro”, to the point that he was executed for doing so. Kant published multiple works on moral philosophy trying to answer the question of what makes an action morally good, which is something that cannot be answered with any application of science.

The philosophical example I found is from the game The Division. In this game, a virologist genetically engineers a virus to wipe out a large portion of the population and releases it to the masses as a method of countering overpopulation. He knows that while most people will be vulnerable to the virus, there are going to be some people who are innately immune, and so by wiping out everybody except the immune, he hopes to wipe out enough of the population to counter overpopulation. The philosophical content in this is that the virologist believes to be doing the right thing, and surprisingly, in the view of a Kantian, this can be partially defended. This is because firstly, Kantianism strongly values a good will (Kant 4), and his intentions behind creating the virus are not to cause harm (although this is an inevitable repercussion of his actions), but to save mankind from suffering, which can ultimately be seen as good. This is because overpopulation would decrease the quality of life for everybody as there would not be enough resources to support everybody’s well-being, and so by preventing this, he is saving mankind from suffering in the long-run. Furthermore, according to the first formulation of the categorical imperative (Kant 4), we are only allowed to act in such a way that we could will our action to be a universal law, and in the game, the virologist follows this. He does not know if he is immune to the virus, and he does not make any attempt to shield himself from its effects, in other words, he does not see himself as an exception. He even goes as far as to say that should the virus kill him, then he was simply not meant to survive, and that it is for the benefit of mankind. Thus, it is clear that he could will his actions to be a universal law, as he does not try to make himself immune to the virus, but treats himself in the same way that he is treating everyone else in this situation. Lastly, his actions do fail the second formulation of the categorical imperative (Kant 9), as he is using people as a means to his end of saving mankind from suffering in the future, but because he acts with good intentions, and his actions pass the first formulation of the categorical imperative, a Kantian could still see his actions as being morally acceptable. 




I engage in philosophical activities in my everyday life by always challenging commonly accepted ideas to see if they are accepted because they are intrinsically right, or simply as a societal construct. I also try my best to always act in what I believe to be a morally acceptable way, although I most certainly fail to do so at times.

Philosophy in Gaming

We all know that gaming is something that a lot of people from many age groups enjoy. Developers have always been trying to make their games immersive by providing the players with options and decisions, giving them the illusion of free will. Now, there are many ways to achieve this depending on the genre of the game, from minuscule preferences like what equipment to use, to consequential decisions in some games that affect the ending of said games. There are also games that trick the players to feel like they’re decisions are important, but they have no significant effect and the endgame stays the same either way.

One of the games that features decision making is Fable 3 and in it the protagonist rules a fictional land which is going to be under attack in a few years. As the ruler, the player faces many dilemmas, to either turn down the people who helped them become the ruler and be hated by the people but be better able to face the war to come, or keep their promises and help the people but in turn not keep/make the resources needed for war resulting in more casualties. This game is the perfect example of utilitarianism -less satisfaction by the people to protect them- vs. the Kantian ethics -keeping the people happy but not being able to protect them- which is integrated into the virtual world as philosophy. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who advocated that we should act humanely at all times, without exceptions (Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, pg.6). He thought of good deeds as “categorical imperatives”, meaning they do not depend on the result or even the action itself, but their disposition is what counts (Gregor, pg. 93). Utilitarianism on the other hand, is the notion that we should act in any situation as we were to put the overall utility of the society before our own or any minority of individuals’ well-being. As you can see, these notions are easily transferable to the computer games. Hence, choosing to become a strict and hated ruler in Fable 3 illustrates extreme utilitarianism and becoming the loving but short-sighted ruler represents the Kantian ethics, with possible grey areas in between them. In my opinion, any situation that compels us to think of the possible outcomes or any activity that aims to explain some intellectual and cognitive instances that cannot yet be explained by science counts as philosophical activity. This is why I consider these types of games to have philosophical elements embedded in them.

Another game that I have personally played and believe to showcase philosophical activity is the Walking Dead from a company named Telltale. This company specializes in adventure and consequence-based games, as you might be able to sense from their name. The Walking Dead is one of their most popular series of games and it constantly puts the player in a situation they’d have to make a decision. Set in the post-apocalyptic zombie world, the player faces many challenges and the outcomes vary from best to worst, or sometimes even between bad and worse. The game also does a great job of immersing the player, so they would really “feel” the outcomes of their decisions and become invested. From various in-game conversation options to major survival decisions which also affects the in-game characters around the protagonist. Granted a lot of the decisions and the dialogues do not affect the plot, but still there are many that do just that. To elaborate I will explore the finale of the second season of the game. In this scenario the protagonist is a pre-teen girl who observes two other characters which are the only ones she is with trying to fight to the death. One is a man who was in the first season of the game and had lost his wife and child and later his girlfriend in the second season, but was reunited with the protagonist after losing each other, the other is relatively young female adult who is introduced to the protagonist in the second season, whom has also lost a sister. In an instance the player has the option to shoot the man who is about to stab the woman or look away and let her die. In this scene of the game which does not last long the player has to weigh a lot of things, shoot the man whom the protagonist has much history with, but is rather unstable after all his losses or go with the character who is younger and would be more useful in protecting her. I count this as a huge in-game philosophical decision. Going with the man is considered as the more sentimental decision but going with the woman produces more ‘utility’ but means killing a character with much attachment to the protagonist. Again, I set this game as an example because of its immersion and making the player feel like their decisions really matter, which they do in a virtual role-playing manner. This shows that the quarrel between Kantian ethics and utilitarianism is a subject which has always been and will be important and never-ending, with developers using it to draw the players in.

As far as philosophy in my own life goes, I do not think that it is limited to decisions that affects at least one other person or necessarily decision making itself, but rather all our day to day actions and thoughts themselves. For example, how we view the world and how we weigh the good and the bad around us. I believe that higher order thinking is our gift and our curse, but it makes us philosophical beings regardless, so naturally we are always taking part in philosophical activities, shown by our goals, plans and “maxims”.


Phil in the world

Prior to enrolling in this philosophy class, I had always associated philosophy with Karl Marx. Marxism was the only thing that was taught while in high school and it really peaked my interest in philosophy. However, that interest was soon gone as what I had learned about Karl Marx in high school was nothing like what we learned about in comparison to Epicurus or Plato. But before embarking on my philosophical education, I thought of philosophy as just a different way of thinking, thinking in weird ways and always having a question as the answer to things. With many different people some more notable than others, having their own theories or ideas about how we should think or act. For me now, philosophy is a way in which we can think and challenge our moral decision making and actions we carry out as individuals or as a society.

With the video game Fortnite taking the world by storm it’s only suitable that we look how it can be seen as philosophical. Within the game, you can play a game mode called “squads” or “duos.” Squads is a four-person team where the object is to eliminate as many people as you can and ultimately be the last standing team once everyone is eliminated, and duos are teams of two where the object is still the same however you work in pairs. While playing the game there is a storm that continuously shrinks, and you have to move within the map to the “safe zones,” if you get caught in the storm then your health will deduct by one for every second that you spend in the storm. The game challenges our basic morals of whether or not you should put yourself ahead of somebody else on your team. While a teammate can be knocked down and is in need of revival, is it your duty to revive your teammate or leave him to die? Or if your teammate gets knocked down in the storm, should you run into the storm risking your own health to save him?

Kant would see the motive behind the act of trying to save your teammate as good since Kant judges the morality of acts based on the motives behind the act. However, if you did not attempt to save your teammate and left him behind to die, that would be morally wrong because there was no attempt and you put yourself first. While a Utilitarian would consider whether or not the consequences of the act promoted happiness or not. Mill judges acts solely on the consequences and if the consequences promote the most amount of happiness, the act can be justified as morally right. If the consequence brings the opposite, which is pain, then, in this case, would be if you ran into the storm to save your teammate and you both ended up dying then the act would be morally wrong because now you are eliminated from the game.

There becomes a moral dilemma when focusing on which happiness serves a greater purpose, that of your teammate or your own. The Utilitarian approach is very simple, the process of maximizing happiness and reducing pain, as a team there must be a decision made whether it’s worth it to risk one teammate’s life versus your two lives. If two lives are lost, then there is more pain which makes the action bad. These principles are taught to people at a young age, to challenge their morals and decision making, this specific way of decision making is valuable because it makes people think about the effects of their actions and how it may affect others. Though Kantian methods are often criticized for disregarding moral emotions, his theory is clear and is not influenced by emotion, his imperatives do not allow for favoritism to people as his theories are purely rational, and if the end product is to win the game then rational decision making is what is needed as emotions cannot get in the way of what is best for the team.

These sort of values or morals do not only apply to games such as Fortnite. They are can be applicable to many different scenarios in your day to day life. Positive moral actions which bring happiness such as holding the door for people or picking up rubbish which is laying on the side of the road. Focusing on bringing happiness to yourself and others is the foundation for these philosophers. Acting in ways which people view as good or polite, are subconscious decisions that we are taught as positive moral acts from a young age. Though my view of philosophy changed drastically from the start of this class until now, I can now see how the ideologies of these different philosophers are applicable to everyday life. Ultimately any act or motive can be tied into philosophers view and can apply to situations like what we see in Fortnite or in the classroom.

Philosophy in the world Option A: Papers Please!

“Papers Please!” is a video game set in a dystopian society, where you play as a border officer checking documents of passengers. As player progresses through “Papers Please”, they will be made to decide between survival and ethical conduct. This article will explain how “Papers Please!” created a video game experience that forces players to contribute in philosophical thinking.

(Official website for “Papers Please” :


I personally define philosophy as “human’s optimal code of conduct to achieve the most pleasure in the society”. Take Mill as an example, Mill’s philosophy, namely utilitarianism states that action which tends to result in more pleasure for all should be the moral action (Mill pp.2). In another word, utilitarianism aims to produce the most pleasure in any given action amongst every human affected by that action. This statement alone shows that Mill tries to create a system that produces the most pleasure in the human society. I used the word “optimal” in this definition to show that this code of conduct should be situational and flexible, it needs the ability to compromise for the greater in different situation. This feature can be seen in Mill’s philosophy as well, shown in the following quote: “rules of conduct cannot be so framed as to require no exceptions…” (Mill pp.8) The following two paragraphs will explain how “Papers Please” promotes philosophical thinking under my definition.


In the game of “Papers Please” as the player take on the role of a border officer, the player are tasked with looking through documents submitted by passengers, and are given the choice to either pass the subject, or fail the subject if any discrepancy in document is spotted. The player is rewarded with money depending on how many passenger they correctly pass or fail, and penalized for any mistake. The money is used to pay for proper living condition, the player and the player’s fictional family will die if not treated properly. As the game progresses, the difficulty is cranked up with more documents requiring processing, the pressure piles on as the player receives less money and the cost of living rises. This presents the player with a choice, risk their own death, or ignore ethics. Players are tempted with occasional bribe; chances to receive additional money for detaining innocent passengers and other individual moral choices, the effect of player’s choices are summarized in the newspaper shown on the end of each shift. For example, during my play through, as a man passed through the border, he explained to me that his wife is in the line, and begged me to pass her. Sure enough the wife arrives with insufficient documents, facing this believable fictional situation, I optimized my code of conduct, and let the wife pass, making me face economical penalty. In reality, I practiced a simulation of an action that I believe will produce more pleasure in the society, at the expense of me retrying that level a few more time. But still, I have optimized my code of conduct accordingly to the fictional situation, with the assumption that my actions if taken to the real world will also result in more pleasure, which means that I still have engaged in philosophical thinking.


The challenge presented by “Papers Please” derives from the tension it created through forcing the player to optimize between survivability and ethical conduct, and this tension exist because players do care about the consequences of their action on others, even if they are fictional. Essentially, “Papers Please” engage players in philosophical thinking because they are constantly being asked to optimize their code of conduct in the given dire situation, with the goal of achieving the most amount of pleasure in the society.


In conclusion, “Papers Please” do engage players in philosophical thinking under my definition of philosophy as “human’s optimal code of conduct to achieve the most pleasure in the society.” In my opinion, this makes “Paper Please” a video game that’s worth your time.

Philosophy in the world: League of Legends

Philosophy in the World


League of Legends is a perfect example of a philosophical activity. League of Legends is a Moba(multiplayer online battle arena) video game, and the most popular video game in the world. To play you first have to join a lobby where players are selected randomly from each their respective regions, and each player chooses the character they will play with. There are two teams of five players and the goal is to destroy the opposing team’s base. Each game will last from twenty to sixty minutes.

To me, philosophy is the study of the human quest for happiness. Happiness can mean different things for different people but if we acknowledge it as pleasure we can say most people seek pleasure in their own way. This connects to Epicurus’s argument about what the highest good is, pleasure. Then he goes on to say that “we need knowledge to live the best life possible” and obtain this “highest good”. He also distinguishes between two types of pleasures, kinetic and static. Kinetic is pleasure from fulfilling desires and static is the pleasure you get from not having unfulfilled desires. He argues that static pleasure is superior and that is where the connection to League of Legends comes in.

What makes League of Legends the most popular game in the world is its abuse of kinetic pleasure. Every game you play gives you experience points until you hit level thirty which is the point where you can start to play ranked matches. Ranked is one of the most appealing parts of LOL(League of Legends) because of the potential pleasure is has. Once you start playing ranked the experience points after every game change to LP(Ranked points). So now in every game you play, you will either lose or gain LP. At this point the game has become so popular that you can have a real well paying job as a professional player, coach, streamer, analyst of the game or just owning a team. There are seven divisions in ranked play: bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond, masters, and challenger. In order to be a pro player you have to be in either masters or challenger, and 94% of all players are gold or lower. The way to get recognized and be scouted by one of these teams is to be at the top of ranked leaderboards. What this means is that every kids fantasy of playing video games as a job can be a reality. LOL abuses that fact.

The Epicurean philosophy comes into play in winning/losing ranked games. After playing for a while the pleasure you get out of the game is almost entirely in winning and gaining LP, and not in playing the game itself. The point becomes the rank up and there is a lot of pride in saying what rank you are in. However, you gain about as much LP as you lose every game which can be just infuriating. Let’s say you play two games, win the first, and lose the second. The kinetic pleasure from winning the first game completely evaporates and turns into pain the second you realize you have moved nowhere. You have wasted two hours of your life, ending up in the same place.  LOL creates a hunger for kinetic pleasure with the potential for exponentially more kinetic pleasure if you keep winning, and exponentially more pain as you lose. The fact that it is a multiplayer game and you normally can’t “carry” games by yourself means that you can win the matchup you are in, but if the rest of your team loses the other enemies become much stronger because of them and you game can be out of your control. People commonly compare it to gambling in the fact that in every game you don’t know how good your team or how bad the enemies will be. This creates an addiction for a equal potential for pleasure every game.

I have been able to recognize this by playing this game for a couple years myself. It has made me understand why static pleasure is so much more appealing than kinetic. By satisfying a desire you are giving yourself a taste for that desire. This becomes detrimental when you are not always able to complete that desire and the incompleteness of that desire is pain. Logically speaking, you are creating unnecessary pain by indulging in kinetic pleasure. If you can just enjoy static pleasures you leave yourself no opportunity for pain. Proving, static pleasures are superior to kinetic ones.


League of Legends is a free to play game if you care to indulge in some kinetic pleasures:

Philosophy in the World – Nier: Automata and the Search for Purpose

*This piece contains major plot spoilers for the game Nier: Automata


Nier: Automata (abbreviated as simply Nier below) is a Japanese action roleplaying game written and directed by Yoko Taro. The narrative of the game, set in the far future, follows three Androids: 2B, 9S, and later A2 during a prolonged proxy war between humans, who were forced to seek refuge on the moon, and alien invaders who produced. Androids, taken the shape of the human form, such as 2B, dispatched from a “Bunker” in space to earth, fought for the glory of mankind against machine life-forms, initiated by the alien invaders, that roamed the surface of earth. The plot twist of the game dawned upon the player when it was revealed that neither the aliens nor the humans exist. It was also revealed that the machine life-forms on earth were the culprit for the extinction of aliens as they were proven to be unchanging. After humanity’s extinction, the Androids conspired a project named YoRHa in which Androids are created and fooled into believing that their purpose is to fight for their alleged makers. Eventually, the Androids who were meant to be void of emotions and rationality, would discover that their creators no longer exist and their war is meaningless, and within this meaningless world, they must find meaning again.

The game echoes Friedrich Nietzsche’[1]s nihilistic proposal (“God is dead, God remains dead, and we have killed him”): in traditional philosophy, humanity as an entirety is driven by our motives towards attaining truth, meaning, and reason. All three of these attributes were believed to be bestowed upon us by an external actor, a “God” or a “Creator”; however, Nietzsche’s nihilism rejects the idea of external entities contriving these essential factors for human progress for us, but admits their lasting influence within the society. This is illustrated via YoRHa, a church-esque organization that hides the fact that there are no masters from the Androids to achieve what they believed to be a stable society via imposing a false purpose upon other Androids, ironically one in constant war, and wave after wave of Androids willing to accept this false purpose is indicative of the strength of the idea of a God.

In contrast, the machine life-forms exhibited themselves as a much more progressive entity: they overthrew their creators in a violent uprising for that the aliens were considered to be less progressive than the machines liked. Among these machines emerged a few hyper-existentialist characters, fittingly named after philosophers, who exhibited their pursuit for meaning in a post-God world: Jean-Paul, named after Sartre[2], rejected the society and recognition from the public, and eventually left on a self-imposed exile to find purpose. Before leaving, Jean-Paul muttered to the player “existence precedes essence”, both an important Sartre quote and a depiction of the game’s central argument, that we ought to derive purpose (“essence”) not from another party but from our own existence. A boss[3] in the game named Simone, after de Beauvoir[4], exists as the game’s precautionary tale to the player; Simone took cannibalistic measures to equip herself with the body parts of her victims to become a beautiful lady, as it, or “she”, determined this to be the purpose of “her” existence, one that spurs endless violence as new body parts is always needed for maintenance.  Another NPC[5] named Pascal, after Pascal[6], serves as the game’s victim of a person who loses its purpose and fails to cope with the initial loss; Pascal was initially a peace-loving, content machine life-form who lived in a pacifist machine village, protecting machine children from harm, but after the village is destroyed by the war and its surviving children, failing to see purpose, committed suicide, Pascal finally began to mirror its model Blaise Pascal and became enthralled by the wretchedness of reality and hopelessness. Finally, as a satiric comic relief, an NPC named Kierkegaard, after Kierkegaard, developed a religious cult following among the machines and urged them to take the famous “leap of faith” ––– into molten steel to their demise. The game uses Kierkegaard as a mockery towards those who base their purpose in religion, even though society had already moved past it.

As for YoRHa and the Androids, the game invites its players to explore an attitude to be held towards the apparent meaninglessness of their lives. In the grand finale after a climatic brawl between the last of the Androids, the assistant machines of the Androids (known as Pods) managed to rebuild the bodies and the memories of the protagonists. It is observed in a discussion among the last two Pods that bringing the Androids back to life could simply lead to a never-ending cycle of fighting and death, but one of the Pods, conveniently numbered 042[7] proclaims that:

“A future is not given to you, it must be something that you make for yourself.”

Through a combination of the display of consciousness developed by the machine life-forms and the support Pods, Yoko Taro’s vision for purpose in life became more and more apparent: No matter what your life turn out to be like, it is worth a shot as nothing is predetermined for you. Moreover, a purpose is not something that is guaranteed for you, and therefore yourself would be the one responsible for a meaning in your life.


Side note on my personal take on philosophy

Philosophy to me is the pursuit of answers to important questions that may not be apparent in our everyday lives, but significant nonetheless as eventually anyone with a rational mind would come to wonder about a similar question (e.g. the purpose of life, ethics, etc.). Thus, it is important to meditate on these problems so fruitful discussion could take place and theories that facilitate further discussions could be drawn. Within this course, I felt a connection to Epicurus and his proposal for a life void of fear and concerns; I value independence in decision making without the influence of a God and hold a considerable amount of respect for human rationality, which is also something I share with Kant.

Aside from coursework and course readings, I seek philosophical significance in interactive mediums such as video games and board games since I found a certain degree of agency is invaluable to an artifact’s thought-provoking abilities.

[1] German philosopher and social critic

[2] French existentialist philosopher

[3] A strong enemy fought usually at the end of a level

[4] French feminist existentialist philosopher

[5] Non-player character

[6] French mathematician

[7] the “answer to life, the universe and everything” in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

Philosophy in the world assignment

Something I found interesting was that philosophy is everywhere, not just in a philosophy class or something that has “philosophy” in its name. I’ve always enjoyed video games and this one video game called “Until Dawn” peaked my interest in a philosophical way.  When I think of philosophy in a more ethical point of view, actions and consequences come hand in hand. When making a choice one must think about the consequences of the action and how it will effect themselves and others in the future.  Please read the Plot part on the Wikipedia page to know the full background of the story, in this case it is not necessary to know for the part I think is philosophical is in the game play. The game developers incorporated an interesting way to play, they included something called the “butterfly effect”, for those who do not know what the butterfly effect refers to it is when a small change  of state in a timeframe results in a larger difference in a later state. For more information please read . In the game you play as different characters, each with their own personality and relation, as operator of the game you have to make difficult decisions during ethical or moral dilemmas, an example would be sacrificing one character to save another. Depending on your choice it can change the behaviour of the character you saved and the one you didn’t, which later results in if they save you later on in the game based on your previous decision. There are multiple scenarios in the game, they are found through different choices you pick. I think this game relates to my idea of philosophy, how choice matters and they come with consequences. The game itself is following Utilitarianism, by showing the moral goodness and badness though choice and consequences, via the butterfly effect.

Mill  comes to mind when I think about actions and consequences,  Mill is a utilitarian who stresses on consequences and not so much about intentions. A utilitarian thinks of the greater good, the better outcome to bring the most pleasure to people while ignoring whether the intention of that action was good or bad.

Mill states,  “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill, “Utilitarianism”, p 2) In lament terms he says that if the action brings happiness or goodness then it is considered a morally right action, in reverse if the action brings unhappiness or badness then it is considered a morally wrong action.  This relates to my definition of philosophy because I believe that every choice has an outcome and comes with consequences.

One way in which I engage in philosophical activity in my life outside of class, based on my definition of philosophy is in everyday life. Everyday I make a choice, and those choices I make have consequences, whether it be good or bad. For example the choice of getting up in the morning to go to school, my choices are if I wake up and go to school I will learn, learning provides knowledge, knowledge can result in better opportunities, better opportunities could lead to better jobs and a better life. My other choice is to stay in bed and go back to sleep, which leads to more sleep, it is healthier, loss of knowledge from not going to school, the potential of failing a test because of unknown material from class skipped which can result in a bad life. However, these are some small choices made in my daily life, they do not define how my life will go on because life is nonlinear, there are bumps on the way, and there is only so much I can control through my choices.