Blog prompt 20:

• Which approach to values do you find most convincing and why?
• How is social distancing altruistic according to Appiah (The Ethicist)? What is the point of his “driving with your eyes closed” analogy? What is J.S. Mill’s harm principle? Do you agree with Appiah’s conclusion? 

The Common Good Approach is the most convincing to me because it’s very important to take everyone’s health into consideration. Although a healthy economy is good for our society,  there is no point in saving our economy if the people that help and run it are getting sick. Contracting this disease doesn’t mean automatic death but it may lead to long term effects. If people continue to transmit this virus, living would be much harder. Having a society full of sick people does nothing good for the country.As stated in the article, “With a tremendous loss of life, we may not have a society at all.” What common good is happening if we don’t protect the people. The people are the ones that help countries run and work. 

The reason social distancing is altruistic to Appiah is because it may protect not only Appiah but others as well. “Although I’m at a low (but not nonexistent) risk of falling seriously ill from the coronavirus, I don’t want to make more vulnerable members of the population sick, contribute to the spread of this virus or use up valuable health care resources.” Protecting oneself is very essential and valuable in times like these. Staying healthy is important because you reduce the amount of people who have the virus. Being safe and keeping everyone else safe is the most selfless act anyone can do at this point. 

Appiah claims that if one person closed their eyes for 10 seconds on a highway and all other drivers were aware then there wouldn’t be much of a problem. Then he claims that if everyone did it for 10 seconds, there would be a great issue. He uses this analogy simply to demonstrate how this virus may transfer. When one has this virus and is aware, they can prevent anything bad from happening. If one didn’t know they had it and continue to interact with others, they are putting everyone at risk and transmitting this virus more. Even if someone didn’t have it, interacting with those who could potentially have it or interacting with others is still dangerous. 

It seems as if Appiah really endorses John Stuart Mill’s “harmful principle”. “As John Stuart Mill’s ‘harm principle’ tells us, autonomy reaches its limits when an action is a threat to others.” I agree with Mill’s. No one should ever put others in harm’s way intentionally or unintentionally. In this case, The neighbor shouldn’t have her boyfriend over and if he would come over then he should move in with her. That way there would be less interaction from the outer world and a smaller chance of catching something, that is if they don’t already have something. 

Blog Prompt 15: Do you agree with Aristotle’s proposition that there are three types of friendship: friendship of pleasure, friendship of utility, and friendships in virtue? Can you identify people in your life that fall into any of the three categories?

I do agree with aristotle that there are three types of friendships. The main reason I believe this is true is simply because all my friendships are different. In society code-switching is something very common in humans. The way I behave in a classroom is different from the person I am at home. This naturally leads me to act differently around people as well as create different friendships with different people.

The friendships of pleasure that I’ve created over the years are typically the people I feel myself around. I know that it’s not necessary talking to a friend of pleasure to know that if I need them, they’d be there. An example of this would be my childhood friend. She is like a sister to me because her mother raised me and we’ve had the best childhood together. Although we are no longer neighbors, that doesn’t stop us from having the best friendship ever. I don’t see her often but when we’re together, there is never a dull moment with her. We can never stop laughing and catching each other up on each other’s lives. We also don’t text or call each other often but when we have something to say or share, we’re always there. We give each other advice and hype each other up over every stage of our lives. Another friendship of pleasure would be my best friend. We’ve known each other since elementary and have stayed friends. We always look out for each other and are brutally honest with one another. She’s like my other half. She’s always the person I go to when I’m upset and when we see each other we are always laughing and sharing the funny and ridiculous things that happen to us. Since we both have school and she works, we don’t have time to see each other or talk but we always find ways around our schedule. When we’re around each other, we have the best time and we always pick each other up.

Friendships of utility are normally my school friends. The people I meet at school and only talk to during classes are friends of utility because we mainly talk about class work and. I would never find myself talking about my personal issues or life story to them even if they asked. I’m a friendly person so I would probably talk to them outside of class but only if I’m comfortable. I wouldn’t really ask them much about their lives but I would listen to them if they needed to talk to me. In the SESI program from school, there are many students around my age but I just don’t find myself making many more friends only because I’ve already met most of them and there is no connection with the other students. They’re friendly people but I don’t see myself being their friend in the long run. Some are funny and make me laugh but that would be about it. 

Blog Prompt 11: Focus on a particular component of the eightfold path and apply it to your own life. Do you think that right action would mean less suffering? Refer to both readings in your explanation of the connection between virtue and the cessation of suffering.

“These three factors (right speech, right action, and right livelihood) of the eightfold path constitute ethical conduct.” 1) Speech which involves no lies, no slander, spreading rumors, saying rude things, and keeping noble silence. 2) Action which includes being moral, honorable, and peaceful conduct. No stealing, ruining others lives, or having illegitimate intercourse and help others see the right path and help them take it. 3) Livelihood is honorable, blameless, and innocent of harm to other. In other words, don’t put others at harm’s way in physical or mental or spiritual ways.“Next comes mental discipline, in which are included three other factors of the eightfold path: namely, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.” 4) Effort is staying away from evil and unwholesome states of mind while bringing positive and productive wholesome states of mind. 5) Mindfulness is of body, mind, and all other things. 6) Concentration is when unhappy thoughts and desires are pushed aside for happy and wholesome thoughts. “The remaining two factors, namely right thought and right understanding, constitute wisdom in the noble eightfold path.” 7) Thought of being selfless, giving and understanding love, and being non-violent towards anything is considered to be wise.  8) Understanding: There are two forms of understanding, “knowing accordingly” and “penetration”. “Knowing accordingly” is based on given data whereas “penetration” is being able to see anything in it’s true form. 

I feel that out of the eight of the eightfold paths, the right speech is the one I try to practice the most often. This is only because as a young child I wasn’t the most kind. I used to bully kids and say mean things. Then when I was the one being bullied, I stopped. The begining of highschool I was friends with some mean girls and it wasn’t until my best friend convinced me to leave them that I left. Since then, I try to watch what I say. I try to be the most honest with people because that’s what I believe a good person should do. Although I might want to tell a little white lie here and there, I try to always be honest. I tend not to care about rumors because it’s none of my business. Spreading rumors is a waste of time, especially if one doesn’t know what’s going on with the person these rumors are about. If I do have something harsh to say, it’s normally because it’s something that has to be said or it’s for the person’s own good. 

I do believe that the right action would mean less suffering. Not only would one be making good decisions but they would also help others make right decisions. Being in a peaceful state of mind for doing the right things seems like less suffering. Even when things go bad, some way and somehow, doing the right things can make one feel better and become a better person.

What are the Dalai Lama’s main commitments? What are their benefits? Do you share any of his commitments?

The Dalai Lama believes that in order to achieve peace, we should look for our commonalities instead of our differences. In order to achieve this, we need to be taught how to see each other’s commonalities in school. School is the place where everyone learns about socializing and is where we learn multiple values. He believes that the educational system has a great role in who we become as a human. This is why he believes that from the very beginning of our educational process, we should learn values that bring love and peace. The writer states,”My wish is that, one day, formal education will pay attention to the education of the heart, teaching love, compassion, justice, forgiveness, mindfulness, tolerance and peace.”

The benefits of learning those values would include in less violent conflicts and a better sense of what it means to be human. Instead of focussing in all the bad, we would be inclined to focus on all the good each and every one of us brings to the table. Then and maybe only then may we see that we’re all human and we make mistakes, but we are also able to fix our mistakes. We may always have conflicts, but realizing that violence is not the nace may change the end result. The writer truly believes that, “Our children should grow up with the idea that dialogue, not violence, is the best and most practical way to solve conflicts.” Not only do children change the future but they may also influence the present. 

I do believe that most ideas should be implemented in our school system. The only issue is that we’re all human with our own ideas and belief systems. It would be extremely complicated to get everyone on board and it could take many, many years for things to change. Some people may never change at all. I do believe that if the educational system begins to teach our children more than what there is in textbooks, then maybe we could change.As the author states, “The educational systems of the future should place greater emphasis on strengthening human abilities, such as warm-heartedness, a sense of oneness, humanity and love.” When children begin to see the good in being good, it may influence their adulthood and they may begin to create a pattern with their new generations. 

Should organ sales be legal? Give the Kantian argument. Do you agree? Where would a utilitarian stand?

Organ sales should be legal. Some, if not most, people that sell their organs are lower class people. They donate their organs to make money for themselves and possibly family. Some may even sell or remove an organ for their own sick family members or friends. As far as we know, they might be donating their organs to help others.If they were legal, people wouldn’t have to do it illegally and potentially risk their lives even more. If organ sales were legal, there would be regulations and it may help reduce risks. It may affect how much people may get paid only because a lot more people would be able to do it and would know about it. Kant would believe this isn’t moral, mainly because people are wanting money for this. We would also be predisposed to justin ourselves and abusing our bodies. We would be exploited and the people working on us would be taking advantage of our situation. Kant’s theory would also believe that humans are rational and that we have the freedom to do whatever we’d like to do with our body. We would also protect others lives or simply give them more time to enjoy their lives. Since it’s illegal, I know that many sell their organs just for the money. I do believe that is wrong. Although they are doing it for themselves, they are potentially helping others and that is very good not only for the sick person but for their loved ones. I do agree that this may potentially hurt somebody just for money but I do believe that in the long run it may be saving someone’s life. Maybe the good overcomes the bad. A Utilitarian on the other hand believes that this is for the best. If one is helping their family and others then why shouldn’t they be able to do it. If this were to be legal, the amount of organs can be greater than what it currently is. The only downside of this is the fact that there could be unfortunate accidents. Death and sickness can derive from this. I do know that with either theory, health is a concern. Legalizing organ sales may lead to regulation that may help prevent such accidents to happen. We won’t be certain if all this effort may work out for both ends, but at least they both receive what they wanted.

Summarize and explain the second formulation of the categorical imperative commanding us to treat people (ourselves included) as “ends in themselves” and never merely as means. Consider intrinsic versus instrumental value and how that value plays a role in moral theory.

The main objective of one wanting to be a “good human” is to be respectful of others as well as yourself. It doesn’t take much to be respectful. There are three things one should be looking for or acknowledging to calculate the formula. “First, the Humanity Formula does not rule out using people as means to our ends.” In the article, the writer explains that for so long we’ve used humans whether it be good or bad manner. We mainly use humans to get to our goals and we use them according to talent. For example, most teenagers use their parents to accomplish their goal. They use them to get food, clothes, to school, sports practice, a roof to live under, etc. Using them to one’s benefit doesn’t get a person anywhere according to the C.I. but in fact it makes them seem like “bad people”. “Second, it is not human beings per se but the ‘humanity’ in human beings that we must treat as an end in itself.” We also consider other people’s beliefs or lives to account. Realizing that they are also human and using them, benefit them as they do to us. For example, in the instance of the taxi driver, we would use a taxi driver over a horse. The reason being is that it not only benefits us but them as well. The taxi driver gets to do his job as we go on and complete our goal. “Third, the idea of an end has three senses for Kant, two positive senses and a negative sense.” Thinking about the end goal or the end result may lead to your final results in Kants theory. Are you willing to continue your goal and use others for your benefit or theirs? Will you choose another path and stop reaching for the goal? Depending on the path you take and the reasons for taking the path, your C.I. would vary.

What are the strengths of an argument applying the utilitarian calculation to open borders? Is it a good argument? How could it be better? What are its main objections?

Utilitarianism is the total utility of anything to benefit more than just yourself. In this case, we will talking about universalist utilitarianism. It makes sense that having open borders benefit us more as a whole. Having a greater GDP would greatly benefit the our country and eventually may lead to affecting the world the author claims that our GDP may increase from anywhere of 50%-150%. Doubling the GDP may help our economy, society, and lead us to helping other countries. Not only would the GDP increase but the poverty rate may decrease. Being able to solve poverty would greatly benefit the country as it takes people out of the streets and possibly have a better life. The author write, “Even a 10% increase in global production means several trillion dollars of additional wealth creation every year.” This may give us a big advantage to not only us, but those who cross over and the rest of the world. A strength from the open border case is that it gives a better understanding of open borders. It shows the benefits it could bring to us as well what it could offer to other countries. Another strength is that it shows a more humane and moral way to deal with migration. It shows one way we can all benefit from this as well as giving realistic consequences. It could be a great argument if we didn’t think of population. Yes, opening the borders would be nice and actually beneficial. If we think about all the people willing to cross the borders for a better job, imagine how many will cross over. If we think about this in longer terms, our economy would go up but so will our population. If more and more people comer to America, we’d be too populated for what it is. We’d be financially stable but at what cost. Another issue is that if we lead towards citizenism, we’d have the issue with treating us before them situation. We’d help us citizens before we help the people that migrated here. That would be awful considering the fact that the people who migrate here are the ones helping the economy. 

What reasons does Mill give in support of the Greatest Happiness Principle?  Is utilitarianism a “pig philosophy?” How does Mill explain the fact that some people choose lower pleasures over higher pleasures? Do you agree with his assessment?

I did not fully understand the term Utilitarianism until this reading. From the reading I have arrived to the conclusion that Utilitarianism is the state of happiness that may cause pleasure but may also cause pain if there is a lack of pleasure. No one’s happiness is greater than another’s and the utility of something has to be of value. Happiness is caused by actions that one takes and continues to do so to their benefit and others; some find themselves to be happier than others. In response to the question, Is utilitarianism a “pig philosophy?”, After reading the phrase “And if the fool, or the pig,” from John Mill’s, Utilitarianism, it is not a pig philosophy. Pig Philosophy is believing that humans are just creatures and do not have a great sense of rationalism. Do I agree that humans are just creatures? No, I do not. After seeing the author refer to humans as creatures who should have a greater sense of good and bad, I believe that Utilitarianism is not pig philosophy. He also explains how some humans have a lower expectation of happiness and some have higher expectations. Those who have lower expectations of happiness have higher pleasures and are almost easily happy. They do not see as much imperfections or flaws to their source of happiness. On the other side there are the people with a greater sense expectations and normally are a little too focused on the issues that they do not feel as much pleasure. John Mills writes, “It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect.” After reading that section, I can not help but to concur with the fact that there are people with different states of pleasures based on certain expectations. Give a homeless man 20 dollars and they will be more happy than a billionaire with those exact 20 dollars. I feel like it is not a choice on where we fall on the scale. There are certain factors that say where our pleasures will lay upon based on how we are raised.

Can you defend Benedict against this consequence?

 If ethical relativism depends on one’s norms in one’s own culture or society then it would be difficult to agree with the idea that abortion should be solved with capital punishment. Ruth Benedict claims that “…normality is culturally defined” and “..carries its preferences further and further”. The majority, voting for their “norm”, should not have a say if the situation is complicated. Whether or not the majority voted towards capital punishment, there are certain situation that change the morality of the decision. Although it is bad to end a life; topics like rape, financial issues, simple physical or mental issues may change the idea of abortion. In these cases, abortion may be seen as beneficial to the woman or even a way to keep her safe. If a woman is raped, she has no desire to be a victim; having the child of her attacker would most likely hurt the child if the mother does not want him or her. If the woman has financial issues, being able to take care of an infant would be very difficult and would most likely lead to her having to give up her child. Although adoption is not a bad “solution”, it is a very hard choice if a woman does not want to give her child away. Another main concern would be the health of the baby or the mother; sadly in some cases, it would hurt both. Sadly, sometimes, there are mothers in the world that have to abort due to the fact that their health is awful and the baby is putting the mother’s life at risk. What good would it do to continue the pregnancy if both will end up dying? Now going back to what Benedict reminds us, “we recognized that morality differs in every society and is a convenient term for socially approved habits” The majority might have voted because their society made them believe that it was the right decision. It is the norm after all. If we truly think about it, religion is one of the most influential things in our lives, at least to those who have a religion. In my church, we were told that abortion is a sin and that anyone who commits that crime will go to hell. Now imagine if all the other religions had a similar belief. How do you think the people will react? It’s simple; most people conform to the norm because being anything other than normal is frightening . No one wants to be the other. There are many other reasons why people believe abortion is wrong. Some believe that the moment of conception is the moment life begins. Who are we to tell others what is right and wrong? To answer the question if I can defend Benedict, the answer is no. I don’t believe that the majority should have a say in others’ lives. Society in the United States is mainly made up of different cultures, races, historical backgrounds; it is a diverse country full of different beliefs and people. We all come from different upbringings and have our own lives. The majority should not have a say in serious situations that they do not understand. I know that this is very hypocritical of me to say, after all I will be voting and I hope that the majority votes similar to me. Even after that being said, I still don’t believe that people who are having a say in this, may potentially risk other people’s lives by controlling what one can and can’t do.