Let’s Get Ethical, Ethical

As a society, we must support one another— since it wouldn’t be considered a society otherwise. This being said, the common good approach seems best at reinforcing this idea. As Heider said, “With a tremendous loss of life, we may not have a society at all”. At dire times like these, everyone should be taken care of, especially those at higher risk, such as the elderly and the homeless. Being a democracy, it’s only just for us to do what’s best for everyone—after all, our government should be “by the people, for the people”. Sure, in doing so, the economy will certainly take a great toll, but there have been times in which the economy was at its lowest point and yet was still able to recover. Take the Great Recession for example, though it’s not exactly the same situation, it’s still considered to be one of our worst economic downfalls. In other words, death is irreversible, so the wellbeing of the public is far more valuable than our economy. 

Social distancing is intended for the wellbeing of everyone, and demands for others—even those who may not be affected—to change their lifestyle in order to do so. This, as Appiah explains, is why social distancing is deemed as a selfless act. We sacrifice our needs such that others who are at high risk can survive. His analogy of “driving with your eyes closed” signifies how reckless and selfish it is to not follow social distancing, especially if it’s done on a regular basis. And if done by everyone, can lead to serious damage. Mill’s harm principle describes how autonomy will inevitably only reach to a certain degree, for the sake of others safety. In order for the roommates to reach an agreement, the other girl must understand that. 

Appiah’s conclusion seems like the most logical route, especially due to the other roommate’s unwillingness to compromise any other way. Ideally, I feel like it’s best for one of the roommate’s to leave or for the boyfriend to stay at his place or theirs, but this is probably the best compromise she can get. And honestly, I cannot understand why the roommate with the boyfriend doesn’t like either of the options her roommate provided for her, simply because it’s her “right” to choose no matter what. Frankly, it bothers me a lot. 

(390 words)

In the eyes of Aristotle, an incontinent man is dictated by his lack of rational behavior—one who “acts with appetite, but not with choice” (Section 2, Paragraph 3). People of this manner are driven solely through desire and emotion, though their actions remain voluntary. Aristotle addresses that choices should be the product of deliberation and rational thought. An incontinent person lacks these said components, consciously succumbing to their non-rational desires. Furthermore, choice and appetite are separate aspects since the latter involves acting upon “pain and pleasure”, while the former depends on neither (Section 2, Paragraph 3). 

Aristotle asserts that our actions originate within ourselves, since we intentionally decided to act that certain way. In that sense, a person is aware of whether his or her actions are right or wrong once they have committed to doing that certain action. For some people, they consciously choose to become self-indulgent or careless, acting incontinently. Even individuals who deem to be ignorant must be held accountable for their actions, since it’s also within their control to further educate themselves. With all that in mind, we always have a choice—the only exception is if the action is against our own will. Since the “moving principle” is within ourselves, we are always given the choice to do or not. 

I side with Aristotle’s perspective, since we are our own person, with the power to act accordingly to our character. Though I may have one exception, specifically forgiving ignorant people for their actions, mainly because I feel like it’s circumstantial. For instance, if an individual were to have been raised in a family which promoted closed minded values. The person may believe it’s rational since it’s what he or she has been exposed to. Children are especially more prone to accepting whatever beliefs their parents have taught them, good or bad. But once these children have matured, and have been exposed to more knowledge, then should they be held accountable.

(324 words)

The Dalai Lama’s main commitments are focused around three components: promotion of human values, promotion of religious harmony, and preservation of buddhist culture (tibetmuseum.org). These commitments are quite beneficial since they provide solidarity among the community, along with finding harmony within ourselves.   

The Dalai Lama seeks to unite all of humanity through understanding, from the mind—and most importantly—the heart. As human beings, the Dalai Lama expects for us to encourage an ethical foundation worldwide. To do that, he intends for future generations to be properly educated, specifically including ethical values. We all live on the same planet, so it’s only right for us to cooperate with each other, out of our best interest. As of now, he believes that “we are still focusing far too much on our differences instead of our commonalities” (Paragraph 10). Currently driven by competition, we bring others down in order for ourselves to be on top. Instead, the Dalai Lama urges all of us to come together as one, filled with “goodness, compassion and [care] for others”, working together, even when disagreements emerge (Paragraph 8). 

In doing so, more peace will inevitably take place. By continuing our old ways, we’re only repeating history once more, resulting in turmoil and destruction, only because two parties weren’t willing to cooperate with one another. Blinded by stubbornness, people are fixated on maintaining hostile behavior rather than compromising through communication. By teaching them the values of compassion and empathy as a young age, we’ll be able to create a better environment for all. Once implemented, it would substantially decrease the amount of violence and war. Consequently, it will preserve humanity, allowing for us to continue to thrive and develop. 

I personally share his first two commitments, with the exclusion of the third solely because I’m not a firm believer of the religion, so I don’t consciously have that commitment in mind. I always am in favor of maintaining cooperation and amity, since I personally try to avoid confrontation as much as possible, specifically hostile arguments. Promoting human values is also one of the reasons why I chose to major in psychology, in order to develop a better understanding of human behavior. By doing so, I can provide more compassion and empathy toward others in need of help through counseling. As for promoting religious harmony, I try my best to ensure respect toward others regardless of their background, even if the individual is an atheist. As long as the religion doesn’t inflict pain and oppression towards others, I will continue to support their right to believe in it. 

(427 words)

Around a year ago or so, I had a falling out with one of my close friends, and during that time I impulsively vented out to my best friend. I told him about everything that bothered me about her and how I was glad that we were about to go to college and eventually separate ties with her. In the moment, it felt satisfying to let out all the bitterness inside me. Nonetheless, talking trash about her had only created more suffering, since it caused me to be even more upset by continuing to dwell on it. If I had chosen to let go of my resentment of the past, I wouldn’t have wasted my time and energy self inflicting more hatred inside me.

Though suffering is seemingly inevitable, the third and fourth noble truths have claimed to prove otherwise. By following the eightfold path, the Buddha insists that “cessation of suffering is attainable” (p.457). Virtue and cessation of suffering go hand in hand, since suffering will continue to persist without the former. Living virtuously allows us to discipline ourselves from indulging in simple pleasures—which can leave us feeling empty, and thus end up seeking out for more. This, as Buddha claims, is the root of all suffering, our craving for impermanent objects. By acknowledging this suffering, and detaching ourselves from these unnecessary objects, we’ll begin to obtain peace within ourselves. 

Through enlightenment, people are able to focus on themselves by improving their mindset and behavior. As Rahula explains the approach, “It is a Path leading to the realization of Ultimate Reality, to complete freedom, happiness, and peace through moral, spiritual, and intellectual perfection” (Paragraph 24). By focusing on these three core aspects of yourself—rather than materialistic objects—will enable you to seek full awareness and serenity. Consequently, attaining these will then cease you from suffering, since you fully accept that unfavorable events are imminent. These virtues allow people to acknowledge that self development through purification is necessary, being that we’ll never be truly satisfied unless we seek satisfaction within ourselves. 

(341 words)

Suppose selling a part of yourself, setting a market price on it—leaving you to be permanently tainted—no longer seen as a dignified being. Kant condemns organ sales for this exact reason, since it violates his principle of not abusing people, rather treating them with dignity and respect as a human being. He strongly believes that a human’s dignity is essentially priceless, we’re too valuable to even place a numerical value over. By resorting to organ sales, people are degrading their own worth since they’re defining exactly how much value they have, disrespecting their own selves. This goes against the duty of respecting “bodily integrity”, in which people must maintain their own beings as a sacred entity, free from any outside interference (318). By legalizing organ sales, people are then stripping away a part of them, a substantial part which makes them, well, them. Kant clearly shows his disapproval by explaining how simply “[giving] away or [selling] a tooth so that it can be implanted in the jawbone of another person… belongs to partial self-murder” (318). Once people give away a portion of themselves to someone else, they convey to others that their entity is separable, something that can be owned. That section of yourself is no longer yours, the transaction is irreversible. It’s like implying that the other person is more worthy of having that part of you more than yourself, along with valuing the money given to you—rather than keeping your sacred body for yourself, intact. Though it may seem as a fair exchangement, the main reason the seller is even willing to go through with it is for the money, serving as a substantial influence—corrupting the person’s true consent.

Okwe, in Dirty Pretty Things, serves as the embodiment of a Kantian, a rational being who basically lives as if his actions were to be made into universal laws. He proceeds to meddle with his supervisor’s corrupted antics after discovering a fresh, human heart in the hotel facility. Though fully aware of how beneficial it’d be for him to contribute to his boss’ dirty deeds, he stands his ground and chooses the righteous route. Despite his morals, he eventually violates Kant’s principles and succumbs to his boss and offers to do the surgery for his close friend, only for him to perform it on his supervisor. While he does use his boss as a means to acquire money and passports, he does make sure his supervisor is taken care of, during and after the procedure. 

As for Juan, the manager of the hotel, he symbolizes a utilitarian, since his main goal as a hotel supervisor is to keep as many people happy. In doing so, he validates his organ transactions by claiming how everyone in return is happy, especially having saved a person in need of a transplant. Regardless of the possible immoral doings which occur in his building, all he cares about is the profit and happiness of his customers. 

From a utilitarian standpoint, it would be sensible to legalize organ sales, since basically everyone ends up being happy. As consequentialists, it would satisfy their principles, since it would more often provide the greatest happiness possible than not. In this circumstance, the seller would be content, after receiving money which he or she very much needed, then the receiver would also obtain more profit once it’s been sold, and another being would be satisfied knowing there’s an organ available to him or her. By legalizing organ sales, it would force the promotion of a sanitary and legitimate option for people in need. People are bound to sell their organs one way or another, might as well help protect them by making it accessible and less painful. However, this is assuming that the ideal results follow accordingly, since there’s always a possibility of the recipient’s body failing to accept the organ, and the eventual result of an exploitation of commodities by politicians and the wealthy. 

This topic is quite complicated since no matter what side you choose, complications are evident. However, people are bound to resort to organ sales regardless of the outcome. Personally, I believe everyone is entitled to their own choices, especially if it pertains to themselves. With that being said, legalizing organ sales would be the preferred outcome since it would help those in need to have a legitimate resource. Nonetheless, legalizing it can still promote exploitation as well, but this time by politicians and the wealthy, especially being in a capitalist country. 

(751 words)

A person driven by sympathy to help another being would essentially not have done something of true moral worth, since that person’s will to help isn’t solely in agreement with reason—rather a personal feeling from a certain circumstance which evoked it. Kant explains that “if the inclinations and wants founded on them did not exist, then their object would be without value” (492). In other words, the action purely occurred out of happenstance, or as he refers to as having “conditional worth”, driven by outside influences such as emotion, which can be quite unpredictable. Maybe she happened to be more sympathetic that day since she recently got paid, or was just having a better day than usual. 

It occurred because it was convenient, not because she intended to be dutiful—regardless of personal desire. The said occurrence is described by Kant as a hypothetical imperative, having been demanded to do the action due to specific circumstances, as a means for something else. That is to say, if you want (insert here), then you must (insert here). While categorical imperatives are duties in which everyone should be held accountable in doing them, no matter what, so much so that the command can serve as a universal law. These obligations don’t involve any inclinations or other purpose, people do it because they should. For instance, not committing premeditated murder is considered by many to be a categorical imperative, but if it were because someone doesn’t want to go to jail, then it’s considered as hypothetical. 

Basically anything which stems from desire and emotion, serves as an inclination, all of which aren’t considered to be of any righteous worth. He even goes to the extent of explaining how he believes that “every rational being [would wish] to be wholly free from them” (249). In doing so, he implies how these inclinations merely serve as meaningless motives which merely distract people from the true motive of duty—good will. Inclinations solely play a substantial aspect when dealing with hypothetical duties.

The only main downside of following Kantian beliefs is deciphering between the two imperatives, since the only absolute way of knowing is if the action were to not be pleasurable at all. But for the most part, I personally agree with his principles, especially the second part of the categorical imperative of treating a being as an end in it of itself. Every person is entitled to respect, simply for existing. Though, the first part of the said imperative is quite understandable, I, for one, can be driven by selfish desires every now and then, so I wouldn’t deem myself as a follower of Kant. 

Although it is necessary to not abuse each other, I don’t believe selling one’s body with a price as a means for something doesn’t automatically mean that the person is dehumanized and merely worthy of the amount of that price. The way I see it, I feel like simply having the choice to do so, such as through pornography or exotic dancer, can be empowering. We’re human because we have our own conscious, and most especially, free will. Although I would probably never do that myself, I feel like everyone is entitled to choosing—to exercise their autonomy.

(536 words)

Mill avoids the paradox of hedonism by explaining how the intent of utility isn’t merely to obtain self happiness—but to prevent and reduce the opposite counterpart. Mill dismisses the idea of a life continuously filled with euphoria as well, because it’s impossible. Occasional bursts of happiness are more realistic, varying in duration. Roller coasters are similar to life, since it contains a buildup of excitement, and then a release of euphoria, all the while experiencing some feelings of unhappiness here and there. It can also be viewed as how its structure contains ups and downs, much like the duration of life.

Besides, utility exercises the notion of viewing our own happiness as an equal with the rest of the community as well. Rationally speaking, we have the capability of committing selfless acts for others—having formed the knowledge and judgement that it’s the desired motive. With the world being as fascinating as it is, with countless possibilities in store, any rational being is capable of achieving a somewhat good life, assuming the person had a middle class socioeconomic upbringing with no unfortunate hindrances. 

Depending on the circumstance, self-sacrifice is viewed by utilitarianism as righteous—in fact, Mill considers it to be “the highest virtue which can be found in man” (p.7). To be prepared and willing enough to forsake one’s own main desire in exchange for others is what makes it so.  However, it solely depends on the consequence of the self-sacrifice, with the preferred outcome being that their sacrifice would be beneficial for the rest of the people, such as sacrificing yourself when someone is holding a group of people at gunpoint. As long as a person’s self-sacrifice includes refusing the joys of self happiness, along with increasing the amount of happiness among the community, then it would be considered a virtue. 

Utilitarianism demands impartiality, for the good of one’s self and others around as equals. The concept actually defines the ideal morality of a utilitarian. As Mill puts it, “ To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself” (p.8). In doing so, a person would be capable of achieving the highest happiness for everyone as well. He suggests that we all should put our interests hand in hand with everyone else’s, such that the two appear to be permanently associated with each other. With rationality and education, people should consider helping others as a major aspect of their life, serving as second nature. 

I honestly don’t agree with utilitarianism, except for certain principles within it, specifically the golden rule of treating others as you would if it were yourself—in the sense of loving others and not abusing one another. But to suggest for people to treat their interests equally compared to everyone else is quite ridiculous. Mill even admitted that people are likely to have unequal desires when seeking good for the general public. A current example would be people hoarding tons of supplies like toilet paper and water due to COVID-19. Filled with fear and worry for the future, people are unnecessarily stocking up, leaving the rest to fend for themselves. 

Although we’re social creatures, we tend to be selfish, especially in dire times—which is when we need each other the most. Though it makes sense how happiness seems to be the end goal, the fact that consequences dictate whether the act is moral or not is also quite unreliable and unnerving. It’s out of our control, so there’s no reason that the outcome should define our actions. With impartiality playing a substantial role in utilitarianism, it’s unrealistic for people to follow it since humans specifically have their own opinions and biases, robots are probably the only closest functioning and rational thing that have the capability of being completely impartial. Though I do understand where Mill is coming from, to successfully practice this belief seems to me like some wishful thinking. 

(650 words)

The “Greatest Happiness Principle”, claims that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (pp.1-2). In doing so, Mill clarifies the definition of pain and pleasure, focusing on the latter with quality rather than quantity. Despite Utility being correlated to short-term pleasures and overall lightheartedness, Mill claims that utilitarians actually even prioritize mental pleasures more than physical—due to its longevity, safety and cost. Although admittingly, there are certain pleasures that are shallow, followers of this practice also acknowledge the scale of quality regarding pleasures. There are higher and lower level qualities; Mill deciphers them based on the majority’s favor, regardless of “moral obligation”, along with another clear indicator being if one pleasure would continue to be chosen over another, despite the former bringing more discomfort and even if the latter was of higher quantity. Regardless of the personal benefit or intention of an action from a person’s “nobleness”, Mill argues that other people are bound to benefit from it as well—with “the world in general [being] immensely [better] by it” as well (p.4). 

It’s been argued that the concept is degrading toward mankind, since it’s assumed that the meaning of life is solely toward gaining pleasure—claiming it’s a belief only worthy of a pig. Despite this, Mill contends how these opposing views are actually the ones with the disrespectful attitude. In other words, he explains how the pleasures of a pig and a person are incomparable, since these two species require different types and levels of pleasure—with humans being of superiority, once being exposed to those higher capabilities. Having knowledge of those higher qualities, no one in their right mind would rather choose to live as a different, lower standard kind. In Mill’s words, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (p.3). The misconception of Utilitarianism being a “pig philosophy” possibly stems from the assumption that pleasure is defined by fleeting physical pleasures.

He describes how as people get older, they tend to get more selfish and lazier—but they don’t voluntarily choose the lower pleasure. In actuality, these people end up not having the capacity in order to be able to choose the higher level one, so instead they devote their time and effort toward the other. Their future career and way of life, and their socioeconomic upbringing dictates whether they have “capacity for the nobler feelings”—causing them to resort to the more convenient option. Since they don’t have the time, nor the opportunity in participating in these superior pleasures, people often lose their aspirations for them. 

Honestly, I do agree with how people can be prone to laziness and selfishness, but I disagree about the idea that once that occurs, there’s no turning back and their life is set in stone. In my opinion, people always have a choice, and sure, their upbringing plays a factor in the amount of opportunities open to them, but that doesn’t mean people born into poverty or other setbacks are definitively incapable of rising from them and seeking higher pleasures. If anything, it might even motivate them more and gain more aspirations from it, rather than someone born into wealth and unappreciative of the superior pleasures, but that’s obviously the more optimistic viewpoint of it. At some point in their life, people will recognize that there’s more to life than their current enjoyment, either through what they see on social media or the news; they’ll form long term ambitions, believing that if they were able to do it, then they can too.

(611 words)

Benedict defines ethical relativism as a matter of having a collection of norms which are deemed “good” in the eyes of one society, yet in another civilization, would be considered to be “wrong” or “abnormal”. These set of common rules are predetermined, dictating a society’s outlook through its “long traditional habits” (p.6). She argues that the way situations are perceived, are completely subjective. With this being said, Benedict goes on to claim that, regardless of how the dilemma is carried out—the decision isn’t truly morally true, but rather culturally accurate. Through juxtaposition between tribal customs from isolated civilizations, namely Melaneasians and American Indian tribes, and our society, she reiterates how different social norms and methods of calculating social reputation can be. She summarizes her assertion on page 6 of her essay:

“The very eyes with which we see the problem are conditioned by the long traditional habits of our own society… We recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits.”

As long as conflict doesn’t arise, a culture will continue its traditions accordingly, shaping into its own distinct society. While doing so, these individual societies will continue to grow progressively dissimilar—but that doesn’t mean that either ways of life are invalid. She argues that we are keen to argue against a topic once it isn’t congruent to ours, that there are other courses of action which happen to work for their culture. Since the mainstream of society is what defines normalcy, accepted notions are synonymous to the idea of righteousness. Compliance is viewed by any culture as the perfect method in order for a society to flourish. 

A common proverb that captures the author’s message is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. For this instance, beauty is the culturally accepted notion, while the eye of the beholder is the fixed perspective of the specific society. Normality is solely based on the choices made of that specific society, and will always be correlated to the “culturally institutionalized types of behavior” (p.6). Based on her defense, no matter how outrageous we find a culture’s belief to be, we should be understanding and respectful, since everything is up for interpretation.  

Although, at face value, it may seem that the correct course of action in handling a dilemma is to follow the opinion of the majority—even if most of the society is in agreement, that doesn’t indicate whether that is the absolute correct way in doing so. It only signifies common interests of that society, which has been engraved into our minds, not based on our personal conscience decisions. Sure, it’s accepted, but that doesn’t hide the fact that some issues should be handled a certain way—-particularly when it comes to how people should be treated—-with respect and care. As much as I would like to conclude that people are entitled to their own opinions for issues, some negatively affect our humanity too much to be disregarded. For instance, the whole debate on whether global warming is actually real completely boggles my mind, no one has the credibility to argue against Mother Nature. Global warming shouldn’t even be controversial, natural devastations around the globe should be enough evidence for anyone to concur. 

I agree with Benedict’s perspective regarding ethical relativism, but only to a certain extent. Regardless of background, everyone is entitled to having sympathy and respect from others. With this being said, certain rules should be in place, and we should have the right to evaluate each other for the better of mankind. If we were to leave it up to interpretation for everyone, then nothing is necessarily “true”, and many unfair situations would continue to be justified. Honestly, ethical relativism serves as a way to validate unfair and oppressive situations, allowing for them to continue for many generations to come. Consequently, forcing people to endure these “traditions”, since it supposedly works with society. 

(616 words, excluding the quote)