March 17, 2020
On “Kant, The Categorical Imperative”
Although I’m not a true Kantian, I do prefer his principles as opposed to Mill’s. I’m personally more of a straightforward person myself, and if I could make it a universal law, I would. However, as much as Kant condemns people from being influenced by inclinations, it’s quite inevitable for someone to act on their emotions. Though we’re rational creatures, being human also means having flaws, and being susceptible to emotions is a big one. Nice blog by the way, it’s cohesive yet concise.
Yeah, I completely agree with your definition of injustice, a substantial power imbalance must be present in order for one side to be capable of abusing the other. I’m glad you were able to not hold any resentment towards her, and to even go to the extent of understanding why she would act that way as well. No one can control how they’ll be treated, but they can control as to how they let that affect them. But the most detrimental aspect of injustice is, like you said, the long-term effects of it, inducing trust issues.
Utilitarian case for open borders
I agree that the objections seem to be quite ignorant, especially the argument about immigrants having low IQ and bringing the rest of us down. Regardless of ethnicity and upbringing, there will be people who supposedly are less intelligent, but in my opinion, IQ is a complete social construct that people created that isolates people into these discriminative categories. Even though someone may be less intelligent, it’s not a fixed aspect of him or her, it’s something that can be improved, and will never stop improving, and people should give immigrants a chance to prove that for themselves.
Ruth Benedict: A Defense of Ethical Relativism
Although I do respect everyone’s beliefs, there are certain beliefs which I believe shouldn’t be condoned. These beliefs are characterized as those which seem to induce injustice and abuse. My main concern with Benedict’s argument is how it implies that she would allow people to continue harsh and unfair traditions, as long as it’s considered their “tradition”. Sure, we don’t have the right to judge them, in the sense of insulting the culture as abnormal solely because it differs from ours, but we as rational beings have the right to evaluate other cultures to ensure they treat their community with respect and care.
I agree with you, we are the only ones who have the right to our own body, but Kant argues that we don’t necessarily own our body, no one can, because our persons are a separate entity. And by tarnishing our selves through removal of an organ, we’re choosing to degrade ourselves from our true worth as humans, the value being priceless. But nonetheless, people are going to sell their organs one way or another, so might as well allow them to do it by law.
You’re right, everyone has different priorities in life, which dictates which pleasures they’d rather acquire. Personally, I feel like you shouldn’t define people by which pleasures it would be, whether higher or lower, everyone is going at a different pace in life, with different goals. However, my main qualm with Mill’s principles is how it emphasizes on the consequences of our actions, which is quite unpredictable for the most part. I feel like it’d be counterintuitive to define our decisions being moral based on an aspect which is out of our control.
People are bound to have disagreements, but I agree that there’s a certain point to which it’s no longer a debate of personal preference, but whether an issue is unfair and harmful to humanity. Benedict’s argument, in my opinion, encourages people to exercise their discriminative beliefs, condoning them because that’s they’re “opinion”. This validates their actions, which allows them to continue it, having no feeling of remorse.
Nice example, the Columbian Exchange would serve as a valid indicator that newcomers from different countries may only bring in more problems. However, I believe that the argument toward the potential chaos that would erupt from the dispute of meat v.s. non-meat lifestyle would be an exaggeration, in my opinion. Sure, there will be huge debates over it, but eventually people may have to resort to transitioning their eating habits into more economically friendly ones. At some point, people will have to realize how detrimental it is to our environment to continue their old habits.
April 13, 2020
I completely agree with your judgement, the education system should implement programs which include those moral concepts which pertain to the heart, since it’s always better to start at a young age. Though ideally everything can be learned and unlearned, some people unfortunately won’t ever change, due to their fixed mindset. And sadly I think you’re right, as obvious as it may seem, I highly doubt the education system is bound to change anytime soon. Our system is broken as it is, let alone include additional programs which the board may deem as irrelevant. Nice blog by the way, the content is succinct and transitions smoothly.
April 17, 2020
Even though I personally don’t know you, I’m still proud and happy for you that you’re able to have more compassion and understanding for others despite your personal hardships 🙂 As for your blog, I personally agree with your reasonings as well, and honestly I hate when people try to find some wack loophole to validate their verbal abuse, by specifically using the 1st Amendment as their alibi. Though it does permit people to speak their opinion, that doesn’t mean people can outright act disrespectful.
I agree with how you answered the prompt, having the capacity to be good isn’t enough for us to enforce these preferred characteristics, we must discipline ourselves and maintain a morally good lifestyle. I also liked how the way you formatted the blog, it’s clear and straight to the point.
May 5, 2020
At times like this, I find it to be quite difficult to maintain a positive mindset, so I can understand why you feel that way. Nicely done, Noah.
Nicomachean Ethics Book 9 (section 8 on self-love)
It doesn’t seem silly to me; in fact, I’ve done the same thing. I can’t blame you for being impartial toward your friends either, since it may cause unnecessary conflict, despite how good your intentions are. However, I’m glad that you were able to break that habit, and tried your best to help your friend out. Great work, by the way.
May 16, 2020
I agree, I feel like the most logical approach would have to include prioritizing the health of the public, since it wouldn’t be a society without our people in it. Besides, the economy will eventually go back to normal anyway. And yeah honestly, the roommate is being too selfish at this point, by not being considerate for her roommate’s well being.
You’re right, many people, myself included, have tried to cope with our problems in unhealthy and self-destructive ways. I feel like it may be due to the fact that many feel overwhelmed by it all, and simply choose the easier way out. However, it’ll only make our problems worse, so in order to find peace, we must face them head on.
Let's Get Ethical, Ethical 