Carlo’s blog

Immanuel Kant had believed that humans would be governed by goodwill and goodwill was the only thing that is good with qualification. Believing that the way we acted with reason could be identified in two different ways which he called Imperatives. Kant explained these two types of imperatives. called hypothetical and categorical which Kant explains the meaning “ If an action is commanded as being necessary for bringing about some further end, the imperative is hypothetical but if an action is commanded as being good without qualification, the imperative is categorical. Categorical imperatives are unconditional our obedience to them is unqualified.” Example of a Hypothetical imperative is when someone says ” If I want to lose weight I ought to go on a diet”. An example of a Categorical imperative is ” Tell the truth!”. The Hypothetical imperative is stating that if you want X which in this example is to lose weight then you must do Y which represents go on a diet. Explaining how you must do something in order to reach your intended outcome. While Categorical imperative is a direct command only using X not Y.

  Kant continually distinguishes how some reason could seem unselfish or purely out of moral worth but is made out of selfish reasons. An example he used was when someone may feel sorry for someone so they offer to help them. Even though to most it may seem like that would be seen as unselfish but Kant opposes this as he believes by letting sympathy influence you to help someone it could never be of true moral worth. This is because Kant believes the right thing should be done not because you like being good or for whatever intrinsic reason but rather do the right thing simply because you know what the right thing to do is and you do it for the sake of it being good.

He also explains that anything with an inclination which means a generalization of our appetites, desires, emotions, and self- interest – things that are not within our control could never let something be done out of true moral worth. This is because it would not be done out of purely good but feeding into your own beliefs of what is right and wrong. This is hard as you would want to be able to think that if you volunteered to feed the homeless that you did it out of the sake of good. Yet, Kant apposes that you did any moral good if you enjoyed it or believed it was the right thing to do.

Dalai Lama’s main commitments are expressed in “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.” She explained that by implementing these ideas into formal education it would allow the younger generation to create a much greater responsibility to make the world into a much more peaceful place. This would ensure that they would learn how to focus on our commonalities, to see how everyone isn’t so different after all as we share the basic values of being similar physically and emotionally which makes up the one thing we all do have in common called Humanity. 

Dalai Lama’s idea of how education can be improved may be seen as unrealistic. Yet, it seems like something that could one day be seen as informal education. I believe education has a broken system as it sometimes makes us focus on less important stuff that has no value for our future. There should never be a scenario where you know the name of King Louis cousins names but not how to files taxes. The ideas Lama wanted to add to education have a value that is beneficial towards our future as its meant to make us see a more peaceful perspective of the world around them. Lama’s dreams are shared with my own to fix an education system that has mislead students to learn the wrong things.

Aristotle identifies friendships in 3 different categories the first being Friendship of Pleasure, friendship of utility, and friendships in virtue. When you think of your friends you probably don’t generally use these categories but rather the closeness level you have with that person. Yet, after learning Aristotle’s categorization methods to dictate which spot your friendship falls in. It makes you see friends from a different perspective not based on how close you are but rather what benefits you provide for each other. 

The first friendship friend of pleasure Aristotle describes as someone who you have a connection with through a sensual pleasure, as well as other physical types of pleasure, are included in this group, so is general pleasure or delight. The second friendship friend of utility he identifies as people associated together for mutual usefulness. The last friendship friend of virtue he describes as people who share a set of values and principles of an irreducibly moral nature and do things to only do good for the other. 

After discovering Aristotle’s definitions it allowed me to look at some of my friends and try to find where they stand and which friendship they fall in. I believe I have these friendships but the friendship of pleasure is not one of them in regards to the friendship of utility and friendship of virtue are very identifiable in my life. A friend who I see falling under a friend of utility is a partner I recently had for a project whose name is Angel. Angel and I were both assigned to work on a program and I was excited as he knew I was great at finding mistakes and constructing code well and he was good at finding ways to reduce data usage of code allowing it to work efficiently in a professional matter. We got along but would speak only on Tuesdays and Thursdays when working on the assignment. Once the assignment was completed we parted ways never messaged about anything. He was a friend of utility as we both mutually benefited towards using our strengths on a common goal.

A friend who fell under the friendship of virtue was an old football friend named Mario. He was an overall nice guy but no one spent as much time as we did together. He would even buy me lunch time to time then I would buy him lunch sometimes as well. I went to meet his family many times and he knew mine as well so we both were familiar with what kind of background we came from. We always had each other back in situations so he only intended good which is why he is categorized as a perfect friendship as it follows Aristotle requirements. When Aristotle explains what a perfect friendship is it almost resembles exactly how Mario and I were. Aristotle definition of a perfect friendship is “Perfect Friendships which subsists between those who are good and whose similarity consists in their goodness: for these men wish one another’s good in similar ways; in so far as they are good (and good they are in themselves); and those are specially friends who wish good to their friends for their sakes, because they feel thus towards them on their own account and not as a mere matter of result; so the Friendship between these men continues to subsist so long as they are good; and goodness, we know, has in it a principle of permanence.” Aristotle lets us see people in a different view and allows us to identify the kind of people we have around us. He provided a new perspective which I intend to use from now on.

The argument to have the ability to sell your organs is defiantly difficult as the thought of selling a piece of yourself to another human being even sounds immoral in context. Yet by Mario Morelli’s article “Commerce in Organs: A Kantian Critique” which used Kantian perspective to see both sides of people being for or against the idea of having the ability to sell organs allowed me to know where I stand. I believe it is our basic human rights to be able to do what we want with our bodies despite how others view it so if we choose to sell a piece of ourselves then we should have the right to. I also believe that people who oppose it just don’t fully understand how something like this instead of being harmful to our bodies is actually helpful.

You can’t just think of it as someone having the ability to buy an organ from someone but think as to why someone needs to sell an organ to someone. Imagine someone is making lots of money, has a steady job and is overall financially secured the odds that they are going to sell their organs is extremely unlikely as they have no reason. Now imagine someone who is taking care of a family on their own, working full time yet struggling to put food on the table and is seeking a future for their kids that they can’t afford. If they were given the opportunity to make a sacrifice for a large amount of money that could pay the rent, put food on the table and pay for their kids needs they are most likely to take it. Thats what this is really about this has nothing to do with the financially secured individuals but rather those seeking to become one.

Some may give the argument of claiming its self murder as Morelli stated “To deprive oneself of an integral part or organ (to mutilate oneself),for example, to give away or sell a tooth so that it can be
implanted in the jawbone of another person, or to submit oneself to castration in order to gain as easier living as a singer, and so on, belongs to partial self-murder.” If this is going to be labeled self-murder then it should also be given to many other things which are already legal to do to your body which could inflict self harm. Tattoos can create many cancer causing compounds in your body so is raising your chances of possibly getting cancer not self-murder? Even eating the wrong things can be identified as self-murder as it raises the chances of having possible health issues the identification of self-murder can be used in many different scenarios. Its the choices we make which decides which “Self-murder” we choose to inflict to ourselves as were aware anything could have a consequence.

Another argument made in Morelli’s article was how humanity is deprived by allowing the ability to sell organs which was made in the statement “Humanity has dignity, a special kind of value or worth, “exalted above all price” that “admits of no equivalent.”” This argument is invalid as it states dignity doesn’t have a price well if this is true you better tell the guy working at chic-fil-a who is wearing a chicken costume outside and throwing a sign around for minimum wage that he should quit because his dignity is priceless. People are told what they are worth all time its our choice that dictates if we agree with them.

In conclusion, people can argue that selling an organ is immoral,harmful or overall unconscionable but its because they are viewing from one perspective. When you think of people in different situations where maybe selling or buying an organ could possibly save someones life it allows a better understanding as to why this choice is needed. You have to allow someone to make their own decision in choosing whats best for them and their body. If you don’t let people make their own choices then it defies our natural given rights as human which is the real crime.

Open borders would enable free movement of people and goods between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions like how the world was before people created these invisible lines. The idea of having a world with no borders and allowing anyone at anytime to go where they pleased is defiantly a virtuous thought but allowing this could not only be beneficial but harmful as well. The main argument by utilitarian in support of open borders is the belief that it would  “Give a much better quantitative sense of the importance of the open borders issue” which I believe is true. If people from all countries were allowed to be apart of any country they choose it would allow them to search for a better life as well as a place they feel more safe. I find the argument itself to be valid but I find the counter effect to be more harmful.

The predicted state of the economy with open borders would be chaos according to a literature review by Clemens which stated “Free labor mobility would lead to world GDP increasing by 50-150% relative to the counterfactual status quo scenario” If people were allowed to move and work where they wanted it could cause mass migration into the most wealthy countries causing a huge disturbance in the economic,social and political order as the world GDP would change at a drastic level.

I also believe it would cause certain countries to fall behind others as people would relocate jobs to where they feel benefited most and some countries offer more than others can. An example is the U.S and its current position in the envelopment of new technology which has made the country pay tech people more than most countries but the need of housekeepers in the U.S is very low resulting in it paying less than other countries. With open borders people who were involved with tech would most likely migrate to the U.S and housekeepers might migrate to a country that needs it more creating an imbalance of economy as it pushes certain individuals to one side.

Mill talks about the notion of how only pursuing self-happiness would only lead to unhappiness. Happiness is the most basic need and want of human nature and the way to inquire it can be different as what makes someone happy is dependent on the person. He elaborates more on this as he describes the common occurrence of someone capable of higher pleasures would tend to postpone to lower pleasures usually influenced by temptation. A perfect representation is alcohol. The basic function of alcohol is to help numb and create a sense of happiness but someone who is more knowledgeable cant fully be as happy as they know that their health is being negatively affected not allowing a full appreciation. Mill also believes that self-sacrifice of your own happiness is a virtue which supports utilitarianism but how sacrifice in itself is not. This is confusing as the point of utilitarianism is showing how something is only right and beneficial if it supports the masses and how having the capability to give happiness to the majority is pure virtue but sacrificing yourself for the happiness of others is not good. I think the idea of giving up part of your happiness for the good of others is an idealistic way of life as it influences people to extend a hand to those who need it. Mill is encouraging people with more can help the people with less. It would be them giving a part of their happiness to create a larger amount for a different individual or group but he does not want to interpret the idea of suicide ending your own life would be against the ideals of utilitarianism itself. Mill believes that a person can not be free in taking their own life as it causes death to the person making them non existent unable to pursue virtue. Mills words can be argued as he never directly talks about the ethics of suicide but thinking he would be in support of such an act is impossible. His own friend and brother were victims of suicide.

Impartiality is the principle of holding decisions based on the objective which he explains how this is valued in utilitarianism as it concerns the promotion of justice which involves respect for rights, the fundamentals of good faith and impartiality. Mill values Impartiality as he justifies it in “As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator” Giving the idea that it was required in utilitarianism.

Mill supports the Greatest Happiness principle by elaborating on the actual meaning of happiness itself. He identities happiness “is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.” It definitely makes you view certain things in your life that you portray as happy. This kind of made me question things that I thought made me happy like getting paid after a long day of work. I thought that getting paid for back breaking work made me happy but if following Mill’s principles it wouldn’t be qualified as happiness since it was brought by pain.

Mill was also in support of Utilitarianism as it’s the idea that something is right if the majority is benefited by it which I agree with. I agree with Mill because it influences ideas of donating to charity, volunteering at a homeless shelter and thinking about others before you act or say something that may effect the happiness of a larger amount of people.

Mill also explains the differences of people who choose lower pleasures over higher pleasures. He makes the distinction that people who are for lower pleasure can easily be satisfied in comparison to someone of higher pleasure who will always be dissatisfied as they are more conscious of the imperfections around them. Due to an experience in my own life, I strongly agree with Mill because I’ve had the transition of knowing less and being satisfied into knowing more then being unsatisfied. When I was in elementary school I was always given clothes from family members who had outgrown them. I was thankful for them as to me it was a new set of clothes I could change into and besides the condition of the clothes I never cared who or where they came from because the basic idea of having clothes made me happy. As I got older I started to become more aware that the majority of my clothes were pre-worn by someone else and were intended to be thrown out but instead given to me. This made something I used to like to be insulting and unsatisfying. I think a higher level of knowledge and understanding is beneficial in all means but in doing so you take the risk of seeing things for what they are rather than what you want them to be.

I believe that Benedict is right as he believes “morality is dependent on the varying histories and environments of different cultures.” I was very observant at an early age letting me view firsthand how people aren’t born with certain morals but given them. I want to use the fight over legalizing Abortions as an example. Since abortion is a heavily debated topic usually mixed with science and religion inputs to debate if pro-choice or pro-life is the right option but even if full proof was provided showing how one side was right it would not change the mindset of many. Religion such as Catholicism teaches those born into it what is wrong and what is right then introduces you to an environment where other people follow the same ideals. If someone grew up with certain morals but got told by everyone one day that their morals were wrong it would be useless as even society can’t always change someone’s set principles which have been branded into them. So if a catholic born child was shown the results of not legalizing abortions is worse than legalizing abortions it still would not change how they view it due to their environment growing up. By being able to see how environments change someones perspective it allowed me to validate Benedict’s beliefs.

When growing up the idea of injustice was when something was unfair for one individual but fair for another breaking the balance and meaning of every one were equal. I never witnessed or noticed injustice first hand until I was about 10. There was a large line of people waiting for lunch in the cafeteria which caused a lot of students to cut people as it saved them time. One person named Dylan was a student who had a very intimidating complexion he was tall lean and dressed like a thug. He acted like a punk to everyone who couldn’t stand up for themselves and would always try to start stuff with people for no reason. One day when Dylan was waiting in line he was pushing and shoving friends for fun to pass the long wait time which a yard duty mislead for him trying to cut the line so he was grabbed by the jacket pulled into the back of the line with no explanation. After the student defended himself she called him ” A little S***” who needs to learn manners. When he tried to tell someone what she said other teachers found it too impracticable to believe. The act was small but had a large impact on Dylan as he would skip school more often and keep his mouth shut when witnessing bad stuff as he wouldn’t be believed regardless.

This situation is interesting as you could claim this was justice. As he had caused many problems before in which he wasn’t caught but finally got punished for something else he was actually innocent of. When bad things happen to bad people you identify it as justice but in this case I believe it wasn’t. By using Analogical arguments which “rely on analogies, and the first point to note about analogies is that any two objects are bound to be similar in some ways and not others.” I can defend the connection this had to injustice to show how the real injustice caused a kid to never feel like he would be believed which lead to a lonely life.

Dylan may have been a jerk at school but everyone knew why he was that way. His dad was a meathead drunk who would come almost late everyday to pick him up or just openly forget to pick him up. Dylan was the typical bully who was so unhappy with his life at such a young age that being mean was his only outlet. This does not mean that what he did was okay but it doesn’t mean he deserved to be labeled as a liar. Dylan was maybe not the nicest guy and sometimes aggressive but lying was never his thing. The definition of Injustice is a quality relating to unfairness or undeserved outcomes in which Dylan was a victim too. Since teachers never gave him the chance to explain why he acted that way they never got to see the situation he was actually in. Which never let him learn how to be good since his dad never taught him and therefore shows this situation as an injustice act.