Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action is, as many will recall, a program in which minorities are helped to go to college. When a college is faced with accepting one of two applicants, one of which associates their identity with a minority group--one that is not a dominant class (i.e. white), and the two applicants have equal qualifications, affirmative action prescribes the acceptance of the person belonging to the minority group. My group of four, in class today, did not agree on this topic. 

I feel that the affirmative action policy is flawed. It has a good ideal, and is trying to even out discrimination based upon slavery, but I believe it has not been successful. Is not the point to bring groups with less access to higher education a greater chance of reaching that education? Is that goal really best served by supporting minority groups? 

Much of the minority population lives close to the poverty line (which really, for much of the states, is actually higher than it probably should be, I believe) or below it. They thus tend to go to public schools, which are funded by property taxes--which do not bring in as much revenue in poorer locales--and thus do not receive a quality education. Anybody, be they minority or not, who has not had the benefit of a quality education should be treated equally by affirmative action. 

Affirmative action is encouraged on the basis of somehow making up for slavery. It doesn't seem to have been terribly successful when so much of the minority classes who have been treated with racism are poor. If affirmative action is to continue, I feel, it should offer some sort of benefit of acceptance and scholarships towards those who have been impoverished. Better yet, fix the school-funding system. 

I believe that there are several virtues which support this view. There are also virtues which support the view that the affirmative action policy should be kept functioning as it currently does. 

My virtues are:

Fairness

Thoughtfulness

Conscientiousness

Cooperativeness

Generosity

The support of industriousness---they clearly worked hard to get to college, all impoverished students

Justice

Tactfulness

Thoughtfulness

Unfortunately many of these virtues can also be used to argue against my personal opinion on affirmative action. Justice, for example, could be said to argue for the current system, since the poor whites were not discriminated against, historically, to nearly the extent of minorities. Furthermore I am not completely unreserved in my own judgement of this situation: I am selfish and do not want more people to have to advantage over me, based merely upon what social class they originated from--I don't want to risk NOT being accepted because I was held in equal esteem with a poorer person, and only one of us could be accepted. 

I think the truly virtuous solution would probably be to fix the schooling system so that poverty does not effect schooling. However that wasn't our argument: our group argued over the functionality and how the affirmative system should be run, if at all. 

Virtue of Moderation

Perhaps the ultimate virtue, of the Virtue theory originated by Aristotle, is moderation. Yes, yes there is a long list of virtues, and each of them is very important. Each of those virtues is a moderation between two extremes. Every virtue requires moderation, so moderation must be present before other virtues. 

Each of the virtues are equally important, but for a behavior to be virtuous it requires moderation. Moderation between frugality and throwing ___blank____ out of an airplane. Moderation between being walked all over and being belligerent in demanding your own way be followed by others. 

Moderation has always been something I've agreed with. I will exhibit tolerance towards things I don't necessarily agree with, so long as they don't go too far. Cultural and Subjective Relativism didn't seem to agree with that particular virtue. The virtue theory agrees with me, I believe, on this point because the other virtues all disagree with tolerance in the case of genocide, for example. 

It is not benevolent to commit genocide. It's not civil behavior to say "I'm going to kill your whole 'race'." It's not compassionate, it's certainly not conscientious, and it does not exhibit cooperation between two groups. Genocide could be seen as courageous--but is courage always a good thing? It's not particularly courteous to kill. Dependability has a rather ambiguous relationship to genocide, but it is certainly not fair or friendly to commit genocide. Generosity could potentially be argued to be served by genocide, but I don't necessarily see how. Honesty--well, if you SAY you're committing genocide, then I guess it's honest, and it could be industrious. It's not just, it's not showing moderation, patience, prudence, reasonableness, tactfulness, thoughtfulness or tolerance. Self-discipline and reliance could be argued for, potentially, as could loyalty. 1/3 of the virtues could be in favor of genocide--most of those are only NOT automatically in disagreement, and would require more than a moments' thought. 

I will exhibit tolerance in moderation. I will not tolerate genocide. The wisdom of choosing a course of action is in moderating a virtue. That virtue may be moderated by assessing how the other virtues interact with that particular act: then you moderate your virtue, and your according action in the prescribed manner.

I'm sure that I've probably left out some aspects, but to my mind that is one way to help determine the moderation of a virtue. Each of these virtues is the center of an extreme: to follow the virtues you must show some discernment as to how to moderate each virtue in order to honor the most virtues.

Speaking of honor--should that be on the list of virtues? 

~Jessica

Water, Water, Everywhere

I like water: swimming, water sports, baths, showers, clean hands. There is no replacement for the feel of water on my skin, and I don't care if I go wrinkly. I like water to use on my vegetable garden in the summer (but don't bother with watering the grass---too much work, and it ends up dying anyways--besides then you have to mow more often. Not that I'm allowed to...my family expects me to mow myself over....) Drinking water isn't something I do as often as I should, I'm pretty much perpetually dehydrated, yet I love water. 

I can't imagine life without water. Life wouldn't exist without water, water is essential. It's also a somewhat limited resource. We can make more water---through chemical reactions that also release harmful gases into the atmosphere. We'd release too much CO2, O3, and CO, as well as other chemicals into the air, in order to make water out of other substances. Furthermore is there not a limited amount of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms? Sure, you could use atomic energy to split atoms down into hydrogen and oxygen, perhaps, but you would still create pollutions. Simply put we have limited resources of water, in a realistic sense. 

And we're wasting water: pollution, fertilizer in the water. Have humans ever done anything GOOD to water? The likely answer is yes, we learned how to clean it. And then we abuse that knowledge, as it gives us an escape from the arguments of pollution. We can pollute the water if we clean it: it all comes out the same in the end, right? 

That doesn't excuse polluting the water in the first place, and does the water really end up completely clean? Probably not. And Americans probably use more than our fair share of water---just like we do all the other resources on the planet. 

What can we do? Low-flow fixtures for the toilet, the shower, the sinks. Is handwashing clothing any better, or do we just need to stop sorting clothing by color ranges and just stick to 'lights'  and 'darks'? 

Ethically should any given human only use their fair portion of the planet? Utilitarianism might lead us to say yes: that by only using a small portion of the resources currently used by a single American, we would enable greater happiness for a vast amount of other people. The point is moot: American society has already passed the point where that is possible, each of us can only minimize how much we consume. 

Sometimes living ethically isn't completely possible---even if we avoid every store and do our best to have nothing to do with society, there are still government institutions designed to protect us that account for a huge portion of resources. At this time we are only capable of minimizing our footprint to protect others in our world, and the future.

~Jessica

Cup of Noodle

I am going to make a very poor attempt to figure out just where my cup of noodle, which is very enjoyable for a lunch on a cold winter/fall day, came from and where it is going. The product was manufactured in Gardena, CA. I did a mapquest search and discovered precisely how far away Gardena is from my current location: 995. 27 miles. It is estimated to take more than 15 hours of drive-time to arrive there. That entails a large quantity of gasoline to transfer my cup of noodles from California to Oregon. 

Furthermore the packaging for the cup of noodles is only partially recyclable. The outside paper/light cardboard is recyclable. I will do so. The plastic wrapping around the styrofoam container is not recyclable; furthermore plastic is creating using a small amount of fossil fuels. Therefore by eating this cup of noodles I will contribute to fossil fuel use, and the damage done in oil fields upon the planet. 

Worse yet the plastic wraps around a nice layer of styrofoam. The styrofoam has a recycling symbol on the bottom of it, a #6. According to Wikipedia the product commonly known as styrofoam IS recyclable, but not to be used in more styrofoam--it can be put into other plastic products, which they aren't recyclable later. The problem? Not many places have the facilities to recycle styrofoam. If styrofoam is NOT recycled it ends up in landfills...pretty much, forever. Styrofoam does not degrade.

Luckily Oregon actually does have a place that will accept clean styrofoam, to recycle, for FREE. I think I've got that address down lower...but here it is: 4044 N. Suttle Rd. Portland, OR 97217 

I'd love to go into where the ingredients for the ramen inside my styrofoam cup came from, but I can imagine many of the ingredients came from asia, as well as from America, and many of those will be trucked long distances. 

I think that the environmental club here on campus ought to add new boxes to the recycling bins---clean your styrofoam, then get it all recycled. It would be a great project to initiate here on campus, especially considering styrofoam is sold in the bistro---and how easy is it to clean something before you recycle it? 

Hey, Man, The World is ALL Subjective!

Subjective relativism, a loosely defined theory that, with the way the argument currently stands, is unsound. Subjective relativism, with all it's flaws, still gets attention. What person whose morals do NOT fit the norm, or who in some other way is a 'radical' --druggie, hippie, criminal, a tad rebellious, or even a lot normal everyday individuals get tempted by this theory; does not want to believe that morality changes for every person? 

People can believe the following:

If I wanna lie, it's okay for me to lie, doesn't matter if you don't disagree. 

If I wanna have lots of sex with women/men I don't know, doesn't mean you can't think it's immoral--doesn't matter to me, since it's right for me. 

If I wanna pretend to be Captain Jack and behave like him--lie, have lots of women, booze, thieving, robbing, impersonating a priest, kidnap--well hey, if it's moral for me, it's moral for me. Don't go telling me it's wrong. 

If I want to murder every blonde I see, it's okay. 

If I want to get my pilot's license and a crop spraying plane and fill it with chemicals toxic to humans, say leading to blindness, and spray them over a city, hey it's MORAL if I believe it is. Doesn't matter how many people I hurt, how many people do not believe my actions are moral---there is no objective morality. 

In subjective relativism whatever an individual believes--goes. There is nobody who can say their morals are faulty, are criminal, are stupid, are ignorant...nope, no judges. It's all peace, and free for all. It's all anarchy. 

If this theory were followed to the letter there would be anarchy. We couldn't have cops because then we'd be enforcing laws--but you can't do that because morals are tied up in laws, in their existence--and their compliance requires a morality that says that it is good to follow social rules. If this theory were followed there would be no safety, because the society as a whole cannot imprison criminals, because that shows intolerance, which is the ONE thing this theory states that you should show. (I am going to completely ignore the possibility of total tolerance, because that goes on a tangent which I do not want to take.) What makes this society of personal morality even scarier is this: if you disagree with anothers morals, and your own morals say that it is right to defend yourself, you could go so far as to kill who was threatening you, or who you so much as perceived to be threatening you. 

There are no criminals in this society. Only those who take action on their morals, in ways that offends the morals of others. Everybody is dangerous to those around them, if certain morals aren't generally accepted by the populace. 

Are there some universal morals? Sure, but that doesn't mean that there aren't criminals who disobey those morals. Some people lie compulsively, others lie on serious issues sneakily, some people murder, some people kidnap, some people commit armed robbery--even when they know that in human society those are not moral actions, by and large. Society may not totally degenerate under this philosophical theory, but fear would escalate. There is nobody but yourself to defend you against those of the world who would do you harm. 

This theory is not one I can support, even if I do believe that tolerance of other cultures, other personality traits, other beliefs and other morals is usually the correct course of action. Tolerance should not allow for others to be harmed--that is when it is time to step in, and shoo away tolerance, to pick it up again later. Tolerance is limited. I will not tolerate somebody using pesticide on a whole city of humans, or serial killers living next door to me and inviting my friends over for "tea". 

(just to point out to anyone reading this---i like peace thank you very much. I'd never use pesticide on somebody!!!)

If I were a MythBuster and this a myth saying a society can, (or maybe even should) live like this, showing complete tolerance, and morality on an individual scale, i'd get my nice big stamp and say "BUSTED!" I do not believe society can live like this. Even if it could, I don't think I'd want to live in this society. 

"Alive"

Have you ever seen the movie "Alive" or read the the book of the same title? The true story about a group of South American soccer players, in high school, whose plane crashed in the Andes, high high up, and because of storms and other circumstances their plane wasn't found? But there were survivors? And how those survivors turned to cannibalism in order to survive? 

The survivors entered an agreement to consume each other upon death, that it was the only way any of them would survive. It was for the common good--they did not say "Kill me and eat me"-- some had died in the crash, others slowly or quickly afterwards depending upon afflictions. Clearly they had made some sort of contract, and their act was also to instill the greatest amount of happiness--in this case, the ability to live on and be happy elsewhere. 

Now, the question remains how cultural relativism would see the situation. Their culture said not to eat human beings, and the cultures morals are to be accepted---there is no outside right or wrong. Their act of cannibalism was against their culture and thus immoral. Unless, that is, they became their own culture. 

When does a group, separated from its origins become its own culture, its own society, and thus bound by its own moral code? Or is that even a possibility--is the real matter that whatever code you grew up with, were raised with and lived with most of your life is the moral code that is 'right'. What about those who change countries---are they then expected to abide by, and believe the new country's moral code or else be deemed criminal or immoral? 

Cultural relativism, could relatively say: whatever you think is right is, so long as it fits what the majority thinks too. Cultural relativism could say that it is relatively moral to eat human flesh if you think it is wherever you're from. And if a visitor comes to our country it's relatively moral for us to kill and eat that visitor. In our land, our morals are, after all, morally right. 

In the case of "Alive" moral relativism provides no answer---we must tolerate it, they are not any more correct or wrong than any other culture---but then, cultural relativism offers no explanation of how to decide what counts as a culture, what the groupings should be. 

Should everything be split up by language or geographic boundaries? Or religion? Please note I choose those separations as they have been connected to wars---Germany wanted unification and so went to war with it's neighbors trying to consume all German-speaking land into their nation, a long time ago. Geographic boundaries and religion are critically important issues in the Middle East. Where do we decide where cultures begin and end, and thus where a different moral code begins and ends?

Out in the middle of the Andes were the survivors of  "Alive"  their own group, and thus acting in a moral manner according to cultural relativism, or where they immoral to eat human flesh in order to survive? 

Convergence

Durkheim, whose writings and theories are relevant to sociology, has an article written by him in my textbook for said class. It goes along wonderfully with what I was just talking about in my last entry so I must spend a moment discussing it, whether or not I actually require another entry. (With only one class last week do I still require more than one? And that one class was a test not a lesson...)

At any rate Durkeim believes that crime is a normal part of society, in fact a sign of the health of society. Crime has existed in all societies, absolute intended, and thus is normal. Crime is a sign that the community as a collective whole has certain values that they uphold. When these values are violated it is termed crime. 

Thus the definition of crime, of what constitutes a crime, does over time, change. The stronger the value, the greater the punishment associated with the crime. A lie barely receives any notice if it does no harm---but if that lie crosses another value--say the right to a reputation that honestly reflects your identity (or even is better than the truth) then it is libel/slander (depending on its presentation, but most things are termed libel these days) which is punished in America, frequently with fines. Those fines even differentiate in value depending upon the severity of the lie and the amount of 'damage' incurred by the lie. 

With this concept of crimes being those actions that violate communal values, or morals so to speak, the question becomes then: who determines communal values? Are they the same in all individuals of the community--at least those that become law---minus the criminals? Or is there some other, force per say, determining morality and thus the laws? (Probably neither--majority rules, I say, yet the question remains.)

~Jessica

Philosopher's Disagreements

It is quite clear that philosophers disagree; they do so in their arguments. Utilitarianism doesn't agree with contractarianism, and Kant doesn't quite agree with either. Duties to humanity, a contract of agreements with others who also enter into the contract, or a search for happiness and an attempt to eliminate as much pain as possible. They just don't always agree!

Clearly then the minimum conception of morality, is on an individual basis. Each individual tries to use logic and reason to establish which action is the best choice within the bounds of morality, considering each person that would be affected. Each individual has different logic, and in so many cases humans have just a few moments to ponder which is the best course of action. Take too long, and you've lost the opportunity to act--thus choosing inaction. 

Considering a real situation perhaps establishing some general moral rules based on standard situations is the best way to go. Whether you're determining what the contract is, what your duties to humanity are, or what would derive the most amount of happiness (and least pain); rules may be a system for an average person, who does not have a great deal of time to determine every action, to determine what is moral. 

Immorality could then be defined, not as an action which does not fit the rules, but then as an action which was knowingly committed which did not fit the rules. That is not saying it is not immoral to kill a man if you had not decided it was immoral, it is merely putting some sort of degree into the situation. 

The problem, which is huge in a society with laws is, that if we can determine our own morals---does that then mean our morals are equal to law, or we must disobey our morals to obey the law? Or obey our morals and disobey the law? 

A quote comes to mind, (though I cannot recall from precisely which book and chapter) "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's." Even in a secular understanding the point remains--give to the law what it requires. 

Is morality belonging to the law?