I Am Not

2nd post for final week of journals. 

I am not perfect.

I am not a perfectly moral being (duh, considering the ecological footprint I leave behind as a member of Western society).

I have no desire to be perfect.

I think I would go crazy if I were perfect in an imperfect world!

How, then, will I live my life to try to be moral? I suppose this question is one of the most essential for all who contemplate philosophy (which should be everyone...) I avoid the use of 'should' because that indicates what I should do--I should be perfectly moral! I should treat everyone equally--that's probably not what I will do. 

This is where civil disobedience comes in. I may not live my life advocating for vegetarianism and equal animal rights--but I can disengage myself from that industry to the best of my ability. I do not have to make a overtly public stand; I just have to make my decisions and stick with them. 

What will I try to change in my life? I haven't decided for sure but to consider these issues and think about making changes is a small step in the 'right' direction. (We'll completely leave out the prejudices associated with using the term 'right' to mean 'correct', which is itself immoral.)

Cutting down on meat consumption is something I'd definitely consider. I admit to a prejudice in which I would consider cutting down on: beef and pork (I rarely eat pork anyways). The prejudice stems from the fact that I like those the least--and the fowl in the video didn't come across as particularly intelligent... 

Ecological issues were something I'd already strongly considered. Limiting my consumer lifestyle and choosing ecologically friendly products is on my list of things to work on. 

Putting more effort into human rights (which is essential for my future career) is definitely something I care about. Racist institutions should not be allowed. People in positions of power should not be able to encourage people into the ordinariness of evil; even if the evil people are encouraged to is to accept the status quo of racism. 

Those three issues are the ones that jump out at me the most, as something that I would look into, or will change in my lifestyle. There are so many more issues, and so many of them are worthy causes and are moral causes. I'm not perfect though; I do not possess all of the virtues as habits. However if each time I come to a decision and make a choice that is better for more people involved, not just myself, if I display virtuous qualities I can make a difference, even if I do not take up every issue. 

Somehow I feel like I've mangled this, that it does not come across clearly. Yet, I think my thoughts are clear in the end: I am not perfect, I won't take up every issue that I care about, but I will make some changes and try to lead a more moral lifestyle. 

If everyone did just that, make a few changes for the betterment of society and the world...what would Earth be like now? What would Earth be like in two decades when I am a woman of forty?

World Population--at Marginal Utility?

Post 1 for the 10th/11th week of Philosophy 202

In my last entry I commented that few people would wish to follow a philosophy that the philosopher doesn't follow. I still find this to be true, but now, after learning that Singer does follow his own philosophy to some degree--how much does somebody need to follow a philosophy in order to be a leader? That question has no one answer that I can state myself--because there are many variables including--leader of how many, and what sort of pre-existing morals does the group follow, is there a better choice for leader--that play into the game. This initial line of thought, however, did lead me to ponder is it possible for us to fully live my Singer's strong argument, of giving until marginal utility is reached?

In America the answer is probably a resounding "No". We could give and give and give--but have we really reached marginal utility when the resources the government devotes for our use, and uses to protect us, already surpass/reach the amount of resources one individual should use? No matter how much we said we would cut back on the ecological footprint quiz, which we took earlier in the semester, we still learned that if everyone consumed that way--we would need three Earth's to support the human race. That is not a marginal utility! 

Then there seem too immediately obvious choices: go off the grid, renounce the government and live like you are in a third world country. That entails no job, which means not sending any money to those who are in need. You do less harm--but what good do you do? You don't contribute nearly as much to the destruction of the planet, but neither do you contribute to those suffering. 

A second option, if one is determined to live at marginal utility, would be to cut back a large amount on the amount of services and government facilities provided for an individual. This would severely limit the economy, as it would cut millions of jobs. That clearly won't work. 

Obviously if we as Americans are to live at marginal utility, somebody has to find a better road than the two that immediately popped into my mind, my premise that leaving such a large ecological footprint is equivalent to not living at marginal utility has to be rejected, or we just have to accept that we only live at a certain degree of marginal utility. 

Of course you can always reject Singer's argument that living at marginal utility and devoting extra resources to those who can benefit most, as an unsound argument. 

~Jessica

Self Analysis

9nth/10th week

I have here chosen to analyze whether or not I would show the ordinariness of evil in Milgram's experiment. I'd probably sign the papers--why wouldn't I? I acknowledge rarely reading those releases: too many big words that I don't understand, or care to. When it comes to important things--like signing away money (note what is important is rather shallow, but essential to pay attention to)--however, I do tend to read it to make sure I understand. 

Upon walking into the situation it would be a very different situation however. To some extent I acknowledge myself to be a coward. For myself I do not stand up and fight; indeed I haven't been in any sort of physical fight since I was about 8--and that with my sister. I lost--in one blow. I will however stand up for others. Entering into the room with the other participants I would likely have been fairly shy, and quiet while waiting. I would smile at the other person (the person I end up being told to electrocute) but not engage in much conversation unless they seemed to welcome my overtures of friendship. 

Meeting the overseer of the situation I would be just as quiet. I tend to be so, on first meetings. I would be shocked at my partner being tied up and taken to another room, told to electrocute them. I might ask them if it was okay, if they were sure. I also might insist on finding out how much it hurt to be electrocuted--but then again, maybe not. I dislike pain. 

It's possible that I might electrocute the 'learner' once or twice. I know myself though: I do not believe that I would continue, as soon as pain was expressed. I was incapable of pulling out my own teeth, and needles bother me but not because of the pain--I mentally cringe away from the idea of hurting a person on purpose. Self-defense and rough play are fine--but sharp objects callously I've never been able to handle. Whenever I get electrocuted the slightest bit I wonder whether the reaction will last in my body and stop my heart a week later, as I once read. Anything that was enough to cause significant pain--there is NO way I'd continue it. 

Even if it wasn't about morals--I just wouldn't have the stomach to hurt another person for a study--even if some goon was standing over me telling me its for the best. I do have a rebellious streak: he would lose in a contest of wills. His telling me that "I must continue"...well, that's likely to encourage me to disobey.

(I'm not a conformist, at times. I rebelled against fashion for years as a child--because I didn't want my older sister using me as her doll. For about two years--no shirts that were in the popular style, none of the popular pants... to tell you the truth, I probably hindered my social development doing so. Through seventh grade I had no idea what was fashionable...oops?)

Whether or not I'd electrocute the other participant even once, I don't know. I can say, for sure, that there is no way on earth, even in a room of other people who were going along with the experiment, that I would continue on after even the first scream and plea for the experiment to conclude.

Jessica

Ikeda: Religions and Philosophy

Week 9 or 10 (depending on how you count)

To some extent many religions are their own philosophy--especially some of the Eastern religions which have no set God, as the Western world would see it. Confuscianism and Buddhism are quite different from Western thought--yet much of their philosophies are not against what Christianity professes to believe in. (The term professes is used to differentiate what we believe, and how we live.)

We both claim to desire to take responsibility for our actions, we both supposedly value life and justice, and courage. It is interesting that Ikeda lives his philosophy, rather than just preaching it. In America, those states that have the most people claiming to be Christian also are the states with the most executions by means of 'justice'. Is justice served by executing a person? Really??

Ikeda, apparently, lives his philosophy, which is remarkable. A philosophy, in order to have any efficacy, must be livable. Ikeda's following the Middle Way, a way better than the measly compromise that the West HASN'T even done (we go by majority, not compromises--here you are 'for' or 'against') is something that makes him stand out. A philosopher, I feel, ought to be a leader advocating for a moral system, a system of determining what is 'right' and 'wrong'. 

Who wants to follow a hypocrite's philosophy?

Jessica