Happiness comes with requirements

The happiest people in the world are the richest ones. Or are they? Summing up this week's notes and readings, it appears that Aristotle has his own ideological meaning to happiness. In his teachings, it is stated that "Happiness is an activity of the soul in accord with the soul's proper excellence or virtue." I can agree with that, the more we care for our soul, the happier we are, for as a Christian, I have experienced that. Later on however, it is stated that if you are poor or suffer greatly in life, you cannot be happy. That is the part I cannot share acceptance with, Being happy does not mean being rich or wealthy. It is absurd to state that you have to be wealthy or rich to be happy, in fact, some of the richest people are the most unhappy in life. And saying that in order to be happy you HAVE to have wealth, is a complete misconception. Personally I have met people with a very low economic status and the happiest, and Vise Versa I have met some of the richest and most miserable people in my life. I want to convey two main points, that 1) as a Christian I can reject that statement and prove that all you really need to be happy, is God. Not religion, not money, not people, but simply God. I have from a young age learned what these great philosophers failed to recognize or address, that there is a Living God and that he is the only one who can truly and fully satisfy us; and 2) as a human being, I have lived life for quite some time and although I don't have the riches or have reached self-actualization, I can allege that I am happy with my life, because it's MY life. I have made it my very own, I have embraced it and lived it to the max I possibly could so far, and I wouldn't say i'm wealthy or even middle class. I have rose from the poorest of people and neighborhoods both in America and in Honduras, as well as had the opportunity to be in the middle class when I lived in California, and that is where I can build my purpose from, that is where my basis stands, on first hand experience. You can be poor and be the happiest person in the world, or have suffered greatly and become the happiest person, just like you can be rich and the most miserable being on the planet.

The "Golden Mean"

This week we learned about the “Golden Mean” and how virtue is a mean state between surplus and deficiency. An example we discussed in class was courage being the mean between recklessness and cowardice. To put a mental picture to this we discussed what we would do if a bear came into the classroom to attack us. If one knows how to fight and take down a bear they are most likely to act in courage if a bear is to attack the class. According to Aristotle, the mean is most relative to us when it is in our nature, meaning that courage is a skill to that person. If another person were to attack the bear without knowing how to take it down they would be acting recklessly. In my opinion I agree with Aristotle’s view. Even though the media exploits the word “courageous” not everyone is truly COURAGEOUS, they just acted recklessly and got lucky of not getting killed.

 Another example we talked about was about a school shooting and what we would do if that shooter came into our classroom. This situation was very difficult to decide if one would be acting in courage or recklessly since there are a lot of things that could go wrong. I believe in this situation any person who has some skill of distraction or combat (May it be karate, self-defense, etc.) would be the courageous person (or the phronimos) in Aristotle’s Golden Mean theory because they would have that specific skill needed to attack. If a person were to jump and attack the shooter without knowing what they are really doing it would be an act of recklessly.

As I sat and thought about the scenarios I thought of how one acts courageous if they do not runaway from the problem, but stay and deal with it by using their skills. In the other hand, if one runs away from the problem they are acting cowardly.

Freedom Riders

  I have enjoyed learning about Aristotle and can see why he is known as "The Philosopher."  As a nurse, I can relate to being a scientist and the belief that true wisdom comes from examining objects and not trying to look beyond them. In the painting the " School of Athens" by Raphael, Aristotle points to the ground while Plato points upward, thus defining the differences between the two great philosophers. As we learned today, Plato's idea is to know the good is to do the good, while Aristotle's philosophy is to do the good is to know the good.
  Since watching " The Butler" last night, I have been thinking about the freedom riders. Perhaps these young men and women have both philosophers ideas of good in their hearts when they set out to change the course of history. They know in their hearts that racial segregation is wrong, yet they have no experience in doing good in this area. But as they start their movement and it gains momentum, they begin to know the good that they are doing. I can see this in other examples of brave people throughout history, those that aren't afraid to step out of their comfort zone and change the way things are. Maybe because they know what is good, maybe because they begin to do good and see that it is good.
 

What Makes A Lie Noble?

This week in class we finished discussing Plato and his philosophy. One thing that Plato talked about was a noble lie. My question is, what makes a lie noble? In some cases, a lie is better for someone to hear. However, it is still a lie. Even though it is for the good of someone else, it is not necessarily noble.


Lies told, such as telling young children that Santa Clause is real or telling a good friend that whatever she's wearing does not make her look fat, are small lies that could pass as being noble. They're told for the betterment of those that are lied to. However, what if you were raised in a loving family with people who cared for you and took care of you the best way they knew how? In their hearts, they were kind, but the way they made a living was illegal. If faced with the decision to turn your family in to the police when questioned by them or to lie and try your best to keep them from being arrested or facing criminal records, would lying be noble?


In my mind, if I was raised in a family like this and I was faced with the same situation, I would lie to the police because that would be in the best interest of my family and myself. Although breaking the law is wrong and what they are doing is or could be dangerous to others, I feel like lying would be saving their lives. However, even though I feel like lying would be better for us as individuals, it is not a "noble lie".


From my understanding, a noble lie does not have a dramatic effect on an individual in the long run. For example, telling a kid Santa is real is a part of being young, but if you were to tell them that he wasn't at a young age that would not have a life threatening affect on them unlike turning in or not turning in someone to the police. Telling a lie to the police helps that individual and his/her family, but does that make the lie noble? In my opinion, it does not.

The Mean

One of the things we talked about, "The Golden Mean", which means that there is a state between the vicious extremes of excess and deficiency. One of the examples that we had in class is the virtuous mean of courage stands between the vices of rashness and cowardice, which represent excess and deficiency respectively. What I thought was interesting was that the mean is not the same for everyone. When we had the scenario about someone coming in with a gun, the person that should act first is the person that feels like they have the most experience or feels like they can handle the situation. However, if you have just read about fighting techniques and never actually been in a fight then you probably shouldn't try to be the hero because that would be reckless. This would go with the teachings of Aristotle. We need to approach matters case by case, informed by inculcated virtue and a fair dose of practical wisdom. This would go against Plato's teachings that basically say that if you know what justice is then you know how to be just.

To Be or Not To Be Happy

          What does it mean to be happy? Once one achieves happiness, do they pursue a happier-ness? In our readings for this week, it states that happiness is the "Highest Good", but is that the truth? Can you reach complete and total happiness (if that total happiness is possible)? And if you can, what from there, do you strive for more happiness? When does greed and selfishness get in the way? Aristotle states, "Happiness depends on ourselves" and he says that Happiness depends on the cultivation of virtue, and to gain virtue, in Aristotle's eyes, one must obtain the mean of the two excesses. In Nicomachean Ethics, happiness is portrayed as the "...end of the things we pursue in all our actions and which we wish for because of itself, and because of which we wish for the other things." But if we did, happiness would go on without limit, making desires a black hole: "empty and futile" (Aristotle 23). My question to you commenters is, what is happiness to you? If you take psychology into matter, psychologists such as Henry Maslow thinks that the purpose of life is for everyone to achieve self-actualization before death. Self-actualization is the point in life when you've done everything possible that completely fulfills your life, duties and skillset, this being the highest of priorities. At this point are you happy?
          Does happiness acquire when you get that dream job or job promotion? In that case is it the money that will be the factor that determines your happiness level? Does money create happiness, because in my opinion money doesn't create happiness, it leads to it. Having money makes people's living situations comfortable which once achieved can help support the road to happiness.

Good to get in a habit

In class we discuss about being mean with virtues. The examples were understandable after thinking about them. Having courage without knowing what to do or how to help is consisted to be recklessness, because wanting to help does not work with not knowing how to help, which could be dangerous and unsafe for the people that are in the situation and the person that wants to be heroic. On the other hand there could be someone that does know what to do, but does not use his/her skills in a situation that could require that person’s skill, which I believe that person would be referred to as the coward. All though it was not described in the why I stated the word cowardice. I found that the man with a gun example was helpful in the way that shows courage to stop the man by many ways. Coming up with solutions to stop the man for shooting anyone or save most of them. There was potential to have courage to stop the man with the gun, but they were just ideas or suggests for that situation. In reality not many people had experience a case where they can truly becoming courage. Aristotle describes virtue as a state that decides, consisting in a mean, the mean relative to us, which is defined by reason, and the reason in reference to which the intelligent person would define. In other words, a virtue like courage can be developed by experience and with more and more experience a virtue can be a habit. When a virtue is embedded into a person, that person has the knowledge and experience to handle a situation that he/she have dealt with in a previous. I do think that Aristotle is correct when he is referring to having virtues, because a person cannot be called courageous if that person has never been courageous before even though that person has an idea about being courageous in a situation like the man with a gun that person would possible do nothing or could be reckless.

Virtue

     This week in class, we have learned about Aristotle and virtue ethics. Aristotle insists that a virtuous person will best deal with adversity. I think that virtue is having the right attitude toward both pain and pleasure. For example, if you are a part of a sports team and you are going through hell week and conditioning extremely hard and your coach gives you a speech about determination, hard work and giving it all you have is what makes you a team mate and a team.  If you give up, you are letting your team down even more than you are letting yourself down.  Then, you are in the middle of your grueling workout and you are doing a 5 minute plank.  You are in terrible pain, are shaking uncontrollably and are miserable.  None of your team mates can see you and your coach turns his/her back. Do you drop from your plank to the ground and wait to get up until they eventually look back at you?  The obvious answer is no, however I find it hard to believe that every single person would not.  They did not only let down themselves, but their team mates as well.  There are two kinds of virtue.  Intellectual virtue is the virtue of knowledge or understanding.  Practical virtue is the virtue of action and feeling.  People identify themselves as honest and hardworking all of the time, however truly being these things would mean that they abide by these characteristics always, and practice these habits. This would mean most "good" people would know that that is not the right thing to do by practical virtue, but if they did drop, do things dishonestly or give up a lot, they could not really be honest or hardworking.  To be a true hard worker, you must make it a habit to go the extra mile.  It is not the easiest way, but it is virtuous.

Noble Lie

In class we talked about Noble Lies, which are lies for the good of the people. Already the definition can confuse people because a lie is normally not seen as something that is good. Lying is considered a sin in some religions. But this isn't just a lie to make us look better, or saying your brother is the one who broke the lamp while yall were running in the house when it was really you. No this is lying to protect the good of the people or person. Its like telling kids that Santa is real, we tell them that so they can have a wild imagination and have Christmas spirit. So they are good, or try to be, so Santa will bring them presents. Or the Easter Bunny, who comes on Easter and hid eggs. How eggs and a rabbit got put together I don't know. "Leave your tooth under your pillow and the tooth fairy will leave money," we've all been told this one or have told this one. A little fairy that comes solely to take your tooth and leave you with money or goodies.

Yes these are good examples of Noble Lying, but lets go bigger. When something tragic happens to the nation the president doesn't say everything about it or things that the government knows because not everyone needs to know that. Sometimes its so the people do not go into havoc and run crazy freaking out about something that could happen but probably won't. The media gets what the military wants the people to know. When an enemy is taken out, who accomplished the mission is never released, mainly to protect those who were on said mission.

To tie all this up, Noble Lies protect people, help people and can make peoples lives better. Noble lies do not really "save" the person or group saying it more than it is for the people or person it is directed too. I think Noble Lies are a good thing.

Happiness

This week in class we discussed the teleology of nature. The teleology of nature states that everything has a final end or purpose that it is pursuing. Through this meaning we found that the telos, final end or purpose, of a human is eudaimonia. The meaning of eudaimonia is happiness. Aristotle says that happiness is pursued for its own sake, not for the sake of something else. This means that you strive for happiness to be able to get happiness not so that you can get the secondary benefits to happiness. For example doing something courageous makes you feel happy but you should not do the courageous act to just get the reward of being known as courageous. Aristotle believes that if the act that is done for other benefits, then the act is not striving towards the goal of happiness. However, I believe that happiness can be obtained even if there are multiple goals that are trying to be accomplished. For example if a police officer were to see a crime taking place then the police officer would have to step in and be courageous to try and stop the crime from happening. In Aristotle's eyes the act of being courageous to just be courageous would be achieving happiness, but the police officer is not just attempting to stop the crime to be courageous he is also doing it because it is his job to and he gets paid to do it. I believe that even though the police officer has secondary benefits the act will still bring him closer to the final goal of happiness. I believe that the act will be able to bring him closer to happiness because it would be a habit to continuously make courageous acts even though it would have secondary benefits.  So in conclusion I believe that happiness can still be sought after even if there are other benefits involved.

Happiness

          The goal of life is to ultimately be happy. This week in class we learn about "Eudaimonia" and what some people think happiness is.  Some believe happiness is honor and even money.  Honor does not depict happiness because Honor is dependent on what others think of you.  Let's say you are in class and the teacher is a strict, grouchy old woman; when the woman goes home, she is greeted by her grandkids and she does everything she can for them and is one of the most loving people towards them.  The students would think she is a mean and miserable individual, the grandkids would think she is the nicest and loving grandmother that they love.  Basically, honor is superficial, therefore happiness cannot be depicted through honor.  Wealth cannot portray happiness because it is pursued for the sake of something else.  We've all heard the saying "money doesn't buy you happiness" and it's completely true.  You can have all of the cars, houses, and money in the world and still be miserable.  Aristotle also states that you can't be happy while being poor.  I think he is a little harsh with his statement but if you are completely poor, you will have the stress of not having enough money for food, shelter and clothes.  No spectrum of wealth can project happiness but it can have the possibility to ease tensions because of it.  Aristotle asserts happiness is virtue.  Happiness is an activity of the soul in accord with the soul's proper excellence of virtue.  Throughout life, there will be hardships, but the virtuous person will be the best able to deal with adversity; happiness is shown through an individuals toughest times where their true colors will show.  Happiness is ultimately something that the individual has to decide for itself, it's not necessarily a set object for everyone and it differs from person to person.  

3 Parts to the State and 3 Parts to the Soul

In class this week we discussed Socrates' idea of what an ideal state should be like; it should reflect the soul. The soul has three parts: an appetite, a spirited, and a rational part. In comparison to the soul, a state according to Socrates should have three parts as well: workers, auxiliary, and guardians/rulers. Socrates' idea of a state is a great model but I feel like limiting humans to a category that rulers or guardians deem fit would only cause chaos. As humans I feel like we are always striving to be happy or achieve eudaimonia, like Socrates suggests (page 22). In my opinion, in order to achieve eudaimonia all three parts to the soul need to be in balance and agreement with each other. The appetite needs to be controlled by the spirit and the spirit reasoned with our ability to rationalize. After stating this, I believe in order to have a "eudaimonic" state all three parts, the workers, auxiliary, and guardians, need to be in balance. Humans are always thinking and always have a desire to do what they want. If we limit others to a certain category I feel like their appetites would take over without check; their spirits will be shot down by those who tell them they need to stay in a certain category. With a damaged spirit, appetites could take over and the ability to rationalize could go out the window. So in shorter words, I don't believe it is possible to reach a "eudaimonic" state with Socrates' model of a state.

We see failures in society for people to stay in what they are categorized in films and books such as "The Giver" or "The Hunger Games." People don't like to be told what to do or told what their whole lifestyle should be like. I don't believe anyone should be told what their contribution to society should be because that is the choice of one's own self. In "The Giver" we see that all it takes is one person to rebel against the so called "guardians" of the state for everything to fall apart: Jonas goes against the council of elders. Jonas feels desires to do things differently than what he is told to do. In the Hunger Games we see that Katniss doesn't want to listen to authorities of Panem. Both Jonas and Katniss are fed noble lies and many attempts to persuade them that what the guardians/authorities are doing is "just" are given, but it is unconvincing to the both of them.

What I'm trying to say is that we live in an imperfect world in which we should not try to make things perfect. Socrates' model of a state is a great model but if we try to perfect it or if we try to make our society into something it wasn't meant to be, everything would be chaotic. We would have rebellions and states of emergencies constantly. America is a good example of something opposite to Socrates' idea of a state. In America we can choose what we want to be and what we want to do. We can choose to find our eudaimonia our own way. America does have its imperfections but so does every other country in the world. I believe perfection can be strived for but perfection is never achieved.

Marriage Equality

Sometimes I wonder why we vote on people's rights, especially when it comes to marriage. The way I see it, why do we vote for human rights? If they're rights, then shouldn't they be guaranteed to all humans? I guess some people don't think that way. I feel like equality is a form of justice. And another thing: when people argue against marriage equality, they usually use some form of biased information or religious excuse. There is a reason for separation of church and state. Even the current President of the United States wants to pass a marriage equality law. If he's gotten gas back down to under $2, don't you think he might be on the right track? Homosexuality occurs naturally and is considered by many to be a normal type of sexual orientation. Gay people are more or less visible in society depending on its attitude toward homosexuality. A gay person in a very homophobic country with anti-gay laws and fervent religious persecution will most likely hide who they are out of fear. This creates the illusion that homosexuality occurs less - or doesn’t exist at all - in deeply religious parts of the world(including the US). What comes to mind when you consider what’s wrong with the world? War, poverty, environmental decay, animal cruelty, child abuse, bigotry and hatred, racism and homophobia? I doubt you put love and sex at the top of your list.LGBTQ+ teens are four times more likely to commit suicide than the average cisgendered straight teenager. These things are wonderful and natural. Homosexuality has even been proven to show in several animals. Homophobia is only found in humans. Same-sex marriage is legal in 36 states. I'm not saying the majority is always right, but in some cases, the majority is doing what's good for the rest of the group.

What Justice

What is justice? There really isn’t a true definition of what justice is. Many people may say that justice is being fair to everyone and having equality around the world as a whole. The Internet definition for justice is the state of being equal. After hearing a lot of different answers to this question in previous class days it would be interesting to compare them to previous philosophers. There were a couple previous philosophers that answered this question and gave their opinion just like we did in class. Cephalus said that “Justice amounts to paying people what they owed and properly discharging one’s obligations.” Another man named Polemarchus said that “Justice is doing good to one’s friends, and harm to one’s enemies.” By this he is simply saying that we should be kind to our friends but treat our enemies just as bad as they treat us, in order to have justice. If you think about it, that doesn’t make you anymore just than it does your enemy. At the end of the day, you’re going to be doing something harmful to someone else that is being unjust which makes you unjust just like them. You could say that’s why we have a life rule that says treat others like you would want to be treated. Nobody had a statement about justice like the one that Thrasymachus had. He said that justice is “the advantage of the strongest.” In our case, the strongest would be the government. The government has a lot of power and makes most decisions that affect our lives either negatively or positively. Whatever happens in this country will end up in the hands of the government if it gets that major. Once it gets to the hands of the “strongest”, then most likely the decision made with benefit the “strongest”. That’s a hard statement to disagree with but it can be argued against.

Fairness

 

 For our very first symposium, we discussed justice. In which many people in class shared what they thought justice was. When I think of justice I think of fairness and the correcting of wrongdoings. It is purely doing what is right. However, as we continued with the discussion of justice we, as a class, were given the Trolley problem. The Trolley problem, simply put, was deciding whether we would save the life of many by sacrificing one life or would we kill the others and leave the one person living. A majority of the class chose to kill the one and save the group. Then that all changed when we discovered that the one person standing could be a loved one and just as quickly as we decided to kill the one person and save the five we decided we would save our loved one over the group of people. Even though this was all hypothetical, I was later forced to ask myself, is this just? Is it okay to let more individuals die just to save the one person I love? In my opinion, it was more of a selfish act, mostly due to the fact that I was not only saving my loved ones life, but I was also saving myself from the pain I would feel if I had let them die. Now there is no right or wrong answer to this problem, but if I took a moment and went back to what I thought justice was I would realize that I was not being just at all. I was not being fair to the other five people when my loved one was a possible victim. Nor was I doing the right thing in deciding to save one life and letting the other five die.  So I had come to realize that in order to be just, according to my definition,  I would have to choose to save the five versus the one life. Otherwise, I was not being fair because five lives is greater than one. I found myself reflecting more on this scenario later on in the weekend when I read Plato. In Plato's Republic I was struck by one line in particular, and that was when Thrasymachus said that justice was "to the advantage of the strongest". When I read that line I interpreted it as saying that it took a stronger individual,  not in the physical sense, to be able to make a decision that may be more difficult for others to decide. I found this statement to be very true. It took a stronger person to be able to take a step back from the Trolley problem and separate themselves from any connections and make a decision based on what would have the least impact on the rest of society. In a sense that is what many leaders of today have to do. They have to be able to step back from a problem and look at it from all angles before deciding on what to do. This way they may attain a more just result that is fair rather than acting on impulse. And in my opinion that is what justice is. It is the ability to separate yourself from a given situation and make a fair decision.

Many Defintions of Justice

The Republic initiates an argument on the true definition of justice. The reading shares different types of views between Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus and Socrates. I believe that all of their individual points are correct to some extent. For example, Cephalus claims that "paying people what they're owed and properly discharging one's obligations" is justice. Although justice is not limited to a business-like approach, the sole action of compensation is a just action.. Also, completing one's duties seems a more just action than not doing at all. Polemarchus claims "justice is doing good to one's friends, and harm to one's enemies". It can be argued that if that friend is a just or sincere human being, then doing good to him/her seems a fair idea. Furthermore, harming a bad person for malicious intent, (ie. robbing) by form of a prison sentence seems correct. Thrasymachus believes justice "is the advantage of the stronger," and that also depends on perspective. Politics and business encourage aggression and destroying weaker competition. As some say, business is business, and few people see anything wrong or unjust about these morals.
In conclusion, Plato found a way to invalid the statements of all of these gentlemen, but I believe justice depends on perspective. Not everyone leads the same lifestyles or come from the same backgrounds, so that leads to different theories on the matter. In essence, there are many definitions of justice, and all deserve to be taken into account.

Abstract Justice, Gyges Ring, and Autonomous Moral Agents

Up until this point, I really haven't known what to say about Justice. Each time someone in The Republic introduced a definition, I believed it was accurate until Plato, or rather his character, Socrates, proved each person wrong. Reading Plato has forced me to think very carefully about how I would define the "justice". I really liked the intro in which injustice was described as a "natural good" (pg.  10) and justice got it's value, not from being "good-in-itself" as we like to think of it, but because "[people] are too weak to do injustice with impunity" (p.10). This went well with Thrasymachus definition that "Justice is the advantage of the strongest", and at first glance, it might even make one question whether he is right. The laws that govern us are created by officers above us, and while they got voted in, typically the people that run are those that can afford to have a campaign.  Others have even pointed out presidential scandals where it seems like justice is in the favor of those ranked highest in our governmental system. I do not believe this is the case though. If it were so, then we would have no free will to think. We would blindly believe that all laws were good and just, which we know isn't the case. I am sure the Gay/Lesbian community does not see their inability to be married as a just law. It would also mean that no one would have taken a stand against Hitler who was in fact the ruler of Germany, and you certainly don't see the president making laws that give himself a bigger paycheck, like that given to baseball players, etc (I do know that he has perks though, like his own jet). All of this to say that, we each have an idea of what justice should be and it is more than just the creation of laws. We are autonomous moral agents and the government does not have the power to change that.
            So how are we autonomous? We talk about the 3 parts of the soul in class and I noticed the similarity to Freud's original ideas that each person has an ID, EGO, and SUPEREGO. For those of you that are unfamiliar with this idea, we are born with an Id, desire, then acquire an ego, rational self, then superego-morals. Although we all have desires, and some desires, because of laws, we are unable to fulfill, but maybe that is for the best. I doubt that many people who say that would use Gyges' Ring actually would and even fewer probably believe in their hearts that it allowed them to achieve justice in their lives. Honestly, the only thing I would do with the ring is maybe to see what my "friends" say about me when I am not around. I believe that Freud's idea coupled with Bronfenbrenner's idea of a bioecological system gives a pretty good idea of how we acquire our own moral compass. Each person is an individual. We may go to the same school, but our home lives are different and our friends, our experiences that define and mold our opinions of life, shape us to be unique from all others. The beauty is the more people that are raised with good values-those people can end up in power and making laws and that new environment will shape others.

Why do we always send the poor?

                Is there any moral justification to sending the poor to war and using them as scapegoat when things go wrong? It's a well-known way of thinking and is prevalent throughout history: the rich send those beneath them to fight their own battles. These are a people who struggle just to survive each day, and we punish them for that by sending them to fight battles, and many politicians tell everyone that the benefits given to them (food stamps, for example) are a huge reason this country is not only in debt but is falling behind other nations: people “sit back in their hammock” and just take the help as it comes without working.

                This brings up a good point, though: are those who struggle and survive the more logical choice for even more struggling? They have a drive and a way of thinking to keep going under fire, which is ideal in war times. The rich are known to believe their lives are worth more because of the power they hold and the wealth they've accumulated. War is not something I believe is morally correct but I understand it’s how the world works. But does the world work in this way because the powerful want it to? Is Thrasymachus correct?

                I believe he is. History is written by the winner, the present is written by the powerful. Laws are added and removed, around the world in each nation, because times change and figureheads change. Part of why people try to get into a powerful and advantageous position is to change the world more in their favor (Republicans and Democrats for instance) and it’s hard to find evidence to solidly shut that opinion out.

                Justice is about perspective, as is right-and-wrong. To tell someone that they’re bad is to tell them that your opinion is different.

Abortion

In today’s world we are facing several social changes in America. Abortion or women’s right to choose is among the changes that are now in debate not only among citizens but in government. Part of the debate is deciding when a person actually starts living and the other is whether to legalize abortion or not.

Abortion can be traced back all the way to the Roman Empire. Romans did not concern themselves with the safety of the unborn child unless the father of the child objected. To Romans life did not begin until after 40 days of conception. Modern scientist have stated and proven that human life begins when the sperm joins the ovum. Now that scientist have proven that life begins at conception this now turns to whether abortion should be legalized.

I understand that horrible things happen to women and that not all pregnancy are not their fault. In the case of a women being raped I believe that the person who raped the victim should be punished not the child of both the victim and the perpetrator. I believe that when a women is in the situation of having to raise a child that they had not planned on raising that the family of the mother should help take care of them until the mother is able to support herself and the child. If the mothers family can not provide assistance then it is the duty of the church to help the mother and the child until they able to support themselves. 

The fact that women are being raped and that the family is not able to assist in both protecting the victim and helping them is a very sad state of affairs. Institutions have however have opened to help the victims recover from this traumatic experience and help them financially until they are able to support themselves. I do not think that abortion should be legalize due to the financial aid and the help that is available for women who find themselves in this situation. 

Benefits of Ignorance

Lately in class we have learned a lot about Socrates and Plato and how they think.  One thing that seems to have stood out to me was how intrigued these philosophers were with learning about knowledge and wisdom.  The actual definition of philosophy that we learned in class is "the love of knowledge or wisdom" and that philosophy "aims to uncover the truth of things".  There are many famous quotes about these topics such as "Knowledge is power" and "The truth will set you free", but is knowing the truth always what is best?

There have been many times in my life where I was faced with the moral dilemma of whether to tell someone the truth or not.  Many times the truth is beneficial and people would appreciate knowing it, but there are also many times when the truth does more harm than good.  If you hear a friend talking bad about another friend, do you tell them the truth knowing that it will hurt their feelings? If you tell the truth, then you could be saving someone from harm and disloyalty.  But if you didn't, then you could be saving someone from unnecessary pain and heartache.  I find that often people withhold information so they don't have to be the "bearer of bad news".  Is this morally right? If knowing the truth of something will not have long term negative effects on someone, then maybe withholding information or telling a "white lie" is the better thing to do.  Then again, dishonesty is not morally right either. There have been many times in my life where I found out about something that I later wished I hadn't learned or heard.  People were just trying to be honest with me, but as the saying goes, the truth hurts.

Socrates and Plato only wanted to know the truth.  But as for me, I often find that "ignorance is bliss".

The Correlation of Justice and Punishment

Our first topic in this class has been justice.  Justice is a concept that has been pondered since the beginning of time, perhaps the first example being when God punished Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  Justice is a formality of life and has been since Adam and Eve were banished from the garden.  I believe that the best way to understand justice is to realize that it is dealt and received through the eye of the beholder.  Everyone has a different view as to what is just and that is what makes it such a heated topic.  In the Bible it says “when justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers” (Proverbs 21:15).  That verse in particular helped me to understand the meaning of justice.  Justice is meant to eradicate evil and to bring joy to the lives of good people in a sense.  Where justice is argued is how to eradicate this evil and to what extent.  I feel as if maybe justice itself is not such a convoluted idea, but punishment is instead what people disagree on.  Punishment and justice work together in an odd way to bring joy to the “righteous”.  Justice is mostly based on the severity of evil.  When a child is disrespectful to his mother and is punished, is that justice?  No, most people would say that this is merely a small punishment.  The mother is not happy in giving out this punishment and it does not bring joy to anyone.  No one that has witnessed that event take place is overjoyed because the world is now a better place.  However, if a murderer is sentenced to life in prison, evil is eradicated and the ‘good’ people are happy.  The crime has been justified.  In other words, justice in the world today is directly influenced by what kind of evil has been perpetrated.  So what is justice?  I think the best answer is that justice is a form of punishment based off the severity of evil committed to bring joy to the people that strive to be moral.  

"I'M THE MINDBENDER!"

In that moment!

LIVE LIFE LIVELY😁

WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS YOU THINKING?....

(NO  SERIOUSLY,           What Are YOU THINKING???????

I'm wondering what if Socrates was here now in our generation today, Who would he ultimately challenge and what would it be about? Let's say ; he challenge President Obama.....LOL.....okay here is how it would go.

Inviting you to the round table, I know is very intriguing to you sir?  You very well can say that Mr. President but my interest is in the Ethics of life sir not at all in boisterous fame. I and some of my colleagues were discussing what is just and what is injustice, and it was quite retrieving to me in which Cephal and Polemarchus didn't give much thought to their concept. What made you think that Socrates, are they not in-title to there own perception? Their  thought of perception relied on conventional or inherited wisdom assuming that justice is a virtue without being able to explain how or why. Oh! Not to mention the thoughts of Thrasymachus believing that justice is the advantage of the strongest! Well I can't disagree Socrates, like in today's world I have created law's to help the poor and needy such as college funds, health benefits, tax breaks, economic relief, and etc. So do you think Sir that it defines just? It may solve poverty in today's society , wouldn't you think Socrates......Um So do you say that this way is what we call "The Good Life?" Most definitely! I believe in Equal Opportunity. Okay, so you believe that if an individual pertain all of these quote on quote "Equal Opportunity", that this will be a form of justice? Hahaha, now I see why they call you the Gadfly of Athens! I beg your pardon, Now this is an act of injustice with the name calling and being incompetent of the fact that YOU have no aspect of how to run this country! Now do you? Socrates can you wear a size 14 shoes? #$@! I don't see how this have anything to do with our discussion! Just answer the question Socrates! I reckon not, I wear a size 8 or 9. I wear a size 14 in shoes and the way I see this is you CAN'T WEAR MY SHOES! And I WOULDN'T WANT TO WEAR YOURS!  How Aporia is that Mr. President! I just believe that power should be in the hands of wise and virtuous person and that justice isn't always good in itself, You have a swell day sir and try not to break a leg.

Gyges' Ring and Cyber bullying

In Plato’s Republic, he discusses his definition of justice. He believes that justice is how one behaves when no one is watching. He gives an example of a man, a shepherd for the king, who finds a ring. The man, named Gyges, begins to wear the ring and soon discovers that when the ring is facing inward, he becomes invisible, and is so able to perform any action without being caught. This reminds me of the posters defining “character” that were hung on the walls when I was in elementary and middle school. “Character is how you act when no one is watching.” Because Gyges had the power to be invisible, he could do anything without facing punishment from others. He took advantage of this power, demonstrating his poor character through his actions when no one could see him.

I think this relates to the problem of cyber bullying. Although I have never experienced it directly, it is a big problem for children and teens, and there are reports of suicides caused by this new form of bullying. Because people can hide behind a computer screen, never revealing their true identity if they choose not to, they feel as if they are invisible. They lash out violently, criticizing and putting others down. They do this without ever facing direct repercussions for their actions, as they are too cowardly to tell others who they are; instead, they hide behind (sometimes multiple) screen names and fake accounts, hurting others through this form of injustice.

I heard on the news this past week that some schools have considered requiring students to allow the school access to the students’ social media accounts. However, I do not think this will solve the problem, as students will then continue to create new accounts under fake names and continue bullying others. While I do agree that solutions need to be found to prevent this bullying, I do not think giving schools access to social media accounts will solve this problem.

Can anything really be just?

We discussed in class the Trolley problem, where if we could save the lives of many by sacrificing the lives of one or few, would we? In the same experiment, we replaced the life of the single stranger for the life of a loved one. We found that many people in class, whom first choose to save many lives, changed their answer to save the life of their loved one. We do this because now the outcome directly affects us.
While all this is purely hypothetical, it is not far from the truth of what the U.S. President does during a time of war. In order to save the many lives of the American public, the President dispatches relatively few American soldiers overseas to fight an enemy. Many of these soldiers will not return home, and are therefor sacrificing their lives in order to save the lives of the American public.
In both instances we are still choosing between saving the lives of a larger group, or saving the lives of a smaller group. Also, in both instances of the experiment, and war, we see an idea of saving "the greater good," and putting just reasoning behind the desions that have been made. In the words of Polemarchus, "Justice is doing good to one's friends, and harm to one's enemies." The problem with this definition of justice is that sometimes it is hard to differentiate one's friends from one's enemies, but for arguments sake, the American public are our friend. Nevertheless, with this idea of justice, the U.S. President is just to send American soldiers, American lives, overseas to harm the people, the lives, of our enemy.
However, the U.S. President is also just in Thrasymachus' idea of justice being, "... the advantage of the strongest," whereas the President has the power to, if necessary like in the Vietnam war, call a draft in order to sustain a fight in a war where quantity of soldiers are lacking. Yet, if the word justice has no true definition set in stone, then how can one's actions ever truly be just? And if so, then by saving the lives of one or many for the lives of others be just?

Justice for the Powerful

On Wednesday, we discussed how justice was defined in our reading this week. Justice is a major concept that is explored throughout The Republic. The different characters in this reading from Plato have their own experiences and ideas of what justice really is. To me, justice is retribution for any act of wrongdoing. Justice has many different definitions and meanings though. One of the characters, Thrasymachus defines justice as, “nothing but the advantage of the stronger." When I read this line, I felt a bit of annoyance, but I also felt like it was very true. When I think of the strongest that Thrasymachus is talking about, I think of rulers during his time and ours. These rulers, or leaders, really do define what justice is. For example, nowadays, if the president of the United States were to commit some act of wrongdoing, wouldn’t he get favor in the courts? Absolutely he would. When President Nixon was caught up in the Watergate Scandal, he got impeached, but once he was impeached he should’ve gone to prison for his crime. Instead, after he was impeached, his Vice President, Gerald Ford, pardoned him. Justice was served to Nixon because he was impeached, but any other person would have gone to jail for this crime. If he had not been president of the United States, justice would not have been on his side. In this sense, justice is absolutely in the hands of the powerful, but Socrates later shoots down these claims from Thrasymachus. In a sense, Thrasymachus has a very good point, and in my opinion, justice is one of the hardest things to attain in our world today. There is so much corruption and confusion in our courts that it seems like justice will never be widespread. Without justice, our society will be thrown into chaos. Justice is a tricky concept, and in many cases, people in power do have complete control over justice.