Society, A Big Bully

This week we discussed Karl Marx and his philosophy about the society. Today, we spoke about how he felt things should be and what he felt people should do. Karl Marx wrote in his book Communist Manifesto, “Workers of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!”  Karl Marx explains how he disagrees with the levels in society. In society the rich get richer and the poor get poorer when most of the hard work is done by those who make the least money. The people at the bottom that produce the items that make so much money, make close to nothing. Meanwhile, the people over them sit back, watch, sell the item, and make fortunes. Karl Marx encourages the workers to come together and fight back. The people above most workers have so much power but they wouldn’t if the workers would just fight back. This makes me think about the bully situation they always have on children shows. There’s always that big bully who has his gang of followers that do everything he says. With his followers, he terrorizes those that he feels like he can intimidate. They take lunch money, beat up, and do whatever else they please. Whatever the bully says goes and his followers do all the dirty work. Finally there’s that one kid that stands up to the bully and explains to the bully’s followers how bad of a friend the bully actually is to his “friends” also known as his followers. That kid, along with the followers and the other kids that were bullied come together against the bully and the bully is forced to change his ways. Society and the different levels of society play the same role as the bully, the followers, and those who are intimidated by the bully. If society was to come together they outnumber those who are unfair and misuse the power that they have, forcing a change.

Workers Unite

Karl Marx said to the proletariat class, “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.” This is a relevant statement in today’s society. For example today in class we watched a video about a woman, along with others, trying to raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars. I believe that this should pass. Minimum wage is low, and this would help the poor to afford a more substantial and comfortable lifestyle. This also goes towards the second point Marx made on how the struggles of classes becomes violent under capitalism. He mentions how although the bourgeoisie and proletariat participate in the act of production the mode of the distribution of goods does not correspond to the contribution of each class. If the minimum wage were to be raise this would eliminate this dispute. The way wage is distributed in today’s society correlates capitalism because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Another way minimum wage hurts the proletariat is by alienating them from the product of their labor, the process of production, his/her species being, and from other human beings. It goes against Marx’s beliefs and reduces the workers into being products of themselves.  

Capitalism as understood by Marx in America

This week in class we learned about capitalism and Karl Marx's view of it. Capitalism is a sort of economic/political viewpoint or system where industry is controlled by people for a surplus value instead of the industry being controlled by the state. The bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of production and the proletariat are the workers/producers. Karl Marx made this distinction of two classes under a capitalist state. After learning more about capitalism and about Marx's views about it in class, I completely agree with him where he says that capitalism is a fundamental contradiction. It isn't fair that the workers/producers put in work and do not see the surplus value for their efforts. Rather the surplus value goes straight to the bourgeoisie and the price of labor is determined by the forces of supply in demand. This means that if more product is needed, labor is increased. The bad thing about capitalism is that when labor is increased it doesn't necessarily mean that those who are doing the work will be paid for it. Since the 1970s there has been a huge gap between demand of product/labor and the wage that the working class receive for their work.

The fact that America is a capitalist country is very upsetting and disappointing. We are supposed to be a land where people come to work hard and get every ounce of their efforts back in rewards. This is not the case. Americans today put so much emphasis on the entertainment business that we are practically creating a bourgeoisie class. We invest so much money into being sports fans or watching new movies because our favorite actors/actresses are in them... without realizing that we are sustaining the capitalist system and enforcing those who are rich to be richer and those who are poor to be poorer. I feel like it is our fault America is a capitalist country. The day capitalism fails is the day where Americans stop supporting the bourgeoisie (in my situation the entertainment business) and actually focus on things other than social media or entertainment and get back into their homes. When I say get back into their homes I mean enjoying the company of family and friends and enjoying the work they do, instead of investing time and money into going out and partying or watching movies (basically supporting the entertainment business). Yes, without entertainment life would be boring sometimes but America takes entertainment too far. We have created the bourgeoisie class all on our own and get upset about being proletariats. We need to first fix the proletariat before attacking the bourgeoisie. When I say that I mean that we must first look within ourselves and figure out what's wrong before putting the blame all on the bourgeoisie. Maybe then capitalism will fail and we will all see the fruits of our labors.

Low Wages Unaffected Bourgeoisies

            Karl Marx made the case that the proletariats (the workers) will one day over through capitalism, which will remove the bourgeoisies (the owners) out of their position. There is a lot of reason made of why the proletariats need to over though capitalism. One of the reasons made is that bourgeoisies get more money than the proletariats, even though the proletariats are the ones who made the product that the bourgeoisies are selling. The bourgeoisies pay the proletariats extremely low wages; wages that came, at times, barley enough to support them to live but ironically not enough to be able to buy the product that they made themselves. Works can leave the company, possible for the owner to realize that he/she is unfair, but if there is a large amount of people wanting the job, or any job, there will be not change the bourgeoisie mind to give better wages, because there are people that are willing to work for enough amount of money. In this case it would be impossible for bourgeoisies to change the wages without them also change the price on the products that are made. There was not there much detail in class of why the proletariats do not come together and over through the bourgeoisies, but is it a possibility that most of the proletariats are not willing to reach for the chance of losing their jobs or going home without money to support themselves. Although there has been changes done for the proletariats in some jobs, such as receiving insurance for life, dental, or car, and some workers get vacation days. Even though they are benefiting the workers, it does not change the fact that they are receive low wages. It may be nice to get a discount on some place, but how can someone say that they makes Iphone while they have a flip phone.

Competition Between the Classes

This week in class we discussed Karl Marx’s thinking on property. Marx says that the ownership of property divides the classes between those who have property and those who do not. He furthers this thought by saying that under these conditions of defining these two groups that the struggle between the two groups becomes violent.  Marx calls the owners of the means of production or the wealthy the Bourgeoisie and he calls the workers or producers the Proletariat. Marx believes that the violence happens between these classes because the workers are always trying to get what the wealthy have and the wealthy are always trying to stay wealthy and keep the poor from getting richer. I believe that this distinctive class separation can be seen today and is very violent. Every day you hear on the news how someone stole something or how someone was killed. Generally when you hear about one of these situations it is generally because someone who doesn’t have something is stealing to try to get what they want or they are killing because the murdered person had something they wanted or because the person was in their way of advancing to the next position in a job. In many ways Marx’s thinking that getting rid of classes would help create a less violent social climbing kind of world, but I believe that without classes the world would be less productive. When there are no classes then there would be no competition to try to better mankind. If people were not struggling to get to the better class then there would not be as many great ideas thought of to get from class to class. For example when Steve Jobs started thinking of the apple company he was not a very wealthy man and he thought up a product to better mankind and to boost him to the next class. Therefore I believe that without classes it would be less violent but the world would have less productive ideas. 

Capital Production and Globalization

     Karl Marx is known for his views on Communism; In addition, he is very against Capitalism.   One of the biggest problems under capitalism is there are only two classes, Bourgeoise (owners of the means of production) and Proletariat (workers and producers).  I think that globalization of clothing is a good example of capital production, where the proletariats do all of the hard work and the bourgeoise receive all of the profit with no mutual benefits.

     Major clothing companies typically set up their factories in 3rd world countries such as Cambodia, Honduras, and Bangladesh, where they can have the cheapest production possible. The people's working conditions in these factories are terrible and very dangerous, and they are extremely underpaid.  The reason that the wages for these workers remain at such a low number is that the price of labor is determined by supply and demand.  I read a book last year called Where am I Wearing and it was all about globalization and the issues along with it in poor countries.  According to the book, a whopping 97% of clothes in the U.S. are imported from countries around the world.  This being said, the people who make our clothes would not have a job. Businesses in the garment industry make, buy, and sell goods.  Low-paid factory workers create these clothes. The next time you put a shirt on, take a second to look at the label and see where your shirt was made (I am willing to bet it was not made in the U.S.) and think about how you buying a shirt, weather it was because of its look or simply because it was the cheapest, made an impact on what factories remain in business because of purchases you and the rest of America make everyday.

Capitalism

Karl Marx believes in a world without classes.  He thinks the working class people are completely taken over by the owners of the means of production.  He stresses that under capitalism, the class struggle is particularly violent.  There are only two classes under capitalism: the bourgeoisie who are the owners or those in charge, and then the proletariat who are the workers and producers.  The main problem with having these two classes is that although both are working, those who work more get less and those who work less get more.  The forces of supply and demand determine the price of labor.  So the more people that want a product, the less the proletariat will get paid for the more hours worked.  Finally, the conditions the workers are put through get worse through out time.  The poor will become numerous and the rich will become fewer.  Marx believes the only way to fix the issue of capitalism is to revolt.  A different and less extreme way to think of capitalism, is to think of it a sports team situation.  The coach is the bourgeoisie and they command and “own” the players.  Coaches make sure the players do not act out in class and on the field and are taken accountable if there are problems.  On away games they are in charge of us and everything we do, we have to make check in with the coach.  The players are seen as the proletariat, they do what is told by the bourgeoisie to get the job done.  The players are producing the product of success to make the school and the coach look good.  The better the team does, the more sponsors and fans you will get, and the coach will expect more out of you.  If the coach does go out of line, the players could revolt, which is extremely rare.  Although relating sports teams and capitalism is very strange and sports teams are not treated that badly, it is another way to look at it, even if it is not as extreme.  I do agree with Karl Marx with his dislike for capitalism, because it is not fair and very one sided.

Marx, Industrialism, and humanity

I thought we had a very interesting talk today. My favorite quote was when Dr. J said that because of capitalism we basically have to "put our humanity on the market and hope we can sell if for cheap enough to get a job".  This made me think about the nature of American mass industry. We currently live in a world where everything is created on a massive scale and in order to do this we have put the assembly line into practice in all areas (including school where we are teaching students the test instead of encouraging individual creativity). I believe this is a moral wrong. To elaborate we are sacrificing the most human part about us. Unlike animals we have a sense of self and an ability to make choices that as a result of capitalism has placed us into groups dictating our self worth as well as into mindless jobs where invention and individuality are not condoned. How did America get to this point where all but a select few are in a less severe form of the same slavery we tried to abolish. It makes me wonder what people could have accomplished by now if work/labor wasn't associated with such misery. Maybe people would enjoy working and things like cancer, autism, parkinson's would be cured by now. We have put a price on everything else and capitalism thinks it can put a price on humanity, the question is: Will we let it?  Hopefully no one in this class thinks that there humanity is worth a measly 7.25/hour.

                   

                                                            

                                                        Are you living a lie?

                                                                                                                                                                           Today we discuss Frieddrich Nietzsche, " Genealogy of morality." This philosopher whom I fine very interesting. He says, that the strong should not have to lower their standards to accomendate the weak. Nietzsche talks about two valuations; The noble mode of valuation and the slavish mode of valuation. The noble mode of valuation: good is always identified first and bad is an afterthought, the "yes" saying, values comes from the inside, and enemies are always good. The other valuation is the slavish mode in which evil is always determine first and good comes afterwards, the "No" saying, values comes from the outside or external stimuli, and enemies are always going to be evil and morally wrong. He also says, separate the doer from the deed to determine the purpose of creating a subject to be held accountable, everything that happens in the world is necessary. In a strange way I see Nietzsche claims to be somewhat visible but there's is something missing from his claim or maybe I need a little more understanding or maybe I miss understood him. I do agree with him about creating your own values and being an overcomer of the false witness that is either living on the outside of yourself or on the inside of yourself and what I donot believe is just because one has giving in to a particular meaning or a interpetation of a thing that it allows oneself to be dominated by that particular will. What about one who has been expose to all kinds of matters and found confusion, unstableness, falling for anything, etc. There is somethiong sacred, there is something absolute,and there is something that is most definitely true, could it have been that Nietzsche was on a broad road in which everything goes and he rejected the straight and narrow road because in order to travel that hidden treasure road he had to give up self and he just didnt believe it. I think that he was looking deeply in all the wrong places. His words were season with rage, rejection and unbelief.

Stolen Projectors.

One morning this week, students and staff discovered that several projectors and a printer had been stolen from our otherwise trustworthy, and safe school. Many were shocked and wondered who could have done this, but also wondered how they could have done this.

This got me to thinking about Nietzsche's story of the lambs and hawks, and Noble and Slave mode. (put link here)  Granted this example of the stolen projectors don’t go hand and hand perfectly, but bear with me because it does show how only the “little people” think and ask questions like this.

While in class we discussed this story and related it to everyday actions of a big businessman and the little guy. The businessman uses his strengths (intelligence, cunning, tricky, people person personality, and more) to swindle and trick the little guy out of his hard earned money. He used his strengths as strengths. And while he sees nothing wrong with this, the little guy is left asking how and why someone could do this to them. In class we determined that only the little guy ask these questions.

Using this example, we could compare it to Nietzsche’s Noble Mode, and Slave Mode of Valuation. The little guy would fall under Slave Mode for this case because there is no doubt that they view the businessman, his enemy, as evil, that the little guy is in fact good, think that the businessman should not use his strengths as strengths in this sense and views the businessman’s action as evil (evil comes to mind first, then good).

The businessman would fall under Noble Mode because they think their actions were good (Noble Mode people always think of the good first, and evil as an afterthought), and that the little guy, his enemy, is in fact, good.

However, being a noble mode person who uses your strengths as such, does not mean they can do what ever they want with no consequences. Just like the thieves, they got caught and got in trouble for stealing from our school.



Strength

In class, on Wednesday, we began our discussion of Nietzsche. One of the things that we discussed was the birds of prey and the lamb. From this topic of discussion we reached a point where we discussed Nietzsche’s idea that humans who possess strength should hide their strength. However, it is okay for an animal to allow their strength to shine through. Although, it is wrong for a human to kill another human. I do not think it is fair that a human must hide behind their strength in order to avoid coming off as intimidating to others. Possessing the quality of strength should not be something that people should be required to hide. By doing this you are asking people to hide their strength as if it is a form of weakness. While allowing those who possess a weakness see that weakness as a strength. Is it fair? While it may make life easier because others would feel less intimidated, I do not think it is right. We all have our own unique qualities and not everyone will be great at everything they do. If everyone thought their weakness was a form of strength where would society end up? I do not think it would be in a great shape because by hiding our strengths we are not allowing for advancements to occur. Instead, we are stuck in a society that is weak because we see that quality as a strength. And does a weak society last long? No, it does not. Therefore, I think that it is wrong  for us to expect the strong to hide their strength instead of showing it.

Do we choose what is right and what is wrong?

     Nietzsche believes that morality has changed the human race. He feels that morality has turned us into beings that do not want to create values anymore. Instead he says that we want to know and have a value already set up that determines what is right from what is wrong. I agree with some of his idea about this. I feel that we as a human race do not fully make our own decisions anymore. Instead we are tricked or programed to believe one thing or another. Whether it is our family members or our friends and people who we aspire to be like, they influence us to believe certain things. For example, if a person is raised in a house that has specific ideas on a political party, that person will most likely agree with those ideas. This is because their parents have influenced them to feel that way. If someone is raised with only one political parties ideas in their house, how are they going to feel when the other political party is brought up in conversation? They will not have much of an idea about what they really believe. Their parent’s beliefs will become their default beliefs. Nietzsche also says that once we stop creating values for things, we cease to be true human beings. Humans are meant to create moral values. This is what differentiates us from animals. We are specifically given the free will to choose what we feel is right and wrong. Some laws do need to be put into place to set up consequences for peoples wrongdoings because lets face it, murder and slavery are wrong no matter what. Once we stop thinking about what is right and wrong, and go with the flow of what others think, we take the human part of our existence away. We were put here for a specific purpose, and without the right to choose right from wrong, how will we fulfill that purpose?   

I would be able to live through an Eternal Return

Today in class we learned about Neitche’s eternal return which places a person in a constant recycle of their life both the good and bad moments and the person can do nothing to change the past or future. The argument to this is that a strong person would be okay with this where as a weak person would not. I heard a lot of people say how they would not be okay with this because they wouldn't be able to change how things happened. My argument to this is do we not already live in a state where we live our lives through both good and bad times even though we know we can not change what happens. I believe we do. Yes we can see if a decision might be wrong and avoid that kind of situation but we can not always be prepared for what ever life throws at us. I believe as a Christian that everything has already been predestined and that in life their will be situations that I can not avoid and will have to respond to. That is one reason why being a Christian is such a blessing because no matter what life throws at you I know that God is in control of all things. Now these events may be something horrible or something good but being a Christian gives me the strength to continue on through life. When life gets tough I tough it out and when life is good I thank God for it. General Jackson of the Confederate army had a some what similar questioned asked to him after a battle during which he was shot in the hand. The  question was how he could stay so calm through the horrors in battle? His reply was that “my religion teaches me that all things have been predestined for the glory of God and that this makes me calm in battle as I am calm in bed”. No one knows what the future holds for them because you could die in your sleep just as easily as if you where in a car wreck tomorrow.

Reading material for next week's classes: Karl Marx's "Alienated Labor"

You can click here to view/download the essay "Alienated Labor" by Karl Marx.

What's Really "Good"?

I think that Nietzsche brings up some very valid and interesting points in his first essay pertaining to what is good and evil.  He makes the argument that what is "good" is decided by those in power because they have the authority over thoughts and actions of the common people. This is something I have never thought about and it makes sense to me what he is saying. Doesn't it make sense that many, many years ago "good" was decided by those that were in a position of power and that they decided what should be perceived as good to their citizens? And that perhaps now our perception of "good" is polluted from those in power deciding for themselves what "good" is over hundreds and hundreds of years?  Nietzsche even goes as far to show the similarities in the roots of the words "good" and "bad".  He says that the word "good" derives from the same roots as "powerful", "masters", and "rich".  This is unbelievable support for the argument that he is making of morality. I don't necessarily agree with all of Nietzsche's arguments, but this one really made me ponder; what if what we think is "good" isn't in reality? What if what we think is "good" is actually just what someone else wants us to believe is "good"?  That is a scary thought.

Nietzsche likes our Symposiums

Nietzsche teaches similar to Darwinism: natural selection, which is where the circle of life naturally kills off the weak, as they are easier to take down, and promotes the survival and growth of the strong, since they reproduce to create strong offspring and now are the next targets for predators. In a way, is this not unlike our symposiums?

Those who study and prepare for the symposiums do well and their grades reflect their hard work while those who slack off and don't prepare (or prepare less than they should) do less well or even poorly, reflecting their efforts, or to compare to Darwinism, their strengths and weaknesses. The strong prepare and the weak don't, just like how the strong control the flow of the discussions and the weak merely add on or remain silent. The weak, "killed off" by the predators (grades) are leaving the strong to survive and grow (study more and do better in the symposiums and ultimately the class).

I also believe Nietzsche would think that our education system is a sham, allowing those unprepared by the failing education system (and possibly outside of the school system) to move on to subjects and work that expects them to have learned and mastered what they have not previously. Some in the class think it would be wrong to "leave a child behind" in such a way, but if the system itself was proper in doing its job by actually educating us and challenging us in a healthy manner, then our society as a whole would benefit because it wouldn't just suddenly be harder for those already in the system, but would help grow and expand the minds of those just entering it. Personally, I would struggle in this system because after 17 years in school, i have rarely been challenged, simply cruising through classes that have been slowed down for the general public. Perhaps if there were more opportunities for more challenging classes, not just upping the system for everyone (not everyone learns as quickly or in the same manners for any and every subject) then we would have more balance and less stress with a better set of minds.

I am interested in what you all think on this (it was a little jumbled at the end, sorry)

Strength and its Effect on the World

In class this week we started talking about Friedrich Nietzsche.  In one of his essay's, he writes about the bird of prey feasting on the lamb.  The lamb, or another creature, might consider the bird of prey evil for hunting the lamb.  However, the bird of prey really has no choice.  The bird is strong, the lamb is weak, the bird needs to eat, and the lamb can not defend itself.  To ask the bird of prey to not eat the lamb would be asking it to present its strength as weakness.  To ask the lamb to hunt the bird of prey instead of being eaten by it would be asking the lamb to present its weakness as strength.

People seldom ask others to present their weakness as strength, because most of the time it is not possible to do so. However, people often expect others to present their strength as weakness.  Is it fair to ask people to represent their strength as weakness? It might make things easier, more civil, or less annoying, but it is not necessarily fair.  Strength isn't a bad thing, but sometimes we make it a bad thing, and expect people to stoop down to a lower level.  Expecting people to stoop down to a lower level ultimately could be bad for society and the human race.  Natural selection was intended to weed out those less suited for success and reproduction in the environment.  Now, the weak who would have once died off are being kept around through medicine or special classes.  One reason for this might be because there is money to be made in these fields, but all this is doing is slowing down the success of our species and overpopulating the world.

If humans didn't have souls or emotions we could fix this problem easily. But the fact that we feel the need to save everyone we can and that we don't want to see any of our friends or family die off makes fixing the human species nearly impossible.  Maybe one day natural selection will return, but I doubt it.    

Value System

Today's class brought up Nietzsche's criticism of our value system. Although his essay was written in 1887, his point is the most relevant today. Nietzsche claims that our society has become enslaved to a value system that forces us to value all things a certain way. He thinks that we, individually, should value everything on our own. I happen to agree with Nietzsche. We continuously keep reproducing these values when we go to the movies, drink a coke, or eat a pizza. As long as we are stuck in the consumerism cycle, we're enslaved. We constantly get fed information, ideas and products though the news, social media, and the internet. Imagine a world where the murder and crazy criminal activities become the norm because the news tell us they are. That may seem like a radical example, but the point is clear. In essence, that is the weakest position to be in, and to overcome that would make us the strongest.

Mill's Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill makes a convincing case for his Utilitarianism theory. He not only explains his point of view, but also responds to critics' misconceptions about said theory. He starts off by saying that his theory is based on the principle that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, and wrong as they cause the opposite of happiness. John believes happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. He also assures that there are different levels of pleasures and that our individual achievements are part of our happiness.
Many critics have argued that Mill's theory fails to be complex enough and that it is impossible to attain a level of happiness. Mill responds that it simply is that easy. Furthermore, he states that his theory does not promote individual happiness exclusively but the greater happiness for the most amount of people. This responds to the martyr criticism where Mill explains that martyrs die for the greatest good of the people. Examples include Gandhi, MLK, Jesus, and so on.
Another argument is that Utilitarianism leaves a person cold and unsympathizing because it deals with the consequences of actions and not with the morality of the individual Mill answers that actions should be judged as the actions themselves, without caring for who did the action. Besides, that is how we judge on a daily basis.
Utilitarianism is also accused of being a godless doctrine because of the lack of mention of religion in Mill's essay. Mill responds that this is a matter of perspective. For example, if our religion calls on us to pursue happiness, then Mill's theory is the most divine of all.
Other people may argue that this theory is expedient, while Mill states that the greatest good of the society is the intention.
Lastly, the argument that Utilitarianism is simply too impractical is brought up. The reason being because one cannot stop and think about the Utilitarian way to be is all the time .John cleverly states that that's the case with every other religion or moral theory in the world. For example, it's like saying you can't be a Christian because you can't read the bible at all times before making an action.  

Strong and the Weak

In class we talked about the hawks and the lambs, ultimately we determined that it doesn't make sense for us to expect the strong not to express their strength and it is equally bizarre for the weak to try to express their weakness and strength.

One question that I had was whether or not people are born strong or weak? Here is an example: Let's say that someone is born with a terminal illness and told they will only live 10 years. This person then choices to make the most out of life: she/he smiles in the face of adversity, still chooses to play sports, expresses traits like kindness and patience. Would this person be considered strong or weak? Yes, we would like to say weak because sickness is a form of weakness but she also expresses forms of strength. How then do you balance these two and determine on which side the scale tips? Is there some form of calculus to determine this like the felicific calculus used by utilitarians?

Another example stems from our decisions that some people are born strong and some born weak. I believe as a class we would all agree that babies are weak by nature. If they are not feed or taken care of, then they will die. So for the infant that dies, do we generically say that this child was too weak to survive?

I would love comments, I am curious how the class interpreted the  reading.

Using Our Talents

In class on Wednesday, we discussed, from Nietzsche's work, how absurd it is to expect people to suppress and hide their strengths when it is ok for animals to show their strengths. We see it as "nature," and how the world is supposed to work, when one animal preys upon another, such as when an owl or hawk hunts and kills a mouse for food. While it is definitely wrong for one person to kill another, I also think that it is ridiculous to hide our strengths so we don't intimidate someone or hurt another person's feelings. I feel like everywhere people are so conscious of hurting another's feelings that a person can't be proud of their own strengths. For example, giving every little kid on a sports team an award for this or that so they all feel special, makes the children who were actually good at that sport feel as if they are average at it like everyone else. Everyone does not have to be good at everything, and everyone does not have to be told they are good at something. God gave each of us unique talents, and no one is talented in every area. Some are good at sports, others are good at school, others are creative, and others are good at music. By giving every child an award at everything they attempt, it is harder for them to find out what their true talents are. Just because a child is not talented and does not receive an award in one area, does not mean they won't in another. While I believe all children should be encouraged to try different things to discover what their talents are and learn what it is that they become passionate about (be it sports, art, music, etc), I do not think every child needs a trophy just for participating.

The happy pill is the key

Monday's symposium discussed the theoretical "happy pill" and its abilities. I have to disagree with both Mill's consequentialist and Kant's deontologist approach on the matter. Mill sees the pill as favorable but thinks being content is not happy. I have to disagree. In my opinion, the pill could solve all of society's problems. In this case, the greatest good of the people is the moral action, similar to the example of martyrs we discussed in class.  What can be better than ending society's turmoils? Crazy people's erratic behaviors? This pill could potentially achieve world peace. Some may argue about our race's progress being halted, but the pill argues in favor of the most pleasure with the least pain. In other words, we can sacrifice some of the perks we enjoy of in favor of happiness. It would be interesting to see what the real effects this theoretical pill would cause. 

The Happy Pill

In class this week we had a symposium in which we discussed a "happy pill".  This happy pill had the capabilities of being slipped into the water and making everyone generally happy at all times.  We were asked to decide if we wanted the happy pill or not based on which philosopher we were.  Kant said that they would not want the happy pill because it would violate the second formulation of the categorical imperative.  We would be taking away people's ability to be free, rational, autonomous beings and therefore could not accept the happy pill.  Mill said that even though the happy pill sounds like something Utilitarianists would want, we could not accept it because it would cause people to be content, and not actually happy.  Personally, I think the happy pill sounds like a good idea, at least to try.  I know it sounds immoral, but whats so wrong with wanting everyone to be happy? I think it would be quite interesting to see what it would be like without people being mean, complaining, or being negative all the time. It would also be interesting to see if people could still be fulfilled with their lives if they were content and generally happy all the time.  Would people still be able to get mad with the pill? So many questions because we have never actually experienced a life where everyone is happy. Dr. J describe the pill to be if everyone was always on heroine, but if the pill was safe with no negative side effects, I'd say bring it on!

Kris Kringle

            During our symposium on Monday, we talked a lot about the culture that we live in today. One aspect of our culture that we talked about was the idea of Santa Clause. During this discussion, I represented Kant. Kant would have said that the idea of Santa Clause was a bad idea. The reason behind Kant not liking the idea of Santa Clause is because it is a complete lie. Yes, children are happy and mesmerized by the idea of Santa Clause, but a lie is a lie. Kant believes that you should do moral actions without worrying as much about the consequences. I believe that a child should be able to believe in Santa Clause. Yes you are lying to your child by saying that Santa Clause is real, but the amount of happiness gained from Santa Clause outweighs the amount of despair that your child gains from learning that he isn’t real.

            One of two things could happen when you tell your child that Santa is not real. If you have raised your child to be reasonable and mature, then they will understand why you would lie about such a thing, because they gained a large amount of happiness from celebrating the idea of Santa Clause. The other reaction is that they would be very upset with you for a period of time. Depending on the period of time, it may not be a bad reaction. I have never heard of a child being incredibly upset and doing something incredibly stupid because they learned Santa Clause is not real. I do not agree with Kant in this argument. I believe that the idea of Santa Clause is a great tradition. Maybe you want credit for giving your child presents, but you can also feel credit for their presents by seeing how happy they are while celebrating the idea of Santa Clause. Santa is good, and if I have children, I plan to celebrate this tradition that I loved so much as a child.

The Cure for Discontent?

During our symposium on Monday, we talked about whether it would be morally right to give everyone a pill to make them happy. Although this seems like a good idea on the surface, once you look at it a little closer, you see the consequences of doing this. Not only is it morally wrong if you do not tell citizens about it, I also believe that someone who would do this is failing to see people as people. Rather than seeing them as individuals, they see them as means to gain the "perfect society," one where everyone is happy and content to live the life they have. Because people would be content with what they have, and not be greedy or jealous, some of the problems that society faces today, such as crime, could be greatly reduced. However, if people are content with what they have, will they also lose their passion and drive to succeed? Who is going to be inspired and driven enough to go through the demands of medical school to become a doctor? Or work carefully to build their small business into a successful company? Or invent a new product that would make life easier? Would people even have the drive to get an education and work at all, or would they be content with living in poverty, just doing enough to get by? If the world was on a "happy pill," many of the great discoveries and inventions that have been made throughout history, and are continually being made, would not have occurred. People would be ok with living their lives as they are, and would see no need for improvement. However, it is the discontent, the dissatisfaction with the status quo, that fuels the advancement in all aspects of our lives.