Zi’blog

In My opinion, Friends is something that everyone can have, it doesn’t matter how poor or rich someone is. The spark of friendship starts the minute you talk to a stranger, and the friendships are built up between each other by getting to know the basics of each other, and as the more you know them the deeper the friendship gets. That’s how best friends are developed, people rate their friends based on how much they know them, as Aristotle had said there are types of friends: friends of virtue, friends of pleasure, friends of utility. Friendship of virtue is when two friends think what’s good for each other, rather than just thinking of pleasure or the benefits that you can get out of the friendship, for example when your friend tells you to start to work out or lose weight, your friend is thinking what’s best for you because being overweight is a serious risk to people’s health. Friends of virtue are like the friendship between couples, because both love each other so much, and want what’s good for each other without thinking or expecting anything in return. A perfect friendship as Aristotle describes it, but a little different because Aristotle believes that man and woman can’t be in a perfect relationship because man and woman are not equal, so perfect friendship cannot happen but I believe it can, to be it is like wife and husband, it can be perfect if it is with one person because it requires time and effort.

 Friends of utility are friends who are only friends because of a task or a thing that both shares and it ends when the task is over or finished. For example, when doing a group assignment and the teacher place you with three different people to complete the project, the four of you will be friends through the duration of the project, of course, been placed in one of the Category doesn’t mean it can go to a different category after all friends are something build up over time just like trust. Lastly, friends of pleasure are also known as friends with benefits. The only reason that I left this one last because I have a sad story to tell, “This is the reason why they form and dissolve friendship rapidly, the friendship changes with the pleasurable object and such pleasure changes quickly” ( Aristotle). It was a hot summer day, going outside and riding a bicycle to enjoy the summer breeze seems like a good idea, but Mobile Legend seems more attractive. A video game that I found last year on the iPhone that attracted most of my attention. In the game, there is something called in-game voice chat where you can communicate with your teammate and form strategies that would ultimately lead you and your team to victory. As I was laying on my bed, and playing the game, I turned on Voice chat( in-game), normally I wouldn’t do that because it is just awkward, but out of interest I did it. It was a female voice, it was like the sweetest voice I have ever heard, and I and she quickly became friends. Friends with benefits, we are only friends because we find pleasure in each other. We have been friends for a year but as I played fewer games with her, she started to lose interest because I no longer can give her the pleasure that I once could give and we ended up breaking up, and no longer did I talk to her again. No longer do I want to be a friend of a benefit to anyone because when we stop talking to each other, my heart shattered into pieces and is piercing out of my skin, I was dying, the light was gone, I’m a zombie that has a beeping heart.

What is right or wrong? And when do people know the thing they are doing is right or wrong? Before we can begin talking about what action is right or wrong, we have to consider how action begins. In other words, in order to judge something, it has to happen first. “And those who act under compulsion and unwillingly act with pain but those who do act for their pleasantness and nobility do them with pleasure” (Aristotle book 3). The reason that I pick the quote is that it perfectly describes how most people would act on their daily bases. People are not willing to do things or perform an action that would cause them pain because no one pain is just human nature, a self-response that doesn’t even need to go through the brain. For example, when you receive pain, without even thinking, the first reaction is to back away from the source of pain and then figure out where the pain comes from. It is a natural reflex from our body, whenever we receive pain, we would want to get away from it, whether is mentally or physically. The other end is that people are willing to do the act because it brings them pleasure and they love what they do.

 This idea of doing an activity because of pleasure or it brings happiness in any kind shape or form and the unwillingness to do an act because it brings pain describes human nature. Just like Mill said in “utilitarianism is the principle of happiness” that we are always in pursuit of happiness, that how we are, humans don’t like to suffer. I remember when I was about fifteen years old, my parents made me take karate lessons, we had to do this thing called stretching, and it hurts so bad because I am not flexible. So I ended up quitting because I didn’t like the pain it brings even though I know it is the right thing to take the class but I just didn’t like the pain. Aristotle splits act into voluntary and involuntary, is pretty much the literal definition, the willingness, and the unwillingness. To Aristotle, the act of good is connected with virtue, and to Aristotle, the four virtues are courage, temperance, liberality, and magnificence. If the act shows one of virtue, and to Aristotle is considered good. With that in mind, what determines if they are doing the right thing or not?  Whenever we make an action, we always have a choice, which is just whether it is willingly or not. Aristotle had rated action from good to bad

1. If someone knows the right thing and does the right thing and love doing it
2. If someone knows the right thing but don’t do it 
3. If someone knows the right thing and ends up doing the opposite 
4. If someone doesn’t know the right thing and don’t do the right thing

I agree with the order except for three and four because I feel like that if you know the right thing but end up choosing to do the wrong thing that is just stupid in all sorts of the way then if you don’t know what’s going and end up doing the wrong thing people wouldn’t blame you as much as if you know the right thing and does the wrong thing. Aristotle defines Incontinence man as someone who acts against its own judgment which is like the idea in number three.

The idea of every action or motive is aimed toward something good is called to be a virtuous act, but the questions come down to what action makes it a virtuous act? How do we know that the act is virtuous and not harmful? These questions can only be answered based on the definition of the word Virtue, According to the dictionary definition, it simply means that a person shows high moral standards, but who sets the standards, and who is here to tell us what is right or wrong. “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at something good” (Aristotle, Book 1, pg57). Virtue simply means doing something good with asking anything in return, in other words doing good deeds without expecting any favors in return. We can almost think of virtuous acts as an act of happiness, no one in the world is here to tell us what is right or wrong and sometimes we just have to go with our feelings, what we think is right or wrong.

 I say that virtuous acts as an act of happiness, happiness are not the happiness that we get out from materialistic pleasure but are a type of happiness that without thinking or without doing that will just automatically bring a smile to the face and the sensation of doing such a virtuous act cannot be put into words. When I was about 16 years old, I was biking home one day, and there was this old lady on her bike going the opposite direction dropped her bag without realizing, in my view, I didn’t see the bag fall but I heard a loud thud and I turn around seeing the bag laying on the ground and the lady keep on biking without noticing. I was given two options, one is I ignore the thing that just happened and the other option is to pick up the bag and chase up to and give her the bag. I went with the second choice, it was more work because I have to carry the bag and bike a longer distance since that is the opposite direction to my home, but after I gave her the bag it was all worth it. I didn’t get anything in return and ended up doing more work but I felt happy, I don’t know why I feel happy nor why there is a smile on my face. I guess that’s a virtuous act when happiness is brought to more than one person as a result of an action. When I saw the happy old lady when she got her bag returned to her, that brought happiness to me.

 In the book, Aristotle mentions that virtue is a state of character, this is how people are judged on, deciding if that person was good or bad based on the virtue that he had shown throughout his/her life. Virtue is something that can be developed, no one is born and is considered a virtuous person, which is something gained throughout life. One cannot say that he/she is a virtuous person just because he did one good deed for example if a person tells the truth one time, it doesn’t make him an honest person, only if he tells the truth multiple times that he will be considered as an honest person. Virtue is a state of character because it can tell us how good of a person they are, and anyone can be a virtuous person but it takes effort.

The Dalai Lama is what people call the head of the Monks of Tibetan Buddhism; by the Buddhist beliefs, the Dalai Lama is chosen through reincarnation. They were awarded a Nobel peace prize for their nonviolent efforts for the liberation of Tibet and his concern for global environmental problems in 1989. Through reading Dalai Lama’s writing, he had listed three main commitments: the promotion of certain human values, the promotion of religious harmony, and preservation of Buddhist culture. The promotion of certain human values that Dalai Lama has listed are compassion, self-discipline, forgiveness, contentment, tolerance.

1. Compassion – The ability to feel sorry for people that had misfortune time, in other words, to have sympathy. For example, when seeing a homeless person, the first thing comes to mind should not be something like how disgusting or how bad they smell but rather have a kind heart and give them help. These homeless people didn’t end up like this because they wanted to but rather society had put them this way. Compassion does not mean pity but simply just means to have a warm kind heart around other people.
2. Self-discipline – The ability to control ourselves. For example, when playing video games or just doing anything, it should have a time frame not too long or too short. If we are trying to pursue a goal, we should make plans to achieve the goal and not be distracted by outside forces. 
3. Forgiveness – The ability to look over their mistakes. For example, when someone punches you, you should not punch back. They didn’t do it because they just love to go around and punch people, they must have done it because they had a bad day or just the wrong mindset, so we have to forgive for the mistakes that they have made. Hate can’t defeat hate only love can.
4. Contentment – The ability to be happy with what you have. For example, we should never compare ourselves with others, nor should we have to get the newest stuff. We should be happy with the food that we eat every day, the clothes we wear and the house that we live in. 
5. Tolerance – The ability to deal with situations. Patients the greatest virtue a person can have. I have been a tutor when I was in high school, and I would go to middle school and go teach the kids. It is the most frustrating thing because the kids wouldn’t listen to you, they just wanted to play and do their stuff. I learn that in the end, I just have to have patients with them and tolerate their kids’ behavior.

The promotion of religious harmony just simply means that one religion should be able to accept other religious ideas because who said that this religious’ God is right or that religious God is right. People should be open-minded and be able to take in other ideas. Preservation of Buddhist culture, because of the fast advancement of society, what Dalai Lama is trying to get at is that they should not forget what their goal was since the very first beginning, keep the old tradition so that we pay respect to our ancestors. For all three of the commitments, the promotion of certain human values is something that I should practice every day, is not only helping me to be a better person but also allows me to look at society from a different point of perspective.

Gautama Buddha was a philosopher who came up with the eightfold path to end suffering, in other words, it is a way in life to help to reduce suffering. From the word eightfold, as literal as it gets, there are eight “right” ways that Buddha considers that will resolve or even end suffering. The right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. Each one of these “right ways’ ‘ is dependent on each other to resolve suffering, one can not say simply because they achieve one of the right ways and it will reduce the suffering, but rather they have to archive all eight of the right ways to reduce the suffering. Out of the eightfold path, the one that most correlates to me is the right of speech, in the reading Buddha was talking to a monk about what is the right speech, and he said “And what, monks, is Right Speech? Refraining from lying, refraining from slander, refraining from harsh speech, refraining from frivolous speech. This is called Right Speech” (458).

 People who live in America, I am sure that all are very familiar with the idea of Freedom of speech, which has been written in the constitution since 1787. This is very similar to Right speech, the only difference is that Right Speech gives restriction to the thing that we can say if we wanted to reduce suffering. The idea of freedom of speech has caused many problems in America and for many people, because it is allowed to say whatever people want to say, people say what they want and sometimes it comes out hurting people. Speech is a powerful tool, it can bring happiness or sadness. There is an old Chinese saying “you can eat whatever you want, but you can’t say whatever is on your mind”, that’s why people say think before you speak because verbal speech is what sometimes gets people in trouble or a situation that they don’t want to be in. I do believe that having Right Speech will reduce suffering, from points like refraining from harsh speech, frivolous speech.

 I am a child of immigrant parents, so when I first entered school here in united states, peers would say the most terrible thing to me and it just hurts, I didn’t do anything or act in any way that would want them to treat me like that just because I had a different color and is from a different race? If people were aware of the harsh things that they say, I understand that it sounds like a joke to them but to some group of people is very offensive, people need to watch their mouths and not say these harsh words because it clearly induced the suffering of other people. One thing that I don’t get is how do people say such terrible things, how do they live their life, Like do they not feel guilty after saying these things to people. Or by saying these things makes them happy.  I think it will definitely lower the suffering of many people if the Right Speech was followed. No longer exists such a thing called a verbal bully, no longer will people say racist things to people, etc.

Our body is the most wonderful thing in the world, it allows us to see, to walk to hear and to just be in this wonderful world. Since I was a kid my mom always told me to take care of my body because in order to become great or be able to do anything you have to have a healthy body. As everyone knows there are some people who are not so lucky, they are born with deficiency in their body, in other words their organs don’t respond the way they should be, and that’s when doctors figure out a way to fix the problem also known as  organ transplant. “Whether alive or dead, every body stands today as a potential source of therapeutic benefit to the body of every other human.” Our body has become so valuable in the past decade because of organ transplantation, even after death. 

Originally, organs were supposed to be allowed if it is a donation, if one is willing to give up their organs to save people or not is their choice, but people always find a different way to get organs, especially the riches. What I mean is that, people who are rich are willing to spend a massive amount of dollars to pay for those organs and as the society we live in today, money is very important and people are willing to do anything to get some of that cash in hand. That is how organs sellsment begin, people are willing to sell some of their organs for that money and people are willing to buy it for a ridiculous high price.

Kantian believes that selling organs is illegal, because selling part of our body is not respecting one’s humanity and treating one as mere means. This idea of selling part of our body as not respecting ourselves kinda reminds me of religion’s idea that I learn when I join this religious group. The idea behind our body is that we shouldn’t put any tattoos or any modification to our body because we are created by God and are going against God’s will if we modify our body which is similar to Kantian’s idea of the idea that changing or modifying our body is going against something or not respecting someone. 

I don’t agree with Kantian’s idea when it comes to organ selling, if people want to do it then it is their choice, second it benefits both sides, the person who spends a huge amount of money gets the organ and the seller gets the huge amount of money. Third, by selling organs to some of the rich people, it will cause the people on the waiting list that are hoping to get an organ from a donor to have a higher chance because now there are hopefully less people on the list because of the organ selling. Utilitarians will be standing on the point that it should be legal because the action of selling organs makes many people happy, whether it is the person selling organs or the person buying in the end they all got what they wanted.

The main strength of utilitarian calculation of the open border is that it greatly increases the GDP of the country and the reduction of poverty due to the fact that people will be evenly distributed across the world. I don’t think this is a good argument, nor do I disagree with the argument, it is understood that more people will be happy and by the utilitarian idea that the moral things to do are an action that makes the greatest happiness in the greatest amount. The argument of accepting more people into the country will increase the economy is one reason why I don’t believe this is a good argument. How does just by switching to another country, all of sudden make the global economy go up that just makes no sense. What they are doing in their own country has not made the economy go up, things don’t happen just because of a shift of the country. 

In the article, it talks about “killing the goose that lays the egg” which basically means that by having low IQ people going to the country will bring down the economy, don’t quite know which dumb person come up with this idea to oppose open border. Every country doesn’t matter if it is poor or rich, there is always some smart person and not as smart person, the only reason that I don’t say stupid or dumb because no one is dumb or stupid is just that everyone’s brain works differently. As the article mentions, by having open borders it will allow more people to get  The other idea behind this quote is racism, for people who live in the U.S know that the U.S is an immigrant country, and that many people are quite racist. I am not trying to talk bad about people, that is just facts, since the immigration of Blacks we have seen what the White people have done to them. Different schools, public restaurants, and even bathrooms. I mean it is really necessary to a point where to spend thousands of dollars to just build a separate bathroom. They call immigrants Aliens, despite the fact that they are immigrants too. I am not trying to point out one race, I am just trying to give an example of what it may be going through for people that is against the idea of open border.

 I do believe that having an open border will increase the economy because the fact it allows some people to get an education that wasn’t available to them in their own country, also by having open borders allows the opportunity to trade with other countries which are going to boost the global economy. I do not agree with the second premise of the argument which is the idea that will reduce homeless people, because as the economy goes up, the rich people are going to be richer, the gap between the rich and poor is going to increase, and also, the living standard goes up. Yes, more jobs will be open which allows more people to be able to have an income, but people are still going to struggle, as we see today, there are many homeless people, is not because they want to but rather they can’t handle the struggles in their life. With open borders people are still going to work at minimum wage that can barely make them a living, and eventually give up and become homeless.

In the article, Mill describes “utilitarianism as the principle of happiness”. People are always going to pick higher pleasure in the end despite the idea that they may have chosen small pleasure once in a while. The basic idea of being a utilitarian is to uphold the idea of utilitarianism which is basically, the greatest amount of good  that is produced from the greatest number from an action, the whole idea of utilitarianism is to be away from pain and to be in happiness. I agree with J.S. Mill’s idea, the principle of happiness because, in a way, we are all utilitarians, we are doing what we are doing because we feel happy or pleased with the thing that we are doing. There is a different type of happiness, as it mentions in the article, there is a small pleasure and a big pleasure. The only difference between these two is that one requires effort, and it takes a long time to accomplish, so that’s why many people rather choose lower pleasure rather than higher pleasure.

 Mill has pointed out through paragraphs of how people are always in the pursuit for the bigger pleasure but sometimes come down to choose the inferior pleasure, it is not because we want to, it is because we don’t have the time to sit down and taste it, in other words the bigger pleasure seems too far out of reach. Humans choose now rather than the future because they never get satisfied with anything. Happiness doesn’t last, so many choose the inferior pleasure because it is easy to get and it satisfies their needs very well there and then. It is not wrong to say utilitarianism as a “pig philosopher” quote and quote that we are lazy and pleasure-loving maniacs, this is true for most people, no one doesn’t like pleasure and is indeed we are lazy, people spend millions of dollars to hire maid, or house cleaner, whether is to serve them or clean the house it shows that our laziness, we would rather spend money to clean the house where we could have done it ourselves. 

The reason I say this is a “Pig philosophy” is because some people devote themself to pleasure and eventually lose themself, what difference between them and a “pig”, other than humans, is more evolved than a pig. Both are doing what they want in terms of happiness, whether is splashing around in mud or is getting a higher paid jobs there is still a difference between these two, Of course, there is a huge difference between a human and a pig, but the metaphoric idea of humans enjoying pleasure like a pig is not wrong. There have been many incidents where people are addicted to drugs and end up looking like a patient just coming out of mental hospitals. The most important difference between a pig and humans is that even though we pick inferior pleasure, in the end we always pursue higher pleasure. I’m going to school to pursue an engineering degree, but sometimes I choose smaller pleasures, like playing video games etc, but the idea is that no matter what smaller pleasure I choose, I am always in pursuit of a higher happiness which is to become an engineer.

Distinguishing between right or wrong is a difficult question, because, from different 0points of view, that same problem may look right from one perspective or it may look wrong from a different perspective. In the book A Defence of Ethical relativism, it says the only correct way of resolving a personal dilemma is to go with the majority poll of society (Benedict). This decision by the public will cause some issues but doesn’t all decisions come with a consequence. The reason that group work exists is that when there are more people, more ideas are made, in turn, it is easier to solve the problem than working alone because one may be able to see the side that some of us can’t. The personal dilemma is like a milestone in a person’s life, and making decisions without asking opinions from other people or the public is a risky move. 

The Reason why to go with the majority poll is that from the majority group of people that answer the question may have gone through or had a similar experience of that dilemma and that the solution had worked out for them. Even if the decision didn’t help to solve the dilemma, it wouldn’t be considered a mistake because the majority of the society had approved of the action. If we had gone with the minority of the poll from the society, then many people are going to dislike you. This is the reality, we do not like abnormalities, since the early centuries it has always been this way, we always go with the majority. If we don’t dress up for a job interview, the possibility of getting that job would be zero because it has been approved by the society that one must dress up when doing a job interviewing, is it wrong to not dress up for a job interview? The whole point of dressing up is to look clean and nice, it is a sign of respect and politeness, but who is here to say that we have to wear a tuxedo and wear a bow tie? If the majority says it is true, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true.

 It may sound a bit contradicting since up to this point, I have been talking about how good it is to go with the majority, but who says the majority is always right? I can’t defend Benedict’s idea that the majority poll is always correct because I disagree with the idea if everyone makes a decision based on other people’s opinion, the world is going to be total chaos. I am not saying that is wrong to listen to public/majority opinion is just that we shouldn’t go with the fact that’s the right decision and the final decision without making any judgement ourselves because out of the group of majority people probably only one percent of people who give their opinion, and 10 percent followed because they think is right and the rest 89 percent went with it because is the majority. 

1. Being a wholehearted person means to be thoughtful and kind.
2. Forgiveness between people creates an easier life for everyone.

Being a wholehearted person should be able to forgive and care for the one’s around you.

Virtual, a word that was brought up during class. What does it truly mean? Is it simply just by doing good deeds considered as virtual? Let me tell you a story, when I first started college, it was difficult finding my ways around the big campus, everything is new, the teacher, the student, and even the desk. During lunch time, I sat by myself, and it was during this time I lost my wallet. I did not realize that I lost my wallet until I finished with all my classes. I was worried and stressed out when I found out that I lost my wallet because in the wallet I had four-hundred to five-hundred dollar cash, debit cards, and driver license. So, after realizing I lost my wallet, I went to where I ate lunch and it was not there. Then quickly I went to the lost and found by the office, and luckily it was there or I would probably have like a mental breakdown. After I got the wallet back, everything was there, nothing was missing, not even one dollar of cash. I would have given whoever put the wallet in the lost and found section by the office a big thanks because it was just a relief, mentally to know that nothing was missing. To me that is a virtuous act, doing good deeds without anything in return. He/she could have took any amount of the cash out of the wallet and pretended nothing happened, but he/she didn’t, he/she decided to give it to the office, knowing that they are not going to get anything in return and the four-hundred dollars is going to say goodbye to them. 

Professor then made us form into groups, and share our stories with each other. Then we have to come up with a conclusion sentence that both describes our stories. After reviewing by the professor, she told us that for concluding two premises we cannot use keywords that are not mentioned in the premises, in the concluding sentence we use the word care in replace of kind, which is a wrong way of writing an argument. So, I changed the concluding sentence, now it reads: Being a wholehearted person should be able to forgive and be kind to the ones around you.