Happy Cellophane Tape Day!
noun
1.
honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
For the longest time I have had a fascination with honor. What is it? Where is it?
I read stories of daring princes and fencing lads who are willing to die in order to protect this mythical creature, known as honor. This whimsical little blighter dances its way through our tales and is a reminder of the past - but where is it now?
Only a few decades ago, young men had a strange little trait called
class. They had style, they cared about doing good, if only to uphold their name. Of course there were a few parasites, some who took advantage of the righteous intent of those around them, but it was not uncommon to find a classy, chivalrous guy.
Where is that attitude now?
No longer is this mindset respected in our world - people will go to any length to get what they want, and how they get their desire is shoved out of mind. "Following the rules", or taking the more difficult road has no value in our society - we want results, and we want them now.
In English we are discussing different philosophers and their views on justice - what is ethical, and what is immoral?
I find myself in agreement with both Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill
Kant believes that the means is more important than the end.
For example, on a Sunday you try to make a dessert for your roommate because she has been stressed lately. You whip up a batch of your famous cookies, and excitedly await her reaction. Unfortunately for you, she needed those ingredients for a home ec final and now cannot pass the class because she cannot afford more food/it is Sunday. You cost her several hundred dollars because you used her food without permission.
According to Kant, this is just.
You meant well.
However, by using her food without permission, you basically make a statement to the world that it is fine for anyone, at any time, under any circumstance, to take something without asking. You just gave the man on the street permission to take your car, you gave the random couple permission to take a child without asking.
So, perhaps this is unjust, if you feel that the new "rules" you created by your actions are not acceptable.
Mill believes that the end is more important than the means.
Say, for example, that you were commanded to retrieve some brass plates that were being held by a stingy ruler in 600 B.C. Jerusalem. You are denied multiple times to have the plates, but the Lord told you to get them, so get them you must. During your nightly stroll, you come across the hoarder himself, and given the circumstance, you kill him and whisk the plates to safety in the wilderness. These plates are then handed down for hundreds of years and are the salvation of an entire nation.
According to Mill, this is just.
Even though you murdered a human being and stole his property, the lives saved exceeded the lives lost. The happiness that resulted in your actions was much greater than the pain required to get the result.
I find both of these theories make sense.
I shouldn't lie, even if I feel as if it will not hurt anyone.
But sometimes you must act for the greater good.
So how do you decide which theory to follow?
I have no idea.
Pray for inspiration, I suppose.
Now, for an important question that has haunted me since my early childhood:
Someone should write a book about that ish.
And isn't this pretty clever:
"Strength is the ability
to break a chocolate
bar into four pieces
with your bare hands
and then eat just
one of those pieces."
xoxo,
McCall
Happy Cellophane Tape Day!
noun
1.
honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
For the longest time I have had a fascination with honor. What is it? Where is it?
I read stories of daring princes and fencing lads who are willing to die in order to protect this mythical creature, known as honor. This whimsical little blighter dances its way through our tales and is a reminder of the past - but where is it now?
Only a few decades ago, young men had a strange little trait called
class. They had style, they cared about doing good, if only to uphold their name. Of course there were a few parasites, some who took advantage of the righteous intent of those around them, but it was not uncommon to find a classy, chivalrous guy.
Where is that attitude now?
No longer is this mindset respected in our world - people will go to any length to get what they want, and how they get their desire is shoved out of mind. "Following the rules", or taking the more difficult road has no value in our society - we want results, and we want them now.
In English we are discussing different philosophers and their views on justice - what is ethical, and what is immoral?
I find myself in agreement with both Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill
Kant believes that the means is more important than the end.
For example, on a Sunday you try to make a dessert for your roommate because she has been stressed lately. You whip up a batch of your famous cookies, and excitedly await her reaction. Unfortunately for you, she needed those ingredients for a home ec final and now cannot pass the class because she cannot afford more food/it is Sunday. You cost her several hundred dollars because you used her food without permission.
According to Kant, this is just.
You meant well.
However, by using her food without permission, you basically make a statement to the world that it is fine for anyone, at any time, under any circumstance, to take something without asking. You just gave the man on the street permission to take your car, you gave the random couple permission to take a child without asking.
So, perhaps this is unjust, if you feel that the new "rules" you created by your actions are not acceptable.
Mill believes that the end is more important than the means.
Say, for example, that you were commanded to retrieve some brass plates that were being held by a stingy ruler in 600 B.C. Jerusalem. You are denied multiple times to have the plates, but the Lord told you to get them, so get them you must. During your nightly stroll, you come across the hoarder himself, and given the circumstance, you kill him and whisk the plates to safety in the wilderness. These plates are then handed down for hundreds of years and are the salvation of an entire nation.
According to Mill, this is just.
Even though you murdered a human being and stole his property, the lives saved exceeded the lives lost. The happiness that resulted in your actions was much greater than the pain required to get the result.
I find both of these theories make sense.
I shouldn't lie, even if I feel as if it will not hurt anyone.
But sometimes you must act for the greater good.
So how do you decide which theory to follow?
I have no idea.
Pray for inspiration, I suppose.
Now, for an important question that has haunted me since my early childhood:
Someone should write a book about that ish.
And isn't this pretty clever:
"Strength is the ability
to break a chocolate
bar into four pieces
with your bare hands
and then eat just
one of those pieces."
xoxo,
McCall
