Utilitarianism

Personally, I believe in utilitarianism and I follow this principle for most aspects in my life. But it almost seems to easy to make large decisions by just weighing the costs and the benefits. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that everything you think about when making a decision can be categorized as a cost or benefit. Whether this effects someone else, whether your parents will be proud of you, what this will do to your reputation- all of these are either costs or benefits. And I do believe that we need to try and be happy in our lives, otherwise what do we have. You could have everything you ever wanted in the world, but be miserable.

Scenario 5: City of Happiness

I would just let the child be, and not interfere. You have to make sacrifices in life, and if you sacrifice the life of one child for a whole city, then I think it is worth it. But I also feel like this would almost make the city unhappy, because some people must have guilt riding over them because they know of the secret. I still think that the benefits outweigh the costs, though.

Scenario 6: Hampsterdam

I don't agree with just putting the crime aside because police are there to serve and to protect the citizens, whereas by doing this, they are just giving up. It shows defeat. Also, their duty is to serve and to protect all citizens, including those that do wrongly, so how in any way is this manifesting these ideals? I see the benefits, but you're never going to progress in society if you just put things aside and ignore them, they will arise again.

Scenario 7: The Price of a Human Being

I am pretty disturbed with all of these situations, just because I seriously disagree with the practice of putting a price of the life of a human. No human is worth any amount of money to another. It is just so wrong to say that you should sacrifice a life because it will make you money. I could never live with myself if this happened. Also, I am shocked at the Ford Pinto situation because they knew that people were going to die, but all they cared about were their own profits. That is honestly just sad and shows how self-centered and deprived these people were of moral values.

Has my view changed?

My view hasn't really changed that much, because I feel that I was troubled by some aspects of the principle at first, which turned out to be the main flaws. I didn't think you could apply this to everything because of moral values etc. Everyone has different values on things, so it can't be standardized. But I thought you could fit morals into the costs and benefits. However, you can't. It is just a straight mathematical equation. But life isn't like that. Life is complicated and involves so many different aspects that need to be accounted for. In this way, I don't agree with utilitarianism. But in other ways, I do. For small decisions that don't involve hurting others I believe that it is okay to apply this principle. When you are taking into account another person's free will or life, that is when it gets complicated.

Justice

What does the word justice mean to you?

For me personally, justice means that every action done to another person is fair and right. Not one person should be treated unfairly and as if they are inferior to others. This can be applied to almost any situation in society. But for one example, torture is extremely unjust and by torturing someone, you are treating them like they aren't human. In addition, justice to me means that everyone gets a fair chance at something. That not one person is ahead based on silly circumstances. But of course, this is the way our society works and I don't know if everything can be just in our world.

Scenario 1: Price Gouging

I believe that the government should intervene if the prices of essential items increases to a point where it becomes ridiculous because in an emergency situation there are different procedures than in a normal situation. But for things that aren't essential, putting a price ceiling to effect the prices would create too much inefficiency and would in turn hurt the economy more than helping it. They should intervene to an extent.

Scenario 2: Bank Bailouts

I think that the government should intervene to a certain extent. For those certain companies that are essential to the economy, they should save. Not only do these companies employ millions of workers, but in the long run, the consumer would be worse off without these certain companies. In addition, assuming that these companies make up an oligopoly, the start up costs for another firm to enter the industry and take up the space that was just created from a company going under would be so great that it would take as much if even more capital than needed to save that company. But there definitely is a line that needs to be drawn where if there is a company that is past saving, you have to let it go.

Scenario 3: Runaway Trolley- Driver

I believe that the trolley driver should switch the tracks in order to save 4 people. Although he is still killing one, by not switching, he is actively choosing to kill those extra 4 people, which is basically equal to him actively switching the track and killing that one single person. Given the choice, you would want to kill one person over 5.

Scenario 4: Runaway Trolley- Observer

I honestly can't choose for this situation. On the one hand, the fat man will probably die pretty soon anyways, and you would be saving 5 peoples' lives. But I don't think in the moment that I would be able to actively cause someone else's death. You are not responsible for the runaway trolley, but by pushing the fat man off the bridge, you would be responsible for one death, which is more than you would be responsible for without doing anything. But then the argument comes in that you had the choice and you didn't do anything, so can choice be an action? I can't decide!

Scenario 5 : Afghan Goat Herders

I would shoot the goat herders, because it is a soldier's job to serve his country and it is military protocol to stick to your mission. If in the end the mission is compromised, it would come down to this choice. In this situation, you can't take the chance. In addition, although it is just capturing one deputy, it is a step towards capturing the leader. And you could gain valuable information that could save other lives and you need to take certain steps in order to achieve the bigger mission. This is one step that can't be given to chance.

Multiculturalism - "The Sneetches"

What I will remember most about reading to the Lower School is probably how quickly they latched on to the main idea. Right away we asked them what the main point is and they immediately talked about how differences shouldn't cause different treatment. And when we asked about the students at QK, they hadn't had the impression that I would have thought they would have of them. They just thought they were other students who go to a different school with a uniform. Also, when they were talking about differences between people they know, they didn't talk about skin color. All they discussed were things like hair styles, likes/dislikes, and religion.

After hearing the children speak about "The Sneetches", it made me think of how if 1st graders can treat people the same despite their differences, how come there are certain people that can't? What is it that changes us so quickly and causes a change in our core values? And we discussed this in class, how it can be your family or the media for example. I think that because children are so vulnerable, the are probably at the most important time in their lives, and the most difficult. If they are corrupted from a young age, it is that much harder to change. My view specifically about the story didn't really change because the students just pointed out things that I had already realized, but it did make me have a greater appreciation for children's stories, which have such a strong purpose in teaching moral values.