Realino’s Blog

The ethics of care is a is an element of moral life that feminist ethics emphasize. The ethics of care and relevance of caring is part of the moral life that a woman carries. The reason that this is important because it falls on compassion symphony and love. I do believe that there are situations in which impartiality is important in moral reasoning because in order to distinguish what is right and wrong we need to first be fair within the people that are getting tested. Or in some cases we have to look at the things that sound and look fair for people to go through. For instance, women go through so much because they care about others, and with that people in some cases may not care how women would react if they get hurt so this is how fairness would be tested. But moral reasoning is just saying the outcome of one should be if they are right or wrong using logic. But this isn’t so helpful because many people don’t have a logical mindset that would help them in a situation where perhaps they did bad rather than what they should be doing. On the other hand you have impartiality where you have equal treatment for everyone. It doesn’t matter what occurred or what’s the circumstances they treatment would be the same, which is good because then you won’t look on this person will get this rather than this other person, and by looking at all this people would just cause more chaos and then make the equality go away. Let’s make it into a scenario we could or something we are living in. In a epidemic we are going through many people may do things that aren’t right in general, but also do things that are morally wrong. But how will people judge. Will they really look upon them on what they did or will they look beyond that to see the actual reasoning behind their actions. This is where i do believe impartiality is more important. At a certain extent there should be punishment for any wrong done, but also forgiveness should be looked upon and then equality for the ones who truly had a deep reasoning towards the actions they committed. That in my opinion is why impartiality is more important in moral reasoning because behind certain scenarios or actions there is an important and a good thought.

Thus reading the article on Dalai Lama named “We need global, secular ethics | opinion” I seen many of the concerns Dalai had. Throughout the article education was a conversation that was brought up multiple times in comparison with many things. The biggest concept brought up would be peace according to her. She believed that people should stop or at least realized that everyone in the United states was interdependent within each other which wasn’t good since the United States is one of the leading nations that follow with the free world. The main commitment she had like i said was peace which was brought up many times for instance, ” The time has come to understand that we are the same human beings on this planet. Whether we want to or not, we must coexist.” With that said she believed that with all of us being in the same place it would be nice if we were all in the same page rather than all confused on where we stand and in different terms rather than joining together. She then follows the idea of peace by stating this, ” History tells us that when people pursue only their own national interests, there is strife and war. This is shortsighted and narrow-minded. It is also unrealistic and outdated. Living together as brothers and sisters is the only way to peace, compassion, mindfulness and more justice.” Which makes sense because if we look within all events that occurred many of the times chaos takes place it’s because someone wants something that will benefit them rather than them and their fellow partners, neighbors, etc. For instance that statement she had made could be correlated with the U.S. right now with the pandemic of COVID-19 many people headed out shopping for all supplies leaving the most vulnerable towards the sickness in need of supplies. The elderly were struggling for supplies which were the ones that would easily be affected by it making it a delima where we all should’ve thought about it first and helped them in a way so that they too would be in peace. She then later proceeds on the article with the people with education. She believes all teens are the solution to the problems in the future. If they are thought well and made aware of the dangers of the world they could eventually avoid that with higher education and the knowledge of fighting wouldn’t be a priority but talking would drop danger and would raise peace within each other. In her perspective we should all join as one rather than opposing each other because with religion and nature we are all one. With that being said the differences should be put aside so we can learn our similarities. With all of this done i believe that the peace she believes to bring in will have many benefits especially if we stop trying to be in a competition with each other it will help us all grow as a whole making it better for peace because we won’t be fighting or disagreeing for random inappropriate things. It’s all a unity that will have us all together. I too would be agreeing with the commitment of having the peace taken place. I would like to bring attention to the education in and out of school towards the kids so that the understand the meaning of peace so that they wouldn’t have to be in a survival life against others, but on the contrary they would have the ability to link with others to grow to the most peaceful and enjoyable place to be in. With all being said all we can do is start forming groups to join unity for instance a group i was once in to help community reach out and make their voices heard was a group called BROWN ISSUES, and it was a good experience knowing that at some points the kids had the chance to speak up without using violence so that they could be heard and they respected each other because they were all united.

As every religion carries their own rules to a better place. Whether it’s heaven or any destined placed where people rest after death, rules play a major part into this journey. As the question is if right action would mean less suffering, the way of looking into this is that if people would be suffering through life before death and then after death will they be able to rest and not suffer in hell. Well in the noble eightfold, right action develops the explanation of what people do in order to have this followed correctly. As said in the Tricycle article, ” Right action aims at promoting moral, honorable, and peaceful conduct. It admonishes us that we should abstain from destroying life, from stealing, from dishonest dealings, from illegitimate sexual intercourse, and that we should also help others to lead a peaceful and honorable life in the right way.” In a simpler way, be the person that avoids negativity. Be the one that pushes temptation away form thyself because if temptation overcomes then you would be failing what this component is striving for. Honesty will be there because one’s integrity will always be a honorable thing to have in life just as a good trait. In a way i believe that if all of this is done and followed as instructed any individual in the after life will be able to rest and will avoid suffering. Like i said the afterlife, as in the actual living life people would suffer because all of this could be done without control in certain situations and if it’s in that case then many will suffer because maybe they were pressured and that’s when it goes downhill for them and suffering begins, due to the influence and hatred by others. So with the other people not liking what that individual did they would probably make him suffer. Therefore i believe people would suffer less if they follow the rules but only in the afterlife. Other than that between those two readings had truth in the readings. They both had it as a big deal there they believed that suffering would be able to be “cessation” if truth was there and lying wasn’t in place. Which in many cases makes sense because much more pain comes from lying than other things. Compassion and feelings are also a big idea done in these articles that would eventually help the ending of suffering and would have them hold a higher moral. They withstand with the idea of them being a better person and then they will eventually become someone that suffers less.

In my perspective i don’t see the world allowing people to sell their organs because of the danger of people. But i also see why people would want to do such thing as selling their organs. But as we are in a perspective with Kant we should know that he believes that if we do something it should be done for good. Which is whatever action is done it can be reversed making it a neutral decision. Objectifying anyone is a danger in the perspective of Kant because it will be like having humans as objects and selling them.Kant like me would disagree with this idea because most of the people with a price on their body parts is something is wouldn’t like because he believes for self care of the body. The problem with this sale would be the buyer,Why? Well the people who would need a body organ could be poor making it difficult to the poor people to get organs but the wealthy would have all access.

Now for the other perspective mill and utilitarianism would believe that it would be okay to buy/ say organs because people in need of money might sell their organs for money in order to survive.But keep in mind that this is already happening but illegally making it more difficult for people to sell. But in my opinion i believe that we should have for ell organs because the body should be respected without a price and people should accept the wait for a donator.

From the movie we viewed in class for many points the movie had both perspectives on it if it should be a good choice to have this legal or if it shouldn’t. Okwe ( the worker in the front desk of the hotel) had been in a hotel working in risk of getting deported back to his home village due to a misunderstanding. He witnessed many people getting treated unfair and always did something about it. He went so far to a point where he became a surgeon there to save people who were getting their kidney removed. This shown a good because people often did it to save themselves and get a passport, making it safer for them to be there without any issues. But the darkness of the surgery was the conditions the people would be in for the surgery and it would be so bad that some would even die. This was a bigger eye opener for me because it allowed me to see that it can be good for people’s need if it were to happen but the risk of people getting abused and then possibly dying could be an increase of deaths in the population.

Thus reading about kants perspective I got a understating that he is more of a blunt person making it a better understanding that he knows people have to better themselves and no one is how they should be in first instinct.The emotion that the people have could be a good a positive thing but when you think of it people seem to go down deep when their emotions get in the way.

The strengths will include giving a sense of importance of the border issue. It will also be good if they open the borders because there will be a 50-150% increase in economy. It would be bad if these numbers get out of hand because that will result with a 10 percent increase making it a great impact. But why would they want to have open borders. What could possibly be the best result that one could be getting by having them open, well it’s a reproduction of new innovations. The amount of people that would go in would help reproduce more industries rising numbers making them excel at a high percentage. But of course how nice it could sound if it all went well it could be a long period time wait to address what is going to be done. People would need to know what and where things should be done. Not keeping in mind that people would have to obey new laws/ policies that would be addressed making them more of a strict location to work in. There’s a lot of work to be put into this and more data to back it up so that maybe it could be more reasonable to back up.

The support mill gives for happiness would be the perseverance of wanting to be happy, good and good would happen happen back. If you do not have happiness, people would be thinking negative, the pleasures one chooses is the chosen by the the feeling it gives you. It might not be the right one but if it up rises your feelings you will feel like this right. Thus making it wrong because what u get should be for the integrity and right path you choose.

The differences of relativism include that ethical relativism is an action that is right if it is approved by their culture and it is wrong if disprove by them. The difference would be that cultural relativism is morally and this is more like acceptance. Not everyone could agree on it, but also any individual could be bias on what they have against another culture because they don’t understand or actually morally accept what they have within cultures. This is a way of difference because they can’t agree on it and if they don’t agree with the action or thought the result would go straight to saying it’s wrong. An example of this was with the text of female genitalia when it’s discovery on it was demonstrated with the western side not being so common with this while in the African culture it was a different story and was a normal thing for them making it acceptable. These methods in my opinion allow cross cultural judgement because it doesn’t rely on someone’s approval of a moral but of someone feelings. The culture here shows the judgments when it’s not what occasional occurs in their own culture. For many cultures i don’t have a say but at least for the Hispanic culture when a child misbehaves it would result in a spanking. This for many groups of cultures would seem for child abuse but that has a big reason to it because the kid is being hit for unreasonable behavior. But although feelings do have a lot to do with any scenario it makes it difficult to realize if it’s actually difficult to realize their actual moral values of their culture. Culture is being used to be studied in a bias perspective to notice whether how people judge certain actions from or to another culture that doesn’t adapt to them. According to people’s cultural values logical reasoning within the culture is used to distinguish whether or not something results in being immoral. Page 61 in the text does explain this which then flows through a moral acceptance to finally get to it’s conclusion that moral b is fundamentalist immoral if it’s reflected on what culture beliefs. What they say is that if the culture values maternal-fetal health then how is it ok to promote something that is known to cause perinatal and neonatal infections or even complications during childbirth. In some cases that seems to be a controversy because the principle goes in and ties off the debate of middle east and how people treat women to assume that it would cause an eye opener for the people. If it’s within your culture you should always have a say or atleast know what is going on. But if the culture is one that you’re not used to the better thing to do is to let others speak with the knowledge they have of their own. Although it was close to the beginning of the article a statement caught my attention and this is what it said, “About 80 million living women had ritual surgery involving removal of parts of their external genitalia, and a additional 4 to 5 million girls undergo it each year” But the reason this caught my attention was because those numbers are huge since if looked upon data women are almost half the population in the world, meaning that half the world is getting surgery that is unacceptable.