Grace's Blog

There are four noble truths: life is suffering, source of suffering, cessation of suffering, and the path. In Buddhism, the eightfold path is the path to the end of the suffering. I’m going to focus on the second component of the path, which is right thought. Right thought is the thought of renunciation, non-ill-will, and harmlessness. It is having loving thoughts towards yourself and all things without unhealthy attachment.

This is an important thing for me to apply to my own life. I constantly struggle with having right thought – self thought, thoughts of others, thoughts of the world, and being able to let go of things you shouldn’t hold onto. I think it’s an interesting idea that suffering stems from holding onto the painful things and I have constantly struggled with being able to let go of these things that are harmful to my thoughts.

I do think right action would decrease suffering, as it is abstaining from things that are harmful to the world and others. I think the 4 noble truths are so interesting. The idea that we, as humans, all suffer, but to remember that there is an end to it, and there are ways to dull the suffering.

When I was asked to think of a time I’ve seen someone be truly virtuous, I had to really think about it. Not because there’s no good or kindness in the world– there is. But I just get detached from my memories sometimes. So I had to think. And I remembered a time when one of my closest friends, Angel, and I were driving back to my apartment from McDonald’s with a large french fry and a large Sprite. There’s an overpass on the way to my house which is frequently populated with homeless men and women. Today was no different. But this time, Angel stopped the car, and got out. In her trunk was a king-size blanket, which she handed over to a man on the sidewalk. I already thought that was so nice of her. But then she surprised me even more. She reached over for the McDonald’s bag and handed it to him. If you know Angel, you know she doesn’t share food, much less fries. Much less hot, fresh, McDonald’s fries.

This was a moment when Angel was thinking not of herself, but of someone else. Doing something good just for the sake of goodness is a wholesome act we all need to focus on participating in.

Aristotle believes in the importance of friendship and that living well can only truly be achieved by people who have friends — “Without friends, no one would choose to live, even if he had all other goods…” I have never considered my friendships to be in the categories Aristotle has proposed; I’ve thought more I have best friends, friends, and acquaintances. After reading Aristotle’s proposition on the three different types of friendship, I agree with him.

He states there are three types of friendships: ones of pleasure, of utility, and in virtue. A friendship of utility is beneficial rather than just useful — they do not love each other for themselves, but rather the the good they get from each other. An example would be the barista at the coffee shop or the clerk at the grocery store. Once the interaction is over, the friendship of utility ends.

The second type of friendship is friendship of pleasure, which ends when the pleasure is no longer there. They love for the pleasure they get from each other, like friends who you only party with. Aristotle compares utility friendships and pleasure friendships by saying “… those who love for the sake of utility do so for the sake of what is good for themselves, and those who love for the sake of pleasure do so for the sake of what is pleasant to themselves”, and only for as long as they are useful or pleasant.

Friendships in virtue have a shared commitment to the good. These friendships are between people of similar virtue who bear goodwill to each other and who are wishing well to each other. True friendship to Aristotle is useful and pleasurable, but it is not its only purpose. Good friends seek the good for their friends.

After reading this, I could identify people in my life who fall into all categories. I definitely have friends based on utility: the guy at the car shop, my waitress, the cashier. My pleasurable friendships are people who I enjoy being around but don’t really have much love for them outside of the environment we are in. When I think of pleasurable friendships, I think of my coworkers and the friends that I only party with. My complete, virtuous friendships are with those I am closest too. We motivate each other to be better continuously in many aspects of life, but we can also enjoy the pleasures we get from hanging out together. I agree with Aristotle that friendship is an important aspect to a fulfilling life. And I do agree with his three types of friendships, but I do want to note that just because someone isn’t a complete friend to you doesn’t mean you can’t seek the good for them or want well for them, it’s just unlikely you will be there to support them.

According to Aristotle, virtue is excellence as a state of character paired with rationality. State of character is not a feeling or tendency to behave in specific ways, but a condition we are settled in. There are four states, each of which consist of varying forms of judgment, action, and feelings. Virtue is a voluntary intermediate state between two vices – excess and deficiency. and is attained by maintaining the mean between these two states. Someone who is virtuous has the right judgment, right action, and right feelings, so they embody excellence of character. You can do virtuous things without being virtuous, though. I also believe that to be virtuous you must choose your ends for your own sake.

Virtues are considered traits by Aristotle, so to be virtuous one must practice these tendencies until the virtue is internalized. Some virtues I think are important to learn are generosity, honesty, and courage. I think the only way to be virtuous is if you truly want to do a service to humanity. As mentioned before, you must exist between excess and deficiency. A virtuous person is someone who knows what to do, does it, and feels good about doing it. It can also be referred to as excellence of character.

Eudaimania is the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, and can also be defined as happiness. Virtues play an important part in happiness, as being virtuous creates happiness. I do believe if you do not act with virtue you will be less happy than you would if you did.

Kant says that someone who does something motivated by sympathy to help someone would not be doing something of true moral worth. Doing something with the end goal of helping someone else would seem morally correct, but it’s a hypothetical imperative. A hypothetical imperative is when an action is commanded for bringing about some further end, or an imperative based on inclination or desire. Things that are truly morally correct would be a categorical imperative as those are actions that are commanded for being good without qualification, which shows good will — things that are good in themselves. Acting out of obligation to someone else is not acting truthfully or morally as there is reason behind the actions being made.

The way I see it, doing something of true moral worth is doing something without question, obligation, or reciprocation. If I were to see a homeless person and desire to give them food because I felt bad for them or because I wanted others to think I was charitable, instead of doing it out of the goodness of my heart, then it is not a moral act.

Mill talks about utilitarianism— The Greatest Happiness Principle, which says that actions are right as long as they promote happiness, which is described as pleasure and the absence of pain. Actions are wrong when they promote unhappiness. All desirable things are either desired for the pleasure they will bring or prevention of the pain. But to say life has no meaning but pleasure seems like a believe worthy of swine. The accusers have claimed that humans are not capable of pleasures that swine don’t also have. However, as Mill points out, some pleasures are more desirable and valuable than others. As human beings, the things that make us happy and bring us joy are not the same as the things that make pigs happy. I don’t believe that utilitarianism is a pig philosophy as Mill makes distinctions between us and them. As beings of higher faculties, we require more to make us happy and are capable of more intense suffering. I think of it like that saying that’s like, you can’t have light without dark. As humans we have experienced very low lows that help but the highs into perspective.
Mills explanation for some choosing lower pleasures over higher pleasures is that when the capacities of enjoyment are lower, they are more likely to be completely satisfied. And those with higher capacities of enjoyment are more likely to feel dissatisfied. But “it is better to be a human being satisfied than a pig satisfied” (Paragraph 8). He proposes a few arguments but they all end with him concluding that people will not choose lower pleasures instead of the higher. I agree with him — as someone who has experiences high highs and low lows, I know neither of them would be as impactful if the highs were lower. Human beings get to experience a lot of things that pigs don’t, and I don’t think many people would trade it just for a “simpler life”.

Loretta M. Kopelman makes a distinction between two types of relativism: ethical relativism and descriptive relativism. Descriptive relativism is the view that people from different cultures do act differently and have distinct norms; however, descriptions about how we are different do not entail statements about how we should act. On the other hand, ethical relativism is that an action is right if it is approved in a person’s culture and wrong if it is disapproved. Another way people phrase this is to say if something is right it has cultural approval, and when it is wrong it has cultural disapproval. According to ethical relativism, there is no way to evaluate what is moral across different cultures. Kopelman says, “… people can express moral judgments about things done in their own or other cultures, but they are expressing only their cultural point of view, not one that has moral authority in another culture.” It’s tough to decide how to approach this, because while it’s important to respect and understand other cultures, their moral norms are often supportive of the mechanism of oppression. When making a moral judgment about a culture from outside a culture, however, It has no moral force.

The two types of relativism share methods of discovery, evaluation, negotiation, and explanation that can be used to help assess moral judgements. As different cultures, we can collectively agree how to approach and handle methods and research in science, engineering, and medicine, as well as how to translate, debate, deliberate, criticize, negotiate, and use technology. To get to this, though, we had to agree on what was a good method vs. a bad method to approach all of the above mentioned topics. 

I think that when it comes to things like genital mutilation, yes, cross cultural judgment should be allowed. The judgments are not to diminish or destroy the culture, but instead to try to improve the quality of life. And, as she mentioned, we have cross-culturally agreed on many things that are of importance. Why is it so hard to be able to agree on something when it comes to ethical discussions? She had also mentioned that if taking away “female circumcision” makes their society fall apart, then it probably didn’t have a very strong foundation anyways. I think that society is progressing — all societies and cultures — and there’s nothing wrong with changing some traditions that are no longer necessary. That is not to say that I don’t understand the arguments against cross cultural judgments, however, I think that in order for us, as a human race, to continue to grow and progress, our individual societies and cultures and traditions have to progress with us. 447