When discussing The Need for Three Independent virtues, I found it interesting that the author described solidarity as thought directed towards the transformation of society.  This concept seems pretty contradictory to me, especially since we discussed whether or not happiness was individually or socially determined.  Obviously society cannot exist or transform without some individual thought, but what do you think of this concept?  Are happiness, virtues, and principles socially determined/agreed upon with individual determination as its roots? Vice-versa?  Is this idea even applicable or relevant to other topics of discussion we've had?

Similar to Collin's question, I was wondering if anyone thinks it is possible to completely separate self interest when deciding whether or not to help someone? Does anyone act completely selflessly, or is there always the question of what will happen to me if I help or not?

Earlier today in class when talking about the Trolley Problem, we talked about some of the scenarios the author used in the text. What it came down to was if it was better to take 1 life or 5. What if, though, that one person was of high importance? To use the same idea from the scenarios we talked about in class what if that one person held the cure for cancer while the other five were average people. Would that change anything? Or what if that one person was the president and the other five were civilians. In those two scenarios what if you could only save that one person or save the five people or kill that one person or kill those five people. Do your obligations then change?  I am curious to hear what people have to say regarding these scenarios and if your views would change.

Self Interest vs. Moral Responsibility

In class today we talked about the trolley problem and the distinction between what we are actively doing and what we are passively doing. In my opinion, no matter what you choose, you are going to feel guilty. I guess it is a matter of feeling less guilty than you would have felt if you made a different decision. In this case, I think it is better to do something instead of just ignoring a situation because truly, you are never going to find yourself being fully resolved about it but it is for sure that you will feel better if you spoke up or acted instead of ignored the situation. In terms of the good samaritan, you should not ignore responsibilities. The question arises- are you responsible if you choose not to do anything? I think the answer is not technically, no, but you will feel awful about yourself in the long run and wish you had taken action in whatever the situation was. Trying is better than doing nothing, even if you are taking a moral risk. In this case, is it better to act with no self interest and just with other's interest in mind? In what type of situation is it ok to act with just a little self interest?

Learning to love to learn.

Today, Stephanie brought up the interesting point that we all could use some work on "learning to learn" which allowed us to decipher the modern education system and its restrictions to our leisure and ultimate fulfillment. It reminds me of a large dilemma my high school came across which was along these lines: obtaining in class for a grade versus the knowledge for the sake of learning. Taking tests and receiving grades are our societies' measuring stick for obtained knowledge in a given subject. However, we have all seen grades lie: depending on variables out of our control (harder or easier teachers, biased tests focused heavily on one part of a subject, getting graded for reasons other than the actual subject such as participation), we may get a grade that does not truly reflect our actual obtainment of the knowledge. In addition, grades have seen to become more important than the actual knowledge since employers will look at your GPA before hiring you. My question: have any of you felt that learning purely for receiving a grade has caused you to care less about the actual knowledge gained but rather more on receiving an A at any cost? What could we do to get back to loving to learn?

Companies or People

In our discussion on Monday, we got on to the idea that companies are different entities than the people that are in charge of them. Although a CEO could enforce their morals, ideas and goals onto the company, it is possible that they could be replaced, while the company still continues on. Take Apple, for example. Even though Steve Jobs is gone, the Apple Company is continuing on with the ideas he put forth. Let’s say, however, that the person who took over after him wanted to add graphics to the outside of the products, going against Jobs’ precedent of simple-looking products. Would this be possible? Would the company allow the CEO to do that? Or would this individual, being the CEO, be able to have jurisdiction to change something like this? In the end, I’m wondering if a company based on the people, or are the people based on the company? Who holds more power in this situation?

I found today's discussion rather strange.  We talked about whether or not a business should be ethical in terms of the environment, and the economy.  In terms of being ethical in the environment, I find it odd that people expect businesses to change but they make no change in their daily routines.  Talking about "going green" and keeping the environment clean would appear to be gaining traction, but I am starting to think that it is all for show.  We make stipulates on others to be green and then some we won't even do the simplest of activities like recycling.  Does this make sense?  It would be different if every one was driving an electric car, was super conscious of how much water they were using, and recycled  everything they could, but we don't do that.  We still consume the products of companies that utilize sweat shops with absolutely deplorable conditions because we are set in our ways on what is an acceptable brand and what is not.  To me, it appears that people are pawning off being ethical onto larger entities so that they can feel good about their lack of it.  We sit around in groups and talk about what should be done, pat ourselves on the back, and call it day.