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?