As we talked in class today about reciprocity, we talked about it where the employee does positive things for the company and the company does positive things for the employee. While this does make sense I was wondering if anyone thought that the employee could do positive things for the company even when the company does not do positive things for them. The only example I could come up with would be if the employee is demoted and for risk of losing his or her job they go above and beyond to positively help the company. I am not sure if this counts as reciprocity or just working out of fear.

Relationships by Judgement

As I mentioned in class today, small talk helps us develop a perception of how comfortable we can be with whoever it is we are having that conversation with. This is why I think that we cannot make the judgements we usually can when the conversations we are having are not in person. Social interactions include sharing a common idea, but the idea is more drawn out and discussed in person than through the internet or on text message. Since we are taking away the suspicion of having to make ourselves and the other person feel welcome, we almost feel more comfortable speaking online to someone since they cannot see how we are reacting. We are ultimately disassociating ourselves physically, which in the end prevents true bonding and honesty on a personal level. When we see people's faces, we feel we need to take responsibility for things. While we can be swayed by tones, looks, etc. in person, it is much more so online since we cannot as easily read other people if we are not seeing them. Judgements are much more limited with relationships formed on the internet, which can ultimately become dangerous.

As we talked about enhancements, we talked about them rather negatively. Whether or not one believes that different enhancements are negative, I believe it is up to the person who is going to have the enhancement to decide that. It is their decision, they are going to have to live with it for the rest of their life, they should have the choice. Also I believe that any enhancement that is going to benefit one, make one's life better, should be seen as a positive thing, even if the enhancement is not necessary. Why should someone have to suffer with bad eyesight if there is an enhancement that is going to help them? Although laser eye surgery could be seen as an unnecessary enhancement, it is going to have a positive impact on someone's life, and why shouldn't that be okay?

Enhancements

Last class we discussed whether or not morality should come into play when considering enhancements to the body. We discussed in particular the discussion of obesity and the way that there may be a frame of mind which judges these people for being "lazy" or incompetent. This judgment comes from the availability in this time period to change the body quite easily, and the impact of media to create imperfect ideas of the body simply by "eating well and working out." We also discussed the concept of unplugging family members or loved ones that have been declared brain dead. I noticed that as we were discussing and answering such dilemmas that along with the question of morality could be the question of empathy.

Do you think that with the option of more convenient enhancements for our body we've begun to lose a sense of empathy for our fellow peers, family members, loved ones, etc.? Do you think that by saying that all "obese" people are lazy if they don't have a predisposed condition for being so is judgmental and lacking empathy, or simply a fact of 21st century life? The same question could be applied to unplugging patients declared brain dead--is this a question of basic empathy or should we be more practical because there are so many enhancements available?

The question of which type of friendship, meaning female or male, is better was posed in class the other day. I do not think that either one is more important or of better value than the other. I think that each different friendship, either male or female, we have is different than another, not better or worse. You might tell one friend, male or female, something but not the other, not because the friendship is better, but because it is different and you know that person, male or female, will understand what you are saying. All friendships are different, and that is because all people are different. So in order for one friendship to be "better" than another, one might think that that implies that one friend is "better" than another, and I do not believe that any person is better than anyone else, just different. Therefore, no friendship, male, female or mixed, is better than another.

Second essay assignment

The second essay assignment is available on Blackboard.

Being a Christian

Reading your essays had made me do a lot of thinking about happiness, which I hope to be able to write something about. However, in the meantime it has posed a question I in turn want to pose to you. 

The question is: can you be a Christian if you do not understand the depths of human suffering?  

Now by Christian I mean specifically someone who clings to the teachings of Christ, not merely someone who reads and "follows" the Bible (for the latter can do many "Christian" things that contradict the teachings of Christ). 

My question is not if understanding the depths of human suffering is a sufficient condition for being a Christian, but only if it is a necessary condition. 

Secondly, my question assumes that you can understand things without living them, for if lived experience were the condition for understanding, this might mean that everyone understands all of their own experience (and that is clearly false).