Who do you save: Your daughter or your niece?

Based on the different philosophers we’ve studied thus far, I would like to present an ethical dilemma to everyone. I came across this moral dilemma on the web and I believe it’s an interesting one.
The dilemma is as follows;

You and your family are going away for the weekend. Your daughter is 7 and is best friends with your niece, who is also 7. Your families are very close and your daughter asks if your niece can come with you on your holiday. You have been on holidays together before and don’t see any problem, so you agree.

You arrive at your holiday destination and the house you are staying at backs onto a beach. The girls ask if they can go for a swim. You tell them that they have to wait until you have unpacked the car, but they can play on the sand directly in front of the beach. They run down to the sand, and you begin to unpack the car. After about 5 minutes, you hear screaming coming from the direction of the beach and it sounds like the girls.

You run down to see what the matter is, and you discover that they hadn’t listened to you and have gone for a swim. There is no one else on the beach and the girls are caught in a rip.

The girls are really struggling, particularly your niece who isn’t as strong a swimmer as your daughter.

You swim out quickly, but when you get there, you realize that there is no way you will be able to get both the girls back into shore on your own. You realize that an agonizing decision will need to be made.

You need to decide which of the girls you will rescue first, you have enough strength and energy to rescue them both, but you can only do it one at a time. You look at the two girls, and your niece is really struggling to hold her head above water and you know if you take your daughter back first, there will be little or no chance that she will survive.

Your daughter is struggling also, but is much stronger in the water and you estimate that if you take your niece back to shore first, there’s probably a 50% chance that your daughter will be able to stay afloat long enough for you return, but you simply don’t know how long she will hold on for. What do you do?

URL: http://listverse.com/2007/10/21/top-10-moral-dilemmas/

Please feel free to address this dilemma from your own philosophical view. Alternatively, you can use one of the philosophical perspectives studied in class to tackle this dilemma.
I’m looking forward to hearing your responses.

Kanye Cites Nietzsche

I saw this on the news the other day and thought you all might get a kick out of it

Is Capitalism a Bad Faith?

Since taking up the Communist Manifesto for symposium on Tuesday, I’ve been thinking about Marx and whether the revolution is on the way. The probably stems from my preoccupation with the Occupy Movement, which seems to be forcing people to recognize the class distinctions we try to ignore in America. I will not go down that argumentative path for this blog post, but instead focus on another interesting question that came about as a result of the symposium.

During the Sartre group’s questioning of my group (Marx), I replied by saying that capitalism could be interpreted as a type of Bad Faith, to reconcile the idea with Sartre’s philosophy. I know it is tricky to cross philosophers, as was proven earlier this semester when we discussed how someone cannot be both a Kantian and Utilitarian. But I wonder if there is some relative applicability with Marx and Sartre, at least when it comes to Bad Faith. For Sartre, Bad Faith is a lie to oneself. This takes many forms, from the waiter to the homosexual friend. But it fundamentally is our attempt to deny the truth of our situation. Marx labels capitalism as a system that constantly evolves and changes itself to prevent “class consciousness.” Could this not be considered an economic form of Bad Faith? Capitalism, in keeping with Sartre’s language, is the attempt to prevent us from realizing the truth of our socio-economic situation and alienation. The only way to exercise our freedom and transcend the facticity of capitalism is through the proletariat revolution that will instill a completely new order. There was some fear expressed that the proletariat revolution would just result in the slave morality Nietzsche wrote about, but the revolution does not merely reverse the current order, but invent a new one where there is no slave or master (now we’ve covered all three philosophers somehow…).

To take up the Marxist argument with some Existential support, isn’t capitalism just an imposed form of Bad Faith? I think the comparison of Bad Faith and transcendence holds true with viewed in connection with capitalism and communism. Perhaps the Occupy protestors, in attempting to change the current system, are really the first of us to transcend the Bad Faith of capitalism in order to bring about the proletariat revolution.

I am, as usual, interesting to hear what people think about this comparison. As I said above, I know that comparing philosophies is often futile, but I think the potential connection between Sartre and Marx is there, at least in the basic notions of Bad Faith and transcendence.

A Closer Look at the Survival Incentive

One of the most common criticisms of communism is that it does not provide a clear incentive for individuals to work, since each will receive “according to his/her needs.” Many of us have expressed this concern on the blog and have supported it with detailed arguments. Inherent in these arguments seems to be the belief that the need to provide the necessities of survival offers the only reliable and universal incentive to work. I do agree that capitalism offers a much stronger incentive to work for survival than does communism. Nevertheless, I would like to question here whether that actually offers an argument for capitalism, rather than one against it.

First, I would like to ask which seems like a better society: one in which everyone must work for his or her survival (and consequently has a strong incentive to do so), or one in which everyone’s basic needs are provided for, so that they can labor for other reasons if they so choose and for other incentives.

Now, there is nothing wrong with the first society in itself. If it happens to be the case that one’s survival can only be provided for through the sweat of one’s brow, then there is absolutely nothing ethically right or wrong with that set up. There is, furthermore, nothing ethically right or wrong with one’s choosing to work or not to work in this situation – it is merely a question of survival. Even so, I think that there is strong reason to believe that living in the second society would be more desirable. For one thing, there is more freedom and less stress, and nobody would die for lack of resources if society could do anything about it.

But let’s consider a third society: namely, one in which there would be enough resources to provide for everyone’s basic needs, except a relatively small segment of the population controls far more than it needs or could ever use, while, because of this, the majority of the population is unnecessarily forced to work for survival. In this case, there is something ethically wrong, because the minority is depriving the majority of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as someone famous once wrote.

The first society, if it ever actually existed on earth, would be akin to the most primitive of hunter-gather societies. The second, which has never existed on earth in any significant size, is a communist society. The third, which exists in this country and many others, is a modern capitalist society.

Now, if I were to rank the societies in order of personal preference, I would put society #2 first, society #1 second, and society #3 in a very distant third (assuming that I would be one of the minority). Furthermore, if I were to rank the three in terms of ethical value, society #1 would be neutral, society #2 would be clearly positive, and society #3 would be clearly negative. I think that many of you would agree with me in both of these evaluations.

Notice that society #3, the modern capitalist society, comes in last on both accounts. This is because we find something inherently wrong with a society that places on individuals an unnecessary and artificial requirement to work for survival. Thus, I hope it is now clear that the fact that capitalism brings about a situation in which people are incentivized to work for survival is not mark for capitalism. Rather, it is a mark against it.

The Spirit of Giving

The winter holidays, in most aspects, is one of the greatest times of the year. Families come together, great gifts, good food...great gifts, etc. There is also, however, a lot of pressure during this time. People are pushing their budgets trying to get their kids whatever they can so that it doesn't seem as though Santa is shorting them presents. Children are also a little weary. It is hard to understand why Santa gave you more or less presents than your friends. This makes me wonder if the common traditions and customs during this time are all that positive. If we consider the roots of Christmas we can see how it has evolved over the years to a holiday that is mostly focused on giving and receiving. In my family we draw names and there is a set budget that everyone can spend so that everyone gets just as good of a present. While I understand this system completely, and I would not want my baby cousin to feel less loved than another, it does seem weird that we have to decide who will give to who and how much they are allowed to spend. My uncle even proposed that the parents just pick out the gift and say it’s from someone else. How ridiculous? Christmas should not be seen as something that causes extra work and overexertion just to find sufficient gifts for your family, right?

It seems some of our practices are teaching kids to be greedy and to view the relationships with their family as gift-getting relationship. In light of this, I don’t believe capitalism or communism has the answer for an “ethical” Christmas. Capitalism creates Christmases that are unequal between families, which could cause jealousy and possible resentment. The argument in favor of this is that if a parent chooses to work harder and make more money their kids deserve to receive better gifts. In our capitalist nation this is the norm and makes logical sense. An alternative to this that Marx may support is creating a Christmas that every family gives and gets the same number of gifts so that there is no difference. Therefore, no one can be made to feel inferior or superior. However, this takes out the spirit of gift-giving in that people are only obligated to fulfill some quota so that they have just as much as the next person. There is no notion of working harder to give something to your loved ones, but something that is already decided. What is a better, more pure way of giving? Have we lost sight of gift-giving? What would the holidays be like without the expectation to receive gifts?

Karl Marx and Black Friday

After visiting Best Buy yesterday for some discounted DVDs, I found an article from BBC describing how this year's Black Friday turned violent at stores across the country (see the article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15879139). I could not help being reminded of Marx's harsh critiques of the capitalist system. 

If anything exemplifies capitalism in America, it is Black Friday. It is a day devoted to consumerism, where the focus on family, tradition, and giving thanks of Thanksgiving Day is abandoned for the pursuit of private property at discount prices. 

And while Marx argues that capitalism alienate the laborer from nature, himself, his “species-being,” and his fellow humans, I think that one can also argue that the capitalist system also alienates two other members of the capitalist food chain--the retailer and the consumer--particularly when viewed through the lens of Black Friday.

First, let’s look at the retailer and the consumer’s relationship with nature—the product of production. The retailer is the most alienated from the product, as he is never owns the product, but simply mediates the transfer from the laborer to the consumer. The consumer is alienated from the product because although he is the final owner of the product, he played no role in its creation. Thus, the product can never be completely “his.” On Black Friday, the gaps between retailer and product and consumer and product widen even more. The retailer devalues the product by slashing prices, and the consumer devalues the product by attempting to give up as little money for it as possible.

As for alienation from ourselves, which Marx describes as the process of production, it is easily apparent that retailers and consumers are alienated from this process, as they are not involved in this process at all.

It is in light of Black Friday (particularly this year’s violent turn) that the alienation between retailer, consumer, “species-being” (or what it means to be human), and their fellow humans becomes starkly evident. Retailers are reduced to their sales job, working 10-hour shifts and being treated by consumers as simply a means to an end. Additionally, retailers don’t act like humans, as this year’s incident of security workers pepper spraying shoppers exemplifies. The consumers don’t act like humans either—they must be contained like a heard of animals, they fight each other with pepper spray or with guns to be the first to the sales or possess the most sought-after private property.

If any day brings out the dark side of capitalism, it is Black Friday. But with the deals as they are, how can we not be consumed by our consumerist culture?

Communism: It's the Answer (to life, the universe, and everything in it)

One of our tangents from the symposium the other day has kept me thinking these past few days. Dr. J’s question about the compatibility of democracy and communism was really a new idea for me. So often, people, probably those who don’t even really understand what communism really is, portray it as the most evil of all evils, the greatest imaginable threat to democracy. It’s an incredible idea to imagine a system in which the two are not mutually exclusive and, in my opinion, this idea deals with some of the main complaints against communism quite nicely.

One of the first arguments against communism that pops up in any debate is the problem of incentives. People won’t work (at least not efficiently) if they don’t have something to gain from working hard, unless their very survival depends upon it. This argument, however, is entirely the product of capitalist logic. Admittedly, most people in our society would avoid work if they could enjoy their same quality of life without it. The only reason work is such a burden, though, is that the system of capitalism alienates it. We are so enshrouded in capitalism that we might not even be able to envision a world in which the true satisfaction of free conscious labor drives people to produce instead of desperate self-interest, but I’m sure we’ve all experienced this phenomenon to a smaller degree in that feeling of pride you get after finishing some kind of project.

The next common initial complaint is where the potential for the coexistence of communism and democracy really comes in handy. In practice, so many of the attempts at communism have fallen into the traps of dictatorship and tyranny. The association between the two, communism and the complete elimination of the voice of the people, is deeply ingrained but essentially unnecessary. Communism only truly demands the elimination of the corrupt and abusive capitalist economic system. The representative system of government we prize could remain and thrive in this new system, free from the cruel reigns of capitalism. Aren’t the ways capitalism most blatantly interferes in our government the things that bother us the most, the lobbying power of big business, the way corporations are valued over (and even considered) people?

I’m pretty well sold on this communism thing. And if the Occupy Wall Street movement is any kind of real indication, so are a lot of people. Are you?

New System, Anyone?

I don’t know about you guys, but learning about how Marx saw capitalism really resonated with me and even disturbed me because of how accurate it seems to be. No one actually likes going to work 5 days a week even if that person, like Dr. J., LOVES what he/she actually does. It is not the action itself that necessarily makes one dissatisfied, but the very fact that the action is one’s living, one’s source of income. And this really got me thinking about alternatives—about HOW the human population could possibly come together and decide on a more fulfilling, enjoyable, and still sustainable system for living in general. I personally believe that such an alternative is completely possible, but I think that the systematic world in which we find ourselves today is the main hurdle in finding that alternative. Since infants, we are socialized into these kind of lives where adults MUST earn money and MUST go to work. The hardest part is imagining if the world were a blank slate: how COULD people get what they actually need to survive then, and how COULD people find a higher sense of fulfillment in everyday activities? How should one go about trying to imagine a completely new system of “economics” outside of capitalism?

While many, if not most people, probably reject the importance of forming such an imaginary society outside of our cultural and social influences, I would argue that this is in fact the most important thing to do if people really want change. If people only knew of such a system, they could then view it in relation to the economic system as we know it and better identify HOW to change it. This would take huge education reform, since any huge transition like this would mean that everyone would need to be informed about it and get on board. Not saying this kind of thing could actually happen, and not saying that everyone should want such change, but I think its interesting to think about what such a change would need and what it would mean for the planet in times to come. Anyone interested in big change? Anyone interested in emerging from his/her limited perspective to see if there’s a better system out there in the land of imagination?

Professional Ballerinas Experience Irreversible Effects of Alienated Labor

We established that through Marx’s theory of alienated labor that because of capitalist logic we are alienated from multiple things. The one that I will be focusing on is the alienation from ourselves. Through “alienation from ourselves”, Marx means that we are alienated from our true essence because we are the farthest from who we truly are when we work. In class, Dr. J put it like this: “When humans are free in leisure, we revert to animal functions, while when humans partake in human functions (work) we revert to acting like animals.” As working humans, we are not only physically exhausted but also mentally exhausted, and we are never truly ourselves.

When we learned that part of Marx’s alienated labor theory, I was wondering about the scene of professional ballerinas. Professional ballet dancers face many physical and psychological disorders because of their eating disorders. For those of you who have seen the movie, “The Black Swan”- that is the type of lifestyle I am thinking of. Most professional ballerinas face a lot of anorexia and bulimia related disorders. Many of the ballet dancers want to get a place as a principal ballerina in the company they are in, like in “Black Swan.” This dream literally leads them to insanity.

In an article analyzing the reality behind the movie, “The Black Swan,” here is a part of the analysis by Carlin Flora:

“But classical dance in particular seems to harbor more pain than gain. One recent study found that high-level ballet training is associated with "late onset of menarche, menstrual disorders, lower weight and height development, and abnormal feeding disorders." And as for eating disorders, another study found that it's not just the pressure to be thin per se that makes ballerinas susceptible, it's the interaction between that pressure and their personalities, which tend toward perfectionism and neuroticism--hallmarks of anorexia.”
From: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201012/black-swan-art-and-madness

These professional ballerinas do this as their career. Marx would claim that the ballet dancers are forced to be like this and deal with the mental and physical strain of their job because of the capitalist logic. Thus, the dancers are not themselves when they are at work.

Capitalist logic’s alienation from ourselves is dangerous factor. Thus, I do not understand how these professional ballerinas can ever be themselves if the mental and physically exhaustion is a permanent state that carries over even after work hours.

Do you think that professional ballerinas can ever truly be themselves if the mental and physical exhaustion that they experience as a result of alienated labor carries over into their “work-free” time?

The Transitive Property of Debt

I wake up in comfortable bed, because my convenient alarm goes off.  Then I go shower in warm water and get dressed in fashionable clothes.  I’ll then check my facebook, text my friends, or maybe play some video games before class starts.  After class I’ll go eat a filling and tasty lunch.

This is just half of my day, but a Marxist might say that in that half day I have done nothing but distract myself from the injustices that I’m constantly being put under.  During all of this time I am paying dearly to receive my college experience and to have all my material possessions.  When I realize this I have to ask myself, “Why can’t I teach myself what I’m learning now from books and why do I need a degree to get a job?” 

College takes up so much time and money, but that is the direct result of supply and demand, the determining factors of the free market economy.  Different firms demand workers who are skilled and the worker force tries to supply that.  The firms and their leaders are the bourgeoisie, while people like myself who have nothing but the skills I have acquired and the sweat of my brow are the proletariat.  We get our degrees for the firms and their “private property” while sacrificing all that our families and we have to pay for the education.  An education that we then use to attain a salary to pay back those debts that the firms through the transitive property have put on us.  The pressure our society puts on us to become educated comes from the firms so that they can benefit from us while we suffer.

However, for now I can distract myself until I graduate and have to work endless hours to pay off the debt I have incurred from college and so much more.  That I can pay off with the salary that is only possibly compensating me fairly for the work that I give up to the firm.

Response to Communist worries

Following our session on Thursday, I've noticed a certain amount of replies revolving around fear of loss of technology. Students express concern over humanities laziness revealing itself. These are not unfounded concerns, and have certainly been evident in our society for a while.

My family has been a part of the medical field for a long time. My mother worked in a cancer center, my grandmother for the OR, and my grandfather in the ER. All have individually expressed concerns and fears for communist or even socialist ideals.

My mother once told me "No one would ever want to become a doctor. Why go to school for 10 years of hell, just so you can get the same reward as your neighbor who works on cars?"

My Grandmother explained to me that there was a possibility that invention would subside or cease. Again, if no reward existed, why do it?

However, I do believe that their arguments are based in a fear of communism - created by the Red Scare. They rely on money as the sole motivation for work, and disregard the contributions that theoretically would occur in a naturally arising communist society.

Basically - people do this for more than money. Does no one remember the stories of lawyers and nurses who took food as payment in the Great Depression? Veterinarians and Car Technicians who exchanged services in return for meager payments? Does no one remember children who wanted to become doctors and astronauts before they even fully realized what money is?

Yes, these are all idealistic principles - but they are only termed "idealistic" due to jargon created in a capitalist society. Would they still be idealistic outside of this society? Further more, doesn't the term "idealist" point to some sort of truth in the matter?

Though this is enough to convince me to not totally disregard communism, I understand firmer arguments must be made. For those that require it - look towards popular news. Reporters and journalists reveal hidden truths in medical science. It's more economically beneficial for the pharmaceutical companies to provide relief for diseases rather than cures for it. Why sell a cure for $100 dollars when you can sell monthly pills for $20? The benefits are seen within half a year.

Conspiracy theories exist revolving around these ideas, some more crazy than others. However, there is some truth in the matter. Economically - it is more beneficial to the companies, the doctors, the insurance providers. The only one who suffers is the person who's already sick anyways. In a capitalist society, where so much focus is on money, what's the benefit for providing a cure? Why in the world would someone work so hard to discover something that would make them less money than if they kept their mouth shut?

Unless, of course, you're willing to say that there's more to motivation that just money...

A Marxist Dystopia

I know this is an early blog post. Ok ok it's reaaally early. Like almost a week early. I just I wanted to make sure that I got this in before we left for break (otherwise, I’d never turn one in)

I can’t stop thinking about our discussion of Marx last week. I have 2 major problems with Marx’s work. The first is about an assumption he makes. The second relates to his argument justifying his utopian state.

First, I should say up front that I think, in general, Marx’s argument is a solid critique of capitalism. He certainly exposes the inherent problems of capitalism as an economic model. For instance, he is right about dramatic economic disparity. That is definitely a major problem. However, that doesn’t necessitate a revolution and the creation of a Communist state.

First, Marx seems to ignore the basic, fundamental aspects of human nature. Namely, he ignores the notion of economic incentive and intellectual property. If each person works according to their ability and receives according to their need then why would we work harder than we have to?

As for the According to Marx, a Communist society has full employment and no abject poverty. We cannot lose our jobs, we cannot lose our homes, we cannot starve, and (most importantly) we cannot receive extra rewards for our exceptional work. What’s the use then?

To the workers of the world: Why work harder than the bare minimum if there is no system of incentives (or disincentives)

For the entrepreneurs: Why invent medical devices? Why develop efficient means for transmitting information (email) or transportation (automobiles). In a Marxist “utopia”, society stagnates.

Secondly, I take issue with part of Marx’s argument. Marx would certainly respond to the criticism above by suggesting that I have been conditioned to think in terms of a capitalist society (one that requires private property, distribution of goods, etc.). Since I have been conditioned by that economic model, I am having difficulty conceptualizing the Communist state and “how people would act in that state.”

There are two big problems with type of argument.

(1) It is not a response to the argument against Capitalism. This diverts attention away from the real critique and ignores the issues raised. “You’re just conditioned to think in terms of a Capitalist society” is non-responsive to the central argument against Communism. That’s a problem. Not very compelling.

(2) By Marx’s own argument, human civilization has progressed through cycles of economic models, from primitive, to slave, to feudal, to Capitalism (and, eventually Communism). Since that’s the case, it seems that literally everyone has been conditioned to Capitalism. Since we participate in the capitalist society and work for wages, our labor is alienated and we view goods/services from that perspective. Thus, it follows that we are all conditioned. Despite this, Marx expects the Proletariat to rise from this, somehow see the light and recognize the contradiction in Capitalist logic. In other words, he expects the proletariat to inexplicably overcome their Capitalist conditioning. How do they realistically achieve this? I have no idea.

Marx is the only one who can understand his vision for a Communist state….

(I say that hyperbolically)

Conflicts with Marx

It’s interesting how the majority of Karl Marx’s theories are a mixture of many other philosopher’s beliefs. It seems to be an advantageous way of developing a theory though because you can take only the parts of their ideas that appeal to you and leave the rest. Of course though, even when creating a philosophy this way, there are going to be debates and disagreements, but it’s also interesting how widespread Marx’s critiques are. Looking at it from a political perspective, there are disagreements on the left and the right side of the political spectrum.

When Karl Marx wrote his book, “Communist Manifesto” he states that all men are born free but that society has got to such a state that the majority of people are in chains. Marx thought that working men and women should create the conditions for their own existence, because everything of value in society results from human labor. He also says that Income tax should be graded to income, in that the more an individual earns, the more they should be paid and vise versa, the less you earn the less you get paid. I can see how some people would be for this, while others against; it all comes down to politics. But then he argues for the abolition of property and ownership of land and I don’t see which side would be for this. It seems like no matter who you are you are going to want to be able to own something of your own. Do you agree? It seems that Marx’s beliefs are giving the working class hope of a better life. In that the workers would have an intellectual who was on their side and who was fighting their cause. But if you are apart of the working class are you really going to want to have to say that you have worked hard yet own nothing? Personally, I don’t see which side of the political spectrum would fight for that.

I would say that another main criticism of Marx was that he undervalued non-economic forces. He seems that place such a great deal and emphasis of his beliefs in an “economic shell,” that he neglects the concern of non-economic issues. I think critiques of Marx would say that he failed to take into account patterns of culture and a country’s traditions. Is Karl Marx’s theory not all about the economy?