Philosophical Perspective Action: I Decided

Philosophical Perspective

Action: I decided to attend college, and obtain my undergraduate degree.

Risk: First, there is the opportunity cost of the income I could earn at a full-time job. I will be less financially stable when I am in college and potentially a greater burden on my parents if I emerge after four years, in debt, and unable to support myself.

Justification: Even if the economy is uncertain at present, in the long-term I am likely to get a better job if I attend college.

Defense or Foundational Knowledge: I want a job that is emotionally satisfying. Going to college and obtaining a degree is likely to get me a job that is better-paying and also more meaningful and intellectually challenging, than if I continue to work at the job I had in high school or even if I find a better job.

Context: I am part of a social community where individuals are more likely to attend college, rather than go to work or even pursue a trade.

Horizon: For me, work is not something that involves simply cashing a paycheck: it has to be challenging and meaningful. I also live in a society where a certain amount of prestige is given to professional work, such as medicine, law, and engineering. Even business-related work requiring a college degree such as investment banking, despite the current disgust with the financial industry, remains respected because of the vital role finance plays in generating wealth for the economy. And yes, additional social cache is attached to having a college degree.

In other societies, even European nations with which I am familiar, such as Sweden and England, highly cerebral occupations that require academic study tend to have a great deal of prestige, even though it is possible to make a 'good' living with one's hands, or owning a trade-related business like a plumbing company in America and elsewhere.

7. Universalization: The universal drive I have is to make meaning of my life, an impulse that is very common in someone in young adulthood.

8. Tacit, Hidden or Unconscious Knowledge: Unconsciously, I am motivated by a series of desires, some of which are contradictory -- I want an occupation that is respected, and I enjoy. I wish to be financially solvent. I wish to learn more than I know now, and not feel 'settled' in a job at this early stage of my life. Neither pure knowledge nor having a steady paycheck is enough, I desire both. I am also motivated to seek higher learning because of the social prestige it conveys.

DQ2: Values and stages

I try to be a fairly tolerant person. However, certain issues cannot be compromised. In this statement, I align myself with Kant and his categorical or deontological principles, namely that an individual should proceed as if setting the law 'for all time' for all individuals.

A friend of mine was visiting from Europe. We were sitting in my house, and he lit a cigarette. I was shocked that he would light a cigarette without even asking me if this was acceptable in my home (it was not acceptable, neither for my parents nor for myself). He explained, surprised that I would object, that cigarette smoking was very common where he lived, and implied that I was being very 'American,' and culturally insensitive in terms of my objections.

However, when it comes to health-related issues, I do not believe that subjective personal impressions and feelings can influence one's ethical decision-making. The evidence is clear that smoking is harmful to the smoker, and also to the person who inhales second-hand smoke. Additionally, we were in my parents' home. I know that they have hard and fast rules about smoking on their property.

My friend took a different point-of-view: he acquiesced to my request, but said that he thought his country had a more reasonable attitude towards smoking: a utilitarian approach. "If everyone is smoking," he said, "why not permit it -- simply banning it will not force people to quit. That is a personal decision, and more pleasure is given by allowing people the option, particularly if everyone or almost everyone in the party is a smoker."

My friend is a good man, but good people can still manifest addictive, 'bad' habits (one reason that the idea of virtue ethics falls flat in relation to health issues). Even allowing individuals to smoke socially, even if it is part of their culture, creates the impression that the behavior is acceptable and causes harm to society: thus, I believe that my anti-smoking stance is not merely, in Kohlberg's terms, a kind of rule-related exercise (although I was enforcing parental rules) but one based upon my belief in a universal principle of upholding the integrity of the body and the right for individuals to protect their health. The right of a person to be free of carcinogenic substances always, trans-culturally, trumps that of someone's freedom to choose to pollute his body.

DQ3: Nuclear shelter

The construct of this exercise -- deciding who will live and who will die -- sends chills down my spine. However, perhaps the best way to approach the exercise is through the process of elimination. The first person I would eliminate is the male mental patient, for fear that he would lack the mental stability necessary to survive for an extended period of time in a shelter. I would also eliminate the six-year-old female child, as horrible as this would be, because a small child would likely be too fragile to survive in a post-apocalyptic scenario, and would need more care than be able to give care to others.