Layla's blog

Utilitarianism is the idea that the goal of everything and every action should be to maximize total utility. Actions and decisions should have a purpose to an end, as well as actions should be judged by means of their consequences. The basic principle of Utilitarianism is that actions are right if they benefit, or bring the most use, to the greatest number of people.

The main objections from a utilitarian stand point of open borders is that it could endanger the functioning economy, as well as the global economy. The social and political order would be skewed. One of the largest and more threatening objections is that resources would be overused, more than what it is already. The demand for meats and vegetables would be too high, therefore the water, soil, etc, must match that.

I think it is difficult for me to make an opinion on whether or not the borders should be open, simply because I’m not educated enough on the money and political side of this. Given that, I still think that the borders should be open. Many people live in countries where there is constant war, poverty, or famine. Open borders would provide better opportunities for people in poverty. This then will lead to more migration and eventually, more job opportunities. There would also be a 50% to a 150% increase to the Gross Domestic Product, “Even a 10% increase in global production means several trillion dollars of additional wealth creation every year.” I also think that there are basic human needs, and if someone cannot achieve them in they’re current place of living, they should be able to find that somewhere else. My parents fled their country due to a war, and went to Europe as refugees. My Mom was sent to England and my Dad was sent to Italy. If those countries didn’t accept them, me and my siblings would not have a life, or possibly not be here right now. There are millions of people who have the same story. If the borders were completely open, some many lives could be saved.\

word count: 332

Should organ sales be legal? Illegal organ harvesting and organ sales is a rapidly growing problem everywhere. This is due to the fact that with the growing population, their isn’t enough organs to go around as well as a the systems we live in. In the black market, and other underground platforms/economies, many people are offered something; money, passports, fake documentation, in return of an organ. Other times, It could be a person without medical care, desperately looking for an organ.

Kant says, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end, and never as a means only.” From a Kantian utilitarian stance, selling your organs would be as a means, and essentially suicide. Once you put a price on a human, you’re putting a price tag on humanity, and, you would be objectifying and exploiting the human life. One person would gain much more than the other, and the other would loose their dignity and be dehumanized to a price instead of a life. He continues, saying that their are three goals, or goods, we should aim at. Those are the preservation of life, the preservation of the species, and the preservation of capacities. Therefore, in a Kantian perspective, selling ones organs is mere suicide, and is a direct violation of the preservation of life, and, is fundamentally self destructive.

The idea of organ sales ever being legal is quite hard to grasp for me. It’s a very complex topic, and every situation is different. Though, I understand Kant’s perspective, I think organ sales should be legal because there will never be enough organs for everyone, but by making it legal, it could possibly benefit both the people involved. If one person may need money and they are able to sell, they are essentially saving a life and benefiting themselves. Though, I think the legalization would be flawed. Just like healthcare, and many other institutions, organ sales would turn into a monopoly, a literal business, and this can potentially cause more harm than good. There is bad and evil within every government run organization, institute and business, and there will always be people who abuse the system. In my eyes, the legalization would be built for the poor who can’t necessarily pay for a transplant, or healthcare. But, the rich will interfere. Due to this, as much as I think it makes sense to legalize organ sales, realistically, I don’t think it would not work in our society.

word count: 395

Female circumcision/genital mutilation is described as a ritualistic “surgery” done on young girls in parts of Africa and Asia. During these “surgeries”, a girl’s genitally is pricked, prodded, sewn, or cut to preserve a women’s virginity, sexuality, and to “increase male sexual pleasure”. Millions of people a year have this procedure preformed on them because it is said to be a cultural tradition or religious belief. Places like Somalia, Kenya, Mali, to even the Philippines and Malaysia all practice forms of Female genital mutilation.

In Loretta Kopelman’s article titled “Female Circumcision/Genital Mutilation and Ethical Relativism”, she discusses different types of relativism. She describe descriptive relativism as how cultures have distinct norms and do behave differently. Ethical relativism, that has been previously talked about, is the idea that right and wrong is approved by the majority of a culture. Lastly, cultural relativism is the view that beliefs, practices, and values of cultures cannot be judged, or assessed, by other cultures.

Many traditions believe that this practice is right and that it is their duty to complete it. But, there are many objections and disputes around the world. In our society, for example, this would be considered abuse and absolutely wrong. Kopelman asks, do other societies and cultures even have a say or authority to say that the practice of female genital mutilation is wrong? She continues, saying “The right action is the one that is approved by the person’s society or culture, and the wrong action is the one that is disapproved by the person’s society or culture; there are moral truths, but they are determined by the norms of the society” (Kopelman 56). This is along the lines of the stance that Ruth Benedict believes in “A defense of ethical relativism”, that whatever is the most excepted by a society or culture is right. Kopelman challenges this idea, saying that female genital mutilation has absolutely no logical benefits, and because it involves torture, oppression and very young girls and women, that other societies have a moral authority to decide if it is right or wrong.

I think I believe more in the favor of cultural relativism. I personally think that this a more rare case, where a society can’t necessarily intervene and expect another society to change their traditions. Though, I do not think genital mutilation, in any form, is right. We will always judge and differ from other cultures, simply because we are from different cultures. This can even roll onto the idea of nurture. We can apply this on a small scale and ask, if a friend, or stranger we meet has a differing idea, opinion, or behavior than we do, yet they are in the same community, society, and country as us, do we have the right to tell that person that they’re wrong? Everyone is raised differently, with different background, cultures, traditions and religions. I just don’t think a person, society, or country has the moral authority to tell another person, society, or country, that what they believe or do is wrong. As long as it’s not effecting or hurting someone else.

word count: 475

In Ruth Benedict’s article “A defense of ethical relativism”, she says that “most individuals are plastic to the molding force of the society into which they are born…the majority of
mankind quite readily take any shape that is presented to them” (Benedict 4). In her writing, she explains that long exposure to a societies general ideas, beliefs, and traits, causes a person to believe those such things. Though, if someone is not following and abiding to those beliefs and ideas, they would essentially be wrong. I think that environment has a very large affect on views and the way we each think. If you were more exposed to one ideology than another, I think it’s more likely that you will believe that ideology you were taught. This can almost be applied to the debate of “nature vs nurture”, where the question is, are we who we because of biology, or are we made to be who we are. It seems that Benedict would take the side of nurture. If her thoughts on ethical relativism is true, debates can be settled on polls. I think this is some what obscure and almost too simple to say. There are many topics and issues that are extremely complex that a poll can’t necessarily decide, not to mention the room for error. Personally, I believe that there is right, wrong, and the in between and many types of opinions don’t fall in those categories. I think the biggest issues with ethical relativism is that is somewhat disregards morals, and the conversation for right and wrong. Though, it is a good guide. I see opinions on a spectrum and there is a point where morals, logic, and opinions almost meet. I do think, though, that Benedict’s position is logical. You can see this through out most of history, where things were accepted and not ever questioned. A good example would be slavery and colonization, and how during that time, it was perfectly fine to own humans and treat them is horrific ways. Now, times have drastically changed. Culture is continuously changing and because of that, I think the idea of ethical relativism is wobbly, and not a solid way to determine rights and wrongs, or a dilemma. Benedict gives an example that someone is born to play a certain role in their family or culture, if they fail to succeed, they are seen as abnormal and that they have essentially betrayed their culture. The way I see it is that this is a very weak claim. For something like culture to change, which it always is, someone must make that change and divert from the normal. Then, that is when others will follow.

word count: 419

The argument that my group concluded with about justice is, “When children are put in undesirable situations and do not comply, they are often misunderstood, leading them to become victims.”

Growing up, I think the idea of injustice was just a given. I learned of injustice at a young age from witnessing the effects on my own parents. My mom and dad fled their country because of war, and when they came to America, they faced racism, prejudice, and bias just about where ever they went. Being Muslim, black and a woman in a predominately white area, created many instances of injustices for me. In school and in classrooms, kids and even teachers would say, or unconsciously do things that were unfair, bias, and offensive. I think injustice, though, can have different meanings depending on the person and the severity of a situation. It might also have contrasting definitions between people of color and white people, lower class and upper class, as well as men and women. My first face to face encounter with injustice was when I was about eight years old. I was in the car with my older brother, when we were suddenly pulled over. When the officer approached our car, it was clear that there wasn’t a reason why he pulled us over. He asked for license and registration, and searched my brother. The officer then went back to his car. Some time went by, and when he approached the car again, he said to my brother, “You’re free to go, you just looked like a wanted suspect.” Not only was this racist, it was a prime example of racial profiling. My brother could have denied the officer, and not given him his license and registration. But, that would have been seen as resistance, and this was a time when very innocent people were being killed because the were profiled.

word count: 314