Keeping a Promise

To keep or not to keep

To keep a promise or to determine that keeping a promise is moral is not something that as a group can decide upon. A group makes decision base upon a majority of the votes, thus minority of the voters are there to criticize the decision. This is peoples’ individuality at work. Even though, the group has decided on their decision on the moral issue of keeping or not keeping promise; the group, then, has force those who are not of favor of the decision to convert. Thus, people will deal with another moral issue of force people to accept the decision.

Groups, I think, are not all bad; however, the first step is for people to decide upon themselves to make keeping a promise moral or immoral. From there, it can be reasonable to find other individuals with the same values, to join in a group to make the decision process easlier. The decision can be made base upon an individual’s happiness. If a person feel happiness by keeping a promise to another, and enjoys the kindness received from other for doing a promise; then that individual will value keeping a promise and called it immoral for not doing so and vice versa. Therefore, rather an individual must make the decision to keeping a promise moral or immoral; the decision is made by one’s own will of happiness and means. Thus, keeping a promise opens a channel to make more rights to obligation that are promised, at the same time, holding on to the individual's will of happiness.

Act of Kindness #4

Act of Kindness #4
To a acquaintance

Hosting

Yoshiko Swift is a Japanese DMACC Instructor in the Ankeny Campus. I don’t know her very well and I never took her class at DMACC. I met her once in the Asian Festival and said she was in charge of foreign exchanged program with Sister City of Des Moines, Yamanashi, Japan. Her role was to schedule flights plans, find a room at DMACC and teachers to teach English to Japanese students, and to find host families to take care of the Japanese exchanged students for a whole week through October 13th to the 17th. And she asked me, if I wanted to host Japanese students. I agreed.

Yoshiko then called me 3 months ago. She explained her situation to me and need host families badly. I thought about it for a minute and accept her offer. At the time, I was about to go to my first day at Drake. I was going to host two Japanese students. When the time arrived, I noticed that I was falling behind in my classes. And I could’ve easily told Yoshiko that I didn’t want to host two students. I needed to catch up in my classes. However, I never did tell Yoshiko about my little crisis in Drake and welcomed the two Japanese boys to my family. Of course, my family didn’t have the time to take care of them, so I was responsible to take them places and give them a wonderful time in Iowa.

It has really time consuming. Every day within the week, I had to drive the two Japanese boys to the Ankeny DMACC Campus at 8:00 am and picked them up around 3:00 pm. I take them shopping, bowling, canoeing and etc. I even decided to bring along two addition students, mainly because the host family didn’t know what to do with them and they were afraid that their boys were not having a great time. Plus, I thought it would be interesting for my boys to talk with their friends during their visit in Iowa. Each passing hour could’ve been time to catch up in my classes. Nevertheless, I did it anyways to help Yoshiko and her program. And in the end, she and the two instructors, who came with the students, thanked me and said that they never met a young and kind person, who would take the time out of their busy schedule to help out and showing two or four Japanese students a great time in Iowa. I was the only young person to do such a thing. The experience and their gratitude gave me a great sense of accomplishment, even though I cost me a lot of time out of my classes in Drake.

I guess I tend to do nice things that would bring happiness to other people, but at the same time, make me suffer just a little.

Duty to one self and others

Kant's Theory of our existence

The notion of human beings only to exist for oneself and for others is what interests me the most. Kant said that is a human beings duty is to be a human being and to be object of experiences. Therefore, under my understanding, he is saying that, we, human beings can only exist for ourselves. At the same time, we, as human being, only exist to for other people experiences. Thus, this creates a purpose for everyone in the world; to live for other peoples’ experiences and/or pressure.

So my question to Kant is, “Is this the meaning of our existence?” “If so, did you have a very difficult time spreading the message in religion and science at the time?”
“Were you surprise about your theory?”

His theory makes sense in a way. The only way that a person would exist for me is to be a friend, a teacher, a person to see everyday, a person who has done me wrong or right, a person to talk to, or people just to fill the scenery with. Therefore, it is obviously to see that, from the very core of the concept, which everyone who I see and know is only there to fill my life with experience. What else would my friends and family exists, but to fill my life with sad, happy, and interesting experiences. This theory scared me at first, but now I understand it or I think I understand it.

Contradiction

Contradicting One Self

Contradicting ourselves, nowadays, doesn’t seem to be much of an issue. Mostly because we use reason to separate two issue that are similar. For example, to say that you’re for immigration, for people around the world to an equal opportunity in America; at the same time, you’re for making English as the official language in America is contradicting oneself. Immigrates come to America with a different language, aside from a lot or little English. However, the mere fact that English as the official language in America only suppresses people who don’t understand English, mostly immigrates. But nevertheless, you’re saying one thing, at the same time saying something completely different.

I really can’t decide if this is moral or immoral to contradicting yourself. In a way, you’re only hurt yourself, not others. Unless, you’re in a position to influence other; therefore spreading your own contradiction ideas to other. But other than that, a single individual, who contradicted oneself, is only lose their ability to understand the concepts and reasons between issues. This only involves one person; therefore that one person has created its own way thinking with reason. It is our moral duty, who sees someone contradicting oneself, to convince (persuade) them, who are contradicting themselves, to understand what they are doing. Can we really convince someone to change their way of thinking?

of Benevolence and Justice

Hume's second book
Benevolence and Justice

The first four chapters of Hume’s Enquiry of Concerning the Principles of Moral reviews over his last book theories about how it is human nature to seek happiness and value virtues, characteristics that make us feel good, and ignore the vices, characteristics that make us feel bad and the notion of reason. In this book, he stated that he want to explore and analysis more about our human characteristics of virtues and vices. He starts off with writing about benevolence and how natural it is to help people to help us become more eminent. Thus, I can understand why people do nice deeds for others for the only reason to benefit themselves, for friends and family, or for our society.

However, it his three chapter, he explains how society needs justice, to create order, fairness, and peace among individuals. Yet, we wouldn’t need justice, if everyone was benevolent. The notion of being selfishness slowly arises within us as we create a passion for luxury which is driven by our quest for happiness. Thus, the virtues that we value are slowly replaced with selfishness to own things for our own happiness. And eventually, the saying goes that the person, who owns the more things, wins. And chapter four, quickly belief how this notion of selfishness affect our political society, that creates law to govern the people, base upon our values. However the problem with that is that laws don’t completely control us as individuals. It is our virtues and vices that control our actions. The individuals have a choice to obey or disobey laws for the main purpose to seek happiness within ourselves.