Sier Bafaiz Blog

 What are the Dalai Lama’s main commitments? What are their benefits? Do you share any of his commitments?

A Dalai Lama is a Buddhist monk in Tibet and there have only been fourteen of them. Dalai Lama means “ocean of wisdom” and the title of the Dalai Lama is chosen from reincarnation. Buddhist believe the Dalai Lama is reincarnation from a previous one who is been reborn to continue his good work. The Dalai Lama has three main commitments, the first one being the promotion of certain human values, second the promotion of religious harmony, and lastly the preservation of Buddhist culture. The first commitment promotion of certain human values is listed as compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, and self-discipline. Compassion is meant to show our empathy and feelings. For example, if we see someone who is sick we usually either express our feelings or go out of our way to make them feel better. Forgiveness is the ability to look over someone’s mistake and be the bigger person. In reality, we are all human and want to gain happiness and avoid suffering. Not everyone has a religion however those people who don’t recognize the importance of morals and the importance of being happy and helping others. Secondly, the Dalai Lama is committed to bringing peace, respect, and harmony. The Dalai lama respects everyone and they’re beliefs, he wants to bring everyone together despite differences. He wants to show that all religions come together to share one purpose which is to create better human beings. Yes, beliefs may be different in idealistic and philosophical ways such as traditions in act of worship however the main purpose of religion is a commitment to be better and to heal thy self. That’s why it is important for everyone to respect other religious traditions and really try to recognize the value and positive effects it has on individuals. Thirdly the Dalai Lama has a commitment to the Tibetan. The Tibetan is a place he lives and carries his title of the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama is a leader and a spokesperson who plays a major role in being the voice of the Tibetans. The Dalai Lama works hard to keep the Buddhist culture and religion alive for example promoting peace, nonviolence, and the language.   

Do you share any of his commitments? 

Yes,  actually I do share some of the Dalai Lama commitments, such as the first commitment. I believe that humans should practice compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment, and self-discipline. I personally use these traits on a daily basis and I have seen the benefits and importance of them. Forgiving helped me stay calm and at peace, compassion helped me be selfless and help the ones who can’t help themselves, contentment made me stay humble and appreciate what I have. Personally I feel as if Self-discipline has been the greatest factor in my life because without it I wouldn’t be able to achieve anything. Self-discipline is important in all aspects of life such as being patient with others, practicing, and studying. 

I come from a religious background so and I have taken a world religion class to better understand other people’s religions, and from doing so I can contest and agree that almost every religion instills good in others. The power of religion is something beautiful because it can help others in so many different ways such as mentally and emotionally. There are so many people in this world that go through so much but build patience, acceptance, and good habits through the power of faith and belief. 

605 words

Blog Prompt 11: Focus on a particular component of the eightfold path and apply it to your own life. Do you think that right action would mean less suffering? Refer to both readings in your explanation of the connection between virtue and the cessation of suffering.

Buddha was a well-known philosopher who was a spiritual teacher as well as a religious public figure who had dedicated forty-five years of his life to his teachings. The eightfold path was a guide that was taught by Buddha, it was a path to help the vicious cycle of suffering. The eightfold path consists of the right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. These eight aspects of life are supposed to be used in everyday life. However, Buddha had stated “It should not be thought that the eight categories or divisions of the path should be followed and practiced one after the other in the numerical order as given in the usual list above. But they are to be developed more or less simultaneously, as far as possible according to the capacity of each individual. They are all linked together and each helps the cultivation of the others.”(p. 3) The eight categories aren’t meant to be in a specific order, they are to be used whenever needed. There are times where we want to fulfill our desires and be happy, however, when we aren’t satisfied we have to recreate ourselves from within, as well as rethink how we live our lives on a daily basis. Everyone has a different life and does what they can to make ends meet. However, that doesn’t mean the way they make ends meet is right. “Right livelihood means that one should abstain from making one’s living through a profession that brings harm to others, such as trading in arms and lethal weapons, intoxicating drinks or poisons, killing animals, cheating, etc…. and should live by a profession, which is honorable, blameless, and innocent of harm to others.” What comes to mind is my parents who came to America with only two hundred dollars. They borrowed money from family members and others around them, and we got denied from receiving governmental support. My parents worked hard to provide the life me and my sister were so blessed to have but everything they did was clean money. My family is Muslim and in our religion, we see owning liquor shops and gambling as dirty money. There were a lot of people who gambled or insisted they open a liquor store because it was easy money but my father decided to take classes on how to do heating and air conditioning. He went out of his way to learn a trade that kept him busy so he didn’t have to find a job that required him to sell intoxicating drinks, cheat, or kill animals. 

Do you think that the right action would mean less suffering?

I believe that the right action would lead to less suffering because the right action is responsible for having to live honestly and morally which is perfect. Living honestly and morally you have to deal with your self-conscious eating you alive after you do something wrong or lead to negative complications that can catch up and put us in harm’s way. 

Refer to both readings in your explanation of the connection between virtue and the cessation of 

Suffering.

In the readings, it talks about the four noble truths which state that first state existence itself is suffering and “innate trait of existence with each rebirth, we will experience suffering”. Suffering isn’t supposed to be seen as something negative or bad but should be seen as something everyone goes through and we should put forth an effort to resolve it. The whole aspect of pleasure isnt thrown out however in the end aging, sickness, and death are certain and unavoidable. 

The second truth is to define suffering and in Buddhuism desiring and ignorance are some of the main causes of suffering. Wanting something and desiring brings suffering because if you can’t have it your emotions and state of mind and can put us in a bad mindset which would make us suffer. For example, kids desire candy or soda pops at times, and when they don’t get it there way they tend to see it as a sign of suffering. So they cry and whine in hopes of getting something they desire and in response to that they are internally suffering for it. Ignorance is also bad because some people don’t notice either their own faults. For example greed, hatred, and envy come from ignorance. The third noble truth is “cessation of suffering”. Cessation of suffering can be obtained by removing whatever can cause suffering. The fourth noble truth is the Noble Eightfold path. Basically removing anything that can cause suffering. These are different steps that should be taking to achieve the end of suffering according to Buddhism.

831 words

Blog Prompt 9: Should organ sales be legal? Give the Kantian argument. Do you agree? Where would a utilitarian stand?

Personally my immediate answer would be no to selling organs. With the scenes presented in the film “Dirty Pretty Things” it’s almost hard not to agree with it given the events that have occurred. One of the main complaints a lot of people have is about “freedom” and the right to do what they want to with their body. In most cases they can as long as they don’t harm themselves or others. Now giving up organs for money is where it gets tricky. There are immigrants who would love to give their organ away at a chance at a better life however is it the right thing to do? According to Kant rationality is an essential feature of the self. However the rationality can’t have a motive, there should not be something waiting after a choice is being made that can ruin the rationality, pros and cons have to be in the middle. The moment someone decides to sell their organs for profit is when the rationality is at fault. Speculations come around about safety and how people sell organs on the black market already. Safety becomes a big concern; are people safe while performing these tasks, how often are these tasks going on for. There are so many red flags because there are a lot of legal complications that could occur and the healthcare field is about respect and morale, if they did decide to let people sell organs they would have to do the procedure and save someone’s life that has more money. Is one’s life better to save because one has more money than another person? In my opinion no, so that’s why I believe they shouldn’t even consider making organs for sale an option. 

309 words

Blog Prompt 7:  Kant says that a person motivated solely by her sympathy to help someone in need would not have done something of true moral worth. Why? Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives in your answer and discuss the role of inclination.

Immanuel Kant argues that “a person motivated solely by her sympathy to help someone in need would not have done something of true moral worth” because feeling is never a good guide for morality however logic is the same everyday which moral law should be based with. When someone decides to do an act that does not exactly mean it is an act out of good will because they could be caught in an act to alter a situation to receive a certain outcome. A person has to do the right thing and not worry about the circumstances and outcome which could then be seen as an act of goodwill as well as be seen as moral. Some people might see morality and sympathy as similar however sympathy is more unreliable, because we tend to be more sympathetic to people like ourselves or the less fortunate. The more we see ourselves or our family members in other people the more sympathy we show. Sympathy can go a variety of directions such as racist, classist, genderment. I would say that sympathy isn’t a good guide for morality. A moral decision has to be pure and genuine from the heart but have no feelings attached. Kant believes that a person’s will comes from two different law types, imperative and hypothetical. Hypothetical imperative law is when an action is necessary if something is wanted like a if then statement. For example if one wants to make more money in a week they will then have to work more hours or find another job that pays more. Hypothetical law is based off of our desires and goals. However the categorical imperative is good without qualifications; it is universal, which means it will always be good no matter the situation and circumstance. Acts are done for the sake of being moral, and can be seen as a moral command. Kant believed if we all followed the categorical imperative we would all be acting in the best morally way possible. 

333

Blog Prompt 7: What are the strengths of an argument applying the utilitarian calculation to open borders? Is it a good argument? How could it be better? What are its main objections?

 Before deciding if the Utilitarian calculation to open borders is a good argument we have to first know the definition of Utilitarianism. It is “The general idea that our goal should be to maximize total utility, and is related to the idea of cost benefit analysis” (p.3). We should take full advantage of any situation as long as it can promote happiness or pleasure and how much money is taken account for financially as whole. The Utilitarian justifications for open borders is sought to be seen better for human welfare than the status quo, being more for the general public than social and political views. A big part of the importance of it is the income gains because its seen to that open border is speeding up the process to end world poverty. Economically it is very beneficial because “open borders has a 1-percent increase in global production by means of several trillion dollars of additional wealth creation every year” (p.4). Poor people benefit from the increase, slowly an even playing field is being made between poor people and the rich; there is higher utilitarian gain and its being equally distributed. Large amounts of money is being added due to the open borders. Another topic that is brought up in the article is that it will “Kill the goose that lays the golden eggs” basically trying to empower the less fortunate than empowering the fortunate. This is where the fortunate do not agree with this and they have a problem with open borders. They decide it is bad and they decide that open borders can harm the global and political order and that’s where some of the main objections come from. One is, the killing of the goose that lays golden eggs argument and the second is animal welfare. The people who are able to make political decisions on open borders are fortunate and have the essentials needs one needs to survive and be stable so why not let the poor people have shot at becoming self sufficient and stable? The poor people are able to increase their income. If there are already people with money they have all the essential needs and more but having open borders gives the poor people opportunities in ways they can help themselves such as not having to worry about if they can afford food, clothing, shelter. The rich become scared that they can lose power. The killing the goose argument is ignorant in my opinion because they state that immigrants have low IQ when there is no actual way of measuring it, and on top of that IQ does not measure ones creative design, engineering and science work. Just because a human being is less fortunate as far as wealth and materialistic things in life means that they are not capable of inventing or being smart? That is false! Animal welfare is the increase of utility to more people which will increase the amount of meat consumed by people and it will increase the suffering of animals. That is false, there are thousands upon thousands of pounds of food being each week let alone in a day. These immigrants live around the world which means they have to eat, regardless there is food on this world for everyone to eat! Border control is not just for the United States, if it was some could argue about overpopulating but other than that there is nothing to disagree about.

613 Words

The Greatest Happiness Principle says that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Mill, 1862, p. 3). Utilitarianism is a theory of doing morally right actions with the right intentions in which will maximize happiness. To break it down even more there are two main elements which are what is of highest importance in life and what makes actions right or wrong? Happiness should be for all and the Greatest Happiness Principle says actions are moral if they promote utility and but immoral if they promote the opposite. Utility in this standpoint is happiness without pain. Happiness or pleasure is of highest value in Mill’s principle. For example you decide to fix your car now because you believe it will save you time and money in the future, less suffering and more happiness. This is where using The Greatest Happiness Principle would help with what one should do morally in a situation. When doing a certain action there should be less suffering and more happiness which would be the best choice of action. There needs to be a balance between happiness and suffering in an action. Trying to make yourself happy for social happiness wouldn’t be morally right under this principle however. 

Some might argue that Utilitarianism is pig philosophy but its not, because pigs like happiness as well as pleasure, all they do is eat food, have sex, and play. However human beings are able to do more than just live a life of sense pleasure, they also have intellectual and

385

Blog Prompt 3: Kopelman makes a distinction between types of relativism. What are the differences? What are the shared “methods of discovery, evaluation, and explanation” that Kopelman identifies?  Do you agree that these methods allow for cross cultural judgments?

Loretta Koppelman discusses the relativism in relation to female genital mutilation, she uses a real time conflict in that she had been confronted with when she came across cross-cultural judgement and acceptance. She told us about two different types of relativism. The first is descriptive realism. It is a concept, of fact, belief, that differentiate cultures in which they believe in different things. It is an important part of understanding how the world works as a whole, it could be by meeting people from other regions or reading a book from the past. However, people gather the facts from their own environment/society and become forced to be nurtured in different ways. Ethical relativism is stated to be an “action that is right if it is approved by a persons’ culture and wrong if it is disproved”. Ethical relativism is also known as cultural relativism. For example, in parts of Northern Africa and South Arabia, cultures believe in the circumcision of women. In contrast, Western cultures look down upon those specific cultural practices by struggling to find common ground with the African cultures because this practice has been going on for centuries. “Philosopher Bernard Williams (1985) argues that moral knowledge is inherited by people within particular cultural traditions and has objectivity only within those cultures.” This quote provides proof that people from different cultures have different views on politics and policies. Is female circumcision morally right? I believe it is up to that person and their surroundings to say whether it is right or wrong. Imagine if another culture steps in and tells you that you have lived your whole life as well as the generations before have all been wrong and therefore are trying to force other morals and practices on you. It is an act of moral force, trying to force another culture’s beliefs to think a different way just because one doesn’t approve. Kopelman describes another form of relativism called descriptive relativism, which is the view that people from different cultures do act differently and have distinct norms. They try to understand cultural differences and look for any type of similarities.“Often relativism is presented as the only alternative to clearly implausible views such as cultural imperialism; sometimes it is used to stress the obvious points that different rankings and interpretations of moral values or rules by different groups may be justifiable, or employed to highlight the indisputable influence of culture on moral development, reasoning, norms, and decisions.” This is a quote taken from the reading proving that sometimes you have to accept the way people do things in another culture. Unless the culture shows signs of harm to other cultures who are we to tell them they are wrong? The way we view certain topics, in this case, female genital mutilation, is obviously going to have some cross-cultural judgment because there is a culture that believes this is something that is good and actually beneficial to the women that it is happening to. Due to the fact that other cultures didn’t come together to agree that this method is moral, we as a nation have formed our own opinions and therefore judge other cultures for their beliefs based on our own morals. Although I personally disagree with this practice, I would leave it up to the women in their cultures to have the last say for what goes on with their bodies.

603 words

Ruth Benedict’s argued in her article “A Defense of Ethical Relativism” that behaviors vary depending on the culture and society. This means that what might be morally right for one culture or society might be completely immoral or unethical in another however each culture and society is equally correct. She concludes that moral relativism is a correct way when viewing morality in societies. Benedict begins her discussion talking about the homosexuality and the issue of it, in different cultures. She provides us with examples for her claim when she states “Plato’s Republic is, of course, the most convincing statement of such a reading of homosexuality. It is presented as one of the major means to the good life, and it was generally so regarded in Greece at that time” (Benedict, 1934, p. 3). In this sense, we have a tendency to see what’s virtuously acceptable, by a selected society and what is supported in their practices and ideologies. However in her study in northwest island of Melanesia she brings up that different cultures have different views. Another example is the Kwakiutl, tribe and how the they perceive things differently due to it being a culture that has not been in contact with standard civilization and has not been in influenced by the US especially when it comes to murder. Benedict includes “Among the Kwakiutl it did not matter whether a relative had died in bed of disease, or by the hand of an enemy, in either case was an affront to be wiped out by the death of another person” (p. 2) Eventually when the members of the tribe went out to look for the other tribe, they found seven men and two children asleep and killed them. “Then they felt good when they arrived at Sebaa in the evening”. Americans on the other hand view that as culture shock we would see them as immoral and unethical people to the extreme knowing they felt good about committing a murder. To the tribe members it’s something they have no problem in doing, its part of there everyday life and culture. This example shows us what is moral in one society versus what is immoral in another. Personally from reading Benedict’s article, as well as from my personal experience, knowledge and coming from a different cultural background compared to some of my friends, that morality is relative to culture. I believe in her argument even though I might not believe or agree with different cultures, when it comes to their views. Growing up we all come from either a different ethnic background or a different society group,we see and adapt to social norms in our society. Why I believe in Benedict’s defense is because music is different around the world, but who’s to say one genre is better than another. They are all equal but certain groups of people like different genres and listen to it for different reasons. The same way certain groups listen to different genres is the same way other cultures and society do what they do for different reasons at the end we can’t judge them, we just have to understand everyone’s morality is not the same.

513 words