why do people suffer? Why do bad things happen to good people?

People suffer for many different reason and bad things happen to you whether you are a good or bad person. If you’re a good person, why do you suffer? Why do bad things happen to you? There is no distinct answer for either of these questions. I do know that every bad thing that happens to you will bring a change into your life and sometimes it will end up bringing something good. But either way, everything that happens, good or bad, impacts you and changes your life. In the end, life isn’t about finding yourself, it’s about creating yourself and the way you handle bad situations is part of that. Sometimes when bad things happen to good people, it’s because it will somehow be a good thing for someone else.

Take Mitch Albom’s story about Morrie Schwartz for example, Mitch wondered why this happened to such a great man. Every tuesday when Mitch went to visit Morrie, he noticed people would go to see him to say how sorry they were about the news, but would come out hours later crying about their own problems. Because something bad happened to Morrie, it helped all the people that went to visit him including Mitch. It’s very mysterious how these things work but when good people have bad things happen to them it will change other people’s lives.

Suffering is another story, there are different types of suffering. There can be different kinds of physical suffering, but there can also be mental suffering which is what my main topic of discussion will be. Some people self inflict physical suffering and for others no one know why it’s them who suffer instead of someone else. There are people who cause themselves mental suffering as well. as Alan Watts and Sydney, from the “The Pursuit of Happiness is Making Us Miserable” debate, both share a common opinion. People self inflict suffering because we are all in search of happiness and we think we always need more and more to attain it. Every time we get to where we want to be, we set the bar higher once again. “people believe it will be found outside of ourselves but indeed happiness is an inside job not derived by outside circumstances” -Sydney (The pursuit of happiness is making us miserable debate). People who do not understand this concept, which the majority of us don’t, will self inflict pain and suffering. 

Suffering as well as bad things happening impact everyone's lives but what is really important about it is the way you get through it. "Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it" -Helen Keller. 

how do i make a difficult moral decision (second version)

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy often referred to as consequentialism due to the fact that it focuses on the consequence of actions. Utility is interpreted in many ways but it doesn't mean useful, it means happiness, pleasure and well being.  According to the philosopher who created the idea of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, a good choice ends in the greatest pleasure for the greatest amount of people. Liberalism is the other philosophical idea of deciding whether something is moral or not, this idea was created by John Stuart Mill. Liberalism focuses on the importance of individual liberty and equal rights for everyone, this idea supports human rights. So now it is time for the questions, am I a utilitarian or a liberalist when making decisions? And would I rather be a sad socrates or a happy pig? 

When faced with a difficult decision, most people would like to say they try to do what's best for everybody, they claim to take a utilitarianism approach but really, most people are selfish. Most people will always do what is best for themselves in the end and not concern themselves with the needs of other people. Although I do take other people's well being into consideration when contemplating what to do, I will not make a decision that will have negative results for myself to make other people happy. Sure if it is a small thing I will try to do what is best for other and suffer the consequences but when it comes down to it, when making a difficult moral decision I will do what is best for me even if it is not best for the majority of people. I am a strong believer in the importance of human rights and The Charter of Human Rights so when deciding whether something is a moral choice, I will always rely on human freedom and rights to guide my decisions. For these reason, I am a liberalist. 

Although being a sad socrates seems to be the most common response when asked whether people would rather be a sad socrates or a happy pig, I must disagree, I would rather be a happy pig. After weighing out the pros and cons of each, I try to make it simple for myself, a happy pig does not know what it's like to wonder and have all the knowledge socrates so he doesn't know the difference, the pig is just happy. Although Socrates is knowledgable, this comes with sadness. In the end, it comes down to would you like to be simple and happy or complicated and sad? For me it is a simple choice, I would rather be a happy pig. The reason his is relevant to the topic of this post is because when making a moral decision, I go for the simple answer and don't go too complex into it. 

How I make a difficult moral decision

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy often referred to as consequentialism due to the fact that it focuses on the consequence of actions. Utility is interpreted in many ways but it doesn't mean useful, it means happiness, pleasure and well being.  According to the philosopher who created the idea of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, a good choice ends in the greatest pleasure for the greatest amount of people. Liberalism is the other philosophical idea of deciding whether something is moral or not, this idea was created by John Stuart Mill. Liberalism focuses on the importance of individual liberty and equal rights for everyone, this idea supports human rights. So now it is time for the questions, am I a utilitarian or a liberalist when making decisions? And would I rather be a sad socrates or a happy pig? 

When faced with a difficult decision, most people would like to say they try to do what's best for everybody, they claim to take a utilitarianism approach but really, most people are selfish. Most people will always do what is best for themselves in the end and not concern themselves with the needs of other people. Although I do take other people's well being into consideration when contemplating what to do, I will not make a decision that will have negative results for myself to make other people happy. Sure if it is a small thing I will try to do what is best for other and suffer the consequences but when it comes down to it, when making a difficult moral decision I will do what is best for me even if it is not best for the majority of people. I am a strong believer in the importance of human rights and The Charter of Human Rights so when deciding whether something is a moral choice, I will always rely on human freedom and rights to guide my decisions. For these reason, I am a liberalist. 

Although being a sad socrates seems to be the most common response when asked whether people would rather be a sad socrates or a happy pig, I must disagree, I would rather be a happy pig. After weighing out the pros and cons of each, I try to make it simple for myself, a happy pig does not know what it's like to wonder and have all the knowledge socrates so he doesn't know the difference, the pig is just happy. Although Socrates is knowledgable, this comes with sadness. In the end, it comes down to would you like to be simple and happy or complicated and sad? For me it is a simple choice, I would rather be a happy pig. 

what it means to be human

What makes a person human? What are the characteristics of being human? How does one define the word humanity? These are all questions that are involved in the philosophical question; what makes us human? Some believe being human is just your physical state, animals are animals and humans are humans, they believe there is nothing more to it. Although they are right in the literal sense, I believe that  having human characteristics is all about your values.

          Humans have certain inevitable elements that make them human, such as empathic response or being indifferent to suffering, aversion to ugliness, dignity, free will and sympathy. No matter how hard one tries to hide these characteristics, as a human we all feel them.  All of these things play a role in our every day lives whether we realize it or not. When a brave couragous woman named ingrid betancourt was captured and treated as an animal in a forest, she noticed all of these elements in the people surrouding her whether they were the guards or her friends who have been kidnapped.

          In my opinion, being human is all about your morals and your ability to feel emotions towards other people. As long as one never forgets others, and respects others as much as possible, then they have human characteristics. Being dehumanized is when you lose everything that makes you feel for others and begin to only think about yourself and your own survival. 

         People believe that if you are born and taught to have all these values and morals, you will always have them. Sadly, sometimes this isn't the case. When put in desperate situations, some people can snap and forget the part of them that is human as Ingrid said she did for a while during her captivity. As long as you are not put under extreme circumstances, as long as you keep your humanity you will be able to get through anything. 

what does it mean to be human?

rationalism vs. empiricism!

"What do you rely on most for knowing what is true -reason or experience? “ 

What first came to mind when I took the time to think about whether I rely more on reason or experience was that I rely on experience. Just as John Locke said, “when we are born, our minds are like a blank slates”, if you haven’t tried something for yourself, how can you formulate an opinion on it? On the other hand, Plato’s theory that some knowledge is innate also has some truth to it. I wouldn’t put my hand on a stove just to experience for myself that it isn’t a pleasant feeling. No wonder this subject has been troubling philosophers for centuries. Although my initial thoughts were that I rely on experience, maybe a mix between experiences and reason is what we all rely on for knowing what is true. 

I am not a rationalist or an empiricist; I rely on both experience and reason in order to decide whether something is true. I lye somewhere between the two, but probably leaning more towards empiricism than being a rationalist because no matter what we are discussing, everybody will always have different opinions on whether or not something is right. No one can see something in the same way as another person. For example, if two people are looking at the same painting, they will not interpret it in the same way. One person may say it’s beautiful whereas the other may not see the beauty or will find a different kind of beauty. You can never rely on someone else’s opinion; you need to form your own. Obviously there are exceptions to this when it comes to something that can harm you. If someone tells you its wrong to kill someone without a reason, I’m sure we can all agree with that. That’s where my rationalist side kicks in.

Generally speaking, I am the kind of person who always needs proof before believing something or someone. If I haven’t seen it or experienced then how can I believe it? That last statement makes it sound as if I support Humes’ theory that we only know what’s wrong or right from experience and evidence. But although I’d like to establish a permanent position on this controversial topic, Plato also has a point that some things are just common sense.