How should your generation make an impact? i.e. if you could place your energies into making a difference what should it be, given all the different opportunities or pitfalls?
How should you apply your principles to shape the future?
Can you discuss the problems of "being good" and "looking good"? Do they have counterpoints?
The problem with "being good" is that it constrains someone into one paradigm of thought and action. 'Good' is a manner of perception, and even though it has many different levels, everyone can do some good. However, it is impossible to be only good, and only do good. Sometimes humans make mistakes or act in their own self interests because they have to, and those actions can be perceived as not 'good', because they don't benefit the right people. The problem with good in general is that it never quite benefits everyone. It can be specific to certain groups or individuals, and a 'good' decision or act can be turned in to a 'bad' act when the adverse affects become clear. The issue with "looking good" is the lack of being genuine and sincere in 'good' acts. It is hard for some people to feel pleasant about themselves when they don't believe or care about what they are doing. There is an old cliche, "It's the thought that counts", that demonstrates the very problem of "looking good". Yet, how can we determine what is good when it benefits us but not the people it was meant for?
ReplyDelete-Jonathan
ReplyDeleteLike all generations we have tried to make a difference in the world one that has lasting effects, but sadly don’t last very long if any is made to solve problems. Usually the good that we try to make only affects certain groups and is not extended or available to to everyone. But if we were to try to make a difference in the world the principle of compassion should come into play, that way what difference one makes it is extended to a great majority of the population.
Many people struggling with a genetic disease could have their life changed by this DNA replacement. The only thing stopping scientists from using this technique right away, is the fact that all the effects aren't known and it might be unethical to "try" this out on people and hope nothing bad happens. It is important to take into consideration that while this is helping so many it is essentially modifying a human to have "perfect" results (no genetic disorders). That in itself might be unethical. Principles are really important in this experiment because they are going to be the guide to decide when to keep going/how far this experiment should be carried out, and when, if ever, the experiment needs to stop because it has gone too far. I think principles should be considered for the individual getting the procedure (if they are old enough and have formed their own idea of principles) and also for the people giving the procedure and the organization/researches behind it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these researchers are trying to "do good" and want to solve a global problem, they aren't just doing it to "look good," they want to help. As long as things stay within a certain limit and have principles to follow, I think this could be a positive life changing event for many people.
Principles play an important role in our everyday lives, and this DNA replacement is one of many examples in which it is important to consider the effects of what principles we choose to value. By doing this experiment, a positive or negative effect is bound to occur, however deciding if the risk is worth the result is the prevalent question in relation to how principles have such an important effect on society. This becomes an ethical debate once questioned more thoroughly, and it is ultimately up to the individual to decide whether or not the risk is worth it.
ReplyDeleteThis experiment comes with both positives and negatives, as all experiments do. In this experiment you must consider how fundamental principles are to society and everyday life. That is where personal ethics come into play, it is up to the individual to decide if the experiment is worth the risks having to be taken or if it would be better without it. Doing this DNA replacement is a good way of showing all of this. Not a single human being is going to be perfect, so what will the replacement do? Yes, it will help people with a genetic disorders become 'normal' but what is normal? If normal is what people want to achieve through this than the first step is defining that, then you can consider the replacement of DNA. It all comes down to what is ethical and how will this affect the principles of everyday life.
ReplyDeleteIn order for our generation to shape the future, we have to change our morals. Our future depends on us as people, so if we change our morals and our standards, we can shape ourselves to care about things that do need to change: the environment, water, overpopulation...etc. We need to shape ourselves to shape the future.
ReplyDeleteThe potential power of these new genetic engineering advancements is truly vast. The thought that we could irradiate disease such as HIV or eventually cancer from birth is, on the surface a bright beacon of hope. However as Ellie Brown stated, all discoveries truly are a mixed bag. Curing all chronic diseases would rapidly have an impact on global population as death rates fall all over the world. This then presents a multitude of ethical dilemmas? Is it possible to control a population size? To limit it? Are the methods (such as the one child policy in China, for example) FAIR? In this same vein, if the altering of a few small components of DNA has the ability impact such positive change, imagine one one or two small mistakes could do. A genetic mutation that damages the human immune system for example could occur. Or a never before seen disability or deformity might be created by mistake in the human genome. The consequences of a mistake like that may be vast, irreversible, and devastating. Policy makers and scientists alike of our generation will have to weigh the pros and cons of both of these sides. Its an immensely complex issue as far as ethics and principals go.
ReplyDeleteIt was mentioned in previous discussions that principles evolve as societies change, that is because the principles change to fit and work best with society so it can function at it’s optimal performance. So I think principles help with shaping the future in terms of creating one that is best with those principles, but once other ideas come into conflict with those principles due to the changing society then I believe the future ends up being what determines the principles that are needed.
ReplyDeleteIn society today, I think that people that do good things are highly coveted, as there are so many bad things out there and bad people out there. I think that our generation should make an impact by turning around the environment and making the world a more equal place for everyone. However, these things depend on the principles that people are raised on and until these things have been seen and experienced, I don't think that most people's principles are willing to work their hardest to make a difference in something that won't affect their lifetime. For example, I was never that excited by the environmental issues that were coming up in the news and I never gave much thought to the status of our earth. However, after taking ESS this past year and watching countless documentaries about different issues about our earth, I realized that my principles that guide my daily life needed to change to do something about climate change and other factors affecting our earth. These awakenings are the things that I think all teens need to see and experience if our generation wants to see any change.
ReplyDeleteBeing good and looking good are two things that are so important in the lives of teens today who are applying to college and wanting to look their best to get into school and to get the best scholarships possible. Many people I know do things just for their resume to look good for colleges and jobs and are not thinking about what they could be doing to be good. Many people just volunteer to say they volunteer without thinking about the good they could be doing with their time. Finding a cause that means something to someone and not caring if recognition is given is the point where you can determine is someone is good or just trying to look good. Society has pushed us to this point of always having to be the best but sometimes just giving a little bit of yourself to another cause is the way to feel good about yourself at the end of the day. Knowing people who have desperately needed as much as help as they can get makes it all more personal and it is now so easy to despise those who volunteer just to volunteer and it puts many things into perspective for me.
ReplyDeleteI think that most of the time being good and looking good can be the same thing. Of course it looks good to volunteer at the Food Bank for example, but it also is good. Someone might be motivated to do good because there is an incentive of "looking good" on your resume but that doesn't mean the person isn't just a good person being good. There are things a person can do to just "be good" without it looking good, or having an incentive, but I don't think someone can just "look good" without the person actually being good.
ReplyDeleteThe best and most focused way for our generation to make an impact is to continue the rapid rate of technological development seen before and during its birth and rise. This fundamental shift of even the concept of "playing field" is the most realistic way for us to change the machinations of human society and truly have an impact. This way, a general consensus of universal and international (hopefully) principles can be delimited. I think it is clearly obvious from the sheet amount of suffering and war in the world today that the current world order is not a moral nor a sustainable one. This dichotomy between "being good" and "looking good" is the one I believe exists amongst competing "new" and "old" governmental paradigms. For example, the U.S. wants too look good. We charge in and manufacture "humanitarian crises" or threats to "global security" where we want them. This kills far more innocents than would or could be saved. Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland (among others) only commit troops to peacekeeping operations, and mind their own business. They inflict no extra toll. This is the difference between "looking good" and "being good".
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the constant stream of technology produced under, by and because of our generation can easily be construed as a continuation of old methodologies of thinking. Most namely, capitalism and consumerism. According to this school of thought, the best way for our generation to change the stream of history would be the ways (adapted, naturally) of generations past: simple protest and political movement in order to pass new laws and modify old ones. Or, even open revolution and rebellion (though these are less practical). In addition, violent rebellion or revolution would contradict the principles this effort would seek to establish. I am of the opinion that pacifism, freedom and justice need to be held in the highest regard and the best way to enact this is lead by example. Rather than simply "looking good" and fighting or crusading for principles my means that inherently contradict those principles, this allows for the principles to be demonstrated as resolute before they are delimited in society as keystone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Koessler in that a focused way for our generation to make an impact is to continue the rapid rate of technological development. However, I think that the most important thing our generation should be focused on is to save this planet from the devastating effects that climate change will have. Maybe I just think this because my dad is an environmental lawyer, but regardless it is one of the most pressing concerns on my generation specifically because we'll still be alive when it is really taking its toll. The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be lost forever. We may not have much power over the energy-guzzling factories, but we can recycle, we can start using public transportation, and we can produce less babies.
ReplyDeleteThe concepts of "looking good" and "being good" can be tied into how me make an impact through combating climate change. If our generation is to make even the slightest impact in decreasing the effects of pollution, and over population, and everything tied into that, we have to get over wanting those things that "look good" rather than those things that "are truly good". Those things manufactured in those energy-guzzling factories may look good and may be more accessible but in reality by consuming them we're contributing to the growing problem. The things that really are good, like food grown in your own garden, may be harder to access but it's what is better for this world. Materialism has grown rapidly and it's the monster our generation has to take down if we want to be living on a healthy planet when we're 80 years old.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mckenzie. Technological advances will allow our generation to make an impact on the world. However,whether this impact will be positive is a totally different story. I believe that technology and globalization are two things that will allow our generation to be the most collaborative generation yet. However, these two things may also have negative effects as well. Technological advances and globalization may cause us to lose important aspects of our culture and our individualism. These are important things to consider when we consider our generations impact.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of looking good and being good can be tied into almost and human scenario. I believe these concepts are extremely tangible to us as high school seniors preparing for college. I think that we are all guilty of wanting to look good, myself included. Sometimes we try to attain this goal and tend to disregard what is actually important. I believe that one should try to do good, not to look good but rather to just to do good.
ReplyDeleteThis new fangled DNA manipulation is a blessing and a curse. It can probably help many thousands of people, even millions someday, perhaps, by getting rid of genetic conditions and diseases. On the other hand, if and when we find out how to manipulate the genes that code for looks, skin tone, eye color, etc., it could turn out rather poorly as we would have the ability to manufacture people according to our current aesthetics of beauty. (Did anyone read Uglies in middle school? Kind of like that.) I think also there's a bit of a gray area, like is it possible to create or manipulate a genetic code for intelligence, or kindness? Would it be ethical to artificially implant intelligence into an otherwise average person? That question begs debate, and I for one am excited to partake if the time ever comes around. There are arguments for each side that make sense, logically. For example, you could consider it unethical to change anything but looks, as many think of the mind/intelligence as being sacred and we wouldn't want to mess with that. On the other hand, we might consider it unethical to change anything but intelligence, kindness, and other personality factors because that's what really matters and since our society puts so much emphasis on looking good, it would be unfair to give people an advantage. However, I don't see any moral dilemmas associated with changing genes to stop sickness, it seems as it it ought to be standard practice when the technology advances enough to execute it on the average human.
ReplyDeleteThis new fangled DNA manipulation is a blessing and a curse. It can probably help many thousands of people, even millions someday, perhaps, by getting rid of genetic conditions and diseases. On the other hand, if and when we find out how to manipulate the genes that code for looks, skin tone, eye color, etc., it could turn out rather poorly as we would have the ability to manufacture people according to our current aesthetics of beauty. (Did anyone read Uglies in middle school? Kind of like that.) I think also there's a bit of a gray area, like is it possible to create or manipulate a genetic code for intelligence, or kindness? Would it be ethical to artificially implant intelligence into an otherwise average person? That question begs debate, and I for one am excited to partake if the time ever comes around. There are arguments for each side that make sense, logically. For example, you could consider it unethical to change anything but looks, as many think of the mind/intelligence as being sacred and we wouldn't want to mess with that. On the other hand, we might consider it unethical to change anything but intelligence, kindness, and other personality factors because that's what really matters and since our society puts so much emphasis on looking good, it would be unfair to give people an advantage. However, I don't see any moral dilemmas associated with changing genes to stop sickness, it seems as it it ought to be standard practice when the technology advances enough to execute it on the average human.
ReplyDeleteI think that "being good" is a very ambiguous idea. Everyone has a different definition and each person has a different way of achieving this. Being good to one person may mean being the best person he or she can be. But to an other person being good could entail performing to the best of his or her ability. Either way, the idea of being good provides strong motivation.
ReplyDeleteOur generation is at a crossroads in terms of our planet as a whole. We are faced with many challenges, none bigger than the issue of climate change. In our life time, we will not only contribute greatly to this problem, we will start to see the effects climate change has on this planet. This is something that could influence life as we know it and society for generations to come.
ReplyDeleteI believe that because we put so much pressure on "looking good" and "being good" it negatively impact the mark our generation makes on the world. The our energy goes into being perfect then there is no energy to be used on positive changes we can leave for the generations to follow. Our obsession with being perfect also have an effect on our offspring. They will become equally if not more obsessed with looking good and being good. Not to mention the negative impacts these unattainable standards have on pregnant mothers. The offspring will have to deal with the effects of stress. The worst part of looking good especially, is that typically it's not done for ones self. It is done for the image.
ReplyDeleteWe are faced with numerous challenges as a population. Climate change by far being the one at large. Our generation will either solve this problem or make it worse in the end, though I believe we will ultimately be able to solve it. This very real threat will influence many things- technology, paradigm shifts and ethics too.
ReplyDelete"Being good" and "looking good" are different most of the time, but I believe there are certain times when these two concepts can be the same. For example, many students do volunteer work to put on college resumes-and while this looks good to the college, it doesn't diminish the fact that the person is being good by ultimately doing the volunteer work.
ReplyDeleteOur generation is faced with a lot of problems. Conflicts in the middle East are constant, global warming shows no sign of slowing down and diseases such as Cancer and HIV/AIDS still plague the entire world. I think that our generation should primarily focus on the health of the planet, because that seems like the most dangerous problem as of now. If the Earth starts to become inhabitable then humans won't be able to survive, or at least not without some kind of support system. Conflicts in the Middle East need to be solved as well, but that isn't as big of a problem because it does not affect the Earth as a whole. Diseases don't have the same kind of expiration date as climate change, however they still pose a large threat to humanity of they get out of hand.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think that our generation has trouble distinguishing the border between “Being Good” and “Looking Good”. On the one hand, social media does a good job of educating the public, but on the other hand it gives us a false sense of accomplishment. Just because one knows about an atrocity they read about on the internet, they often think that they put themselves in the shoes of the people who are being hurt. It doesn’t show the right amount of sympathy by just reading something on the internet, and gives people the false idea of “Being Good” when one really just “Looks Good”.
ReplyDeleteI think that our generation has trouble distinguishing the border between “Being Good” and “Looking Good”. On the one hand, social media does a good job of educating the public, but on the other hand it gives us a false sense of accomplishment. Just because one knows about an atrocity they read about on the internet, they often think that they put themselves in the shoes of the people who are being hurt. It doesn’t show the right amount of sympathy by just reading something on the internet, and gives people the false idea of “Being Good” when one really just “Looks Good”.
Our generation is faced with a lot of problems. Conflicts in the middle East are constant, global warming shows no sign of slowing down and diseases such as Cancer and HIV/AIDS still plague the entire world. I think that our generation should primarily focus on the health of the planet, because that seems like the most dangerous problem as of now. If the Earth starts to become inhabitable then humans won't be able to survive, or at least not without some kind of support system. Conflicts in the Middle East need to be solved as well, but that isn't as big of a problem because it does not affect the Earth as a whole. Diseases don't have the same kind of expiration date as climate change, however they still pose a large threat to humanity of they get out of hand.
ReplyDeleteSorry, this was duplicated.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of the problems born in this generation is that there isn't really an answer to this question. Our generation is torn in so many directions and faced with so many problems that I find it impossible to choose one, and so often times I just try to shut it out. As the last generation that can reverse global warming, I would say that is a huge way in which we can make an impact. But also ending poverty, ending war, ending world hunger and all sorts of terminal diseases. At least, I feel like these are a few of the things that our generation is pressured to do. As I think about it, the more distressed I become. I just want to play music, man. But I feel like a lot of people feel the exact same way. And that's part of the problem. With our conflicting morals and ideas for the future, I somtimes feel like our generation is just turning frantically in circles grasping for something to hang onto. There's really not much to hang onto.
ReplyDeleteWith being good and looking good, I agree with most of what other people have said. Looking good will often get you places in your career, whereas being good will not necessarily. Sometimes in fact it will even get you ignored, as you are dealing with problems before they arrive. But being good implies a sincerity and frankness that looking good doesn't, as I feel like when you look good, you spend more time trying to disguise the fact that you aren't good as opposed to actually doing what you're supposed to be doing. This is why I'm going into music. If you're good people know. If you're not, people know. However, it's a little bit the same because if your part is perfect all the time then no one has to work on it and are unaware of the work that you've put into it. But the work is still evident, and oftentimes acknowledged.
What should my generation do? Well, hilariously, as I was attempting to formulate my answer to this very question I was sitting in Liquid Planet and a homeless man (in his own words) wandered in off of the street and approached me. He asked little of me except "What do you do here?" To which I answered that I was a student and he proceeded to tell me a story of how he was a UCLA student of film. But he dropped out of school because of drugs and alcohol. He borrowed a pen of mine and recommended some films for me. He then proceeded to advise me to not do as he had done.
ReplyDeleteThis story is probably seemingly non-sequitur but I believe this is always the misconception of generations which come before us. They always advise us to not do as they have done. To be better, to do better and not make the same mistakes that they have made. Yet we still do. Why? Because humans, do not fundamentally change their intrinsic ways just because of such things as generation. So what should we do? Well, we should probably make the world a better place, we should probably attempt to not make the mistakes that those before us have made. We should probably do better. Be better. But will we? I doubt it.
To "be good" and to "look good" are not the same thing. One can certainly occur without the other, yet we more often strive for the latter even if it means less, even if it does not matter as much as the former. So much of our society is based upon impression, upon appearance, that most people would probably prefer to be perceived as looking good even if they were not necessarily doing so because there is little more frustrating than to be doing good but not to be recognized for it. To be good, but not to look good. A common fear among men.
Leaders deceive their followers, history is whitewashed, and races, beliefs, and sexes are blatantly oppressed because of intolerance bred by a biased or insubstantial education. Such intolerance leads to corruption seen in the persistence of terrorism, genocide, and torture of peoples. This lack of “life, liberty, and security of person” is in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Less importance is being placed on the community and common good, while more focus is being placed by individuals on their myopic and self-serving endeavors. A cycle where money equals power which equals policy feeds injustice and discourages foreign aid and investment.
ReplyDeleteWhile saddened by this information, I wasn’t discouraged. I knew that since 1945, an organization of which I heralded, has been working to mitigating and eradicating the world’s problems. What shocked me most, however, was the crack in the crystal ball that is the United Nations. An organization of peace, harmony, and sanctity is not without corruption. The five members of the Security Council, the executive branch if you will, each has ultimate veto power over any resolution passed. This can be perceived in one of two ways: either resolutions are examined to ensure their overall aptitude and integrity, or a country can veto a resolution if it impedes with their nationalistic ambitions, despite the resolution’s ability to benefit the greater good. Unfortunately, the latter is more commonly seen than I would’ve ever wanted to believe.
That realization is what discouraged me. How are people and nations supposed to reform if their leaders are hypocrites? Hypocrisy is a form of corruption. Nothing positive results from dictatorial or manipulating practices but through honest and democratic collaboration. No one person's life can be separated from the sum of humanity, and it frustrates me to see that this might be acknowledged too late.
The ethical dilemma here is clear: corruption is practiced and prominent. Loopholes are an easy way out, and the lust for power is deafening over the cry for good. People require self-gratification, causing motivation to quest for opportunities to satisfy their needs, often through immoral execution. We cannot thrive in a society that has no morals, nor do I want to live in such a society. I feel helpless in my desire to help humanity because it appears though no one wants to be helped. All people must be willing to make an investment in society, but by nature, an investment requires an initial short-term loss of assets that nobody is willing to relinquish. What people must realize, however, is that the eventual long-term reward of moral and cosmopolitan actions is the exponential improvement in each person's’ quality of life. “The human contribution is the essential ingredient. It is only in the giving of oneself to others that we truly live (Ethel Percy Andrus).” Our leaders must model chastity, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility. Local, national, and international institutions must be organized democratically, with participatory policies, quality education, and strict systems of accountability, transparency, and process monitorization.
On a personal level, I can lead by example. I, like any person, can do only my part of choosing the right, rather than easy, path at each crossroads. This is undoubtedly hard, and near impossible to perfect, but through practicing and investing in such behavior, we can proudly work towards an exemplary society.
Okay, first of all, I am utterly confused as to why the video on DNA was featured with this blog post...
ReplyDeleteI think the future generation can fix global hunger, environmental change, corruption etc. but the root of the problem is a lack of cross cultural dialogue. This is barring individuals from progressive collaboration and hence, problem-solving. This cross-cultural dialogue is sparse because of ethnic and racial tendencies, all done because of humans inability to find the interface between faith and courage. Faith is a large and spiraling and convoluted belief, full of holes and doubts, but courage is a marble of solid emotion. To find a diplomatic safeground, finding the median between two extremes, such as faith and courage will, in my mind, be the key to finding peace. Courage and faith are often confused with one another. Courage can be rooted in faith, like the courage to champion a challenge with confidence in a waiting support system or safety net. Alternately, faith itself is often explained by acts of courage. Biblical stories are a complex example of this, like David and Goliath. The teaching of right from wrong in a religious context is demonstrated through courageous historical events. While the yin-yang-type exchanges between faith and courage are something that could be easily accepted as variations in the relationship between two facets of human existence, I am bothered by the sway each variation holds. I strongly believe that this variation, and ultimately the ambiguity of the interface between faith and courage, is the culprit behind religious and ethnic tensions. For one, someone who is so deeply rooted in their thinking that faith is the motivator of courage won’t agree with someone who strongly believes that courage is the root of faith. I would argue that courage is the secular and concentrated version of faith. Rather than belief in a higher power, it’s belief in the strengths of an individual. The most universal example of a harmony between courage and faith is the process of nurturing a child. Without courage, a parent wouldn’t ever let their child out of their arms. However, without having faith in the child’s ability to gain independence, the courage to let them go wouldn’t be justifiable.
Faith and courage are apparent in both the most innocuous setting, the nursery, and in the most tumultuous setting, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If these two elements of existence are balanced in one situation, they most certainly can be balanced in another. Teaching a force to have the courage to cordially reach out or let down the guard down, while having faith that the opposing side will act in a similar fashion is the key to peace. So, as for looking good versus being good, in the scope of cross-cultural dialogue and progressive collaboration, looking good is the compartmentalization of communities and innovation, while being good is the global community and global innovation.
Frankly, I don't think our generation has to focus on any one thing. Naturally, with the sheer size of our generation we will be capable of great things, while pitfalls also accompany this. (Also, the video was stated to be restricted, so I'm just going to focus on the questions). It comes down to the individual to decide what to help with, and how to help. Inn an anime, Fate/Zero, the idea is brought up that one can only save one other person. The paradox given is that one is on a boat, headed for a whirlpool with 500 people, and there is another boat headed for the same whirlpool with 1000. You are the only person who has the skill to pilot the ship and escape. What do you do? The main character, Kiritsugu, naturally replies that he would leave his boat and save the other, as according to the laws of utilitarianism, that is objectively the better choice. However, he is posed another question: what if the members of the boat with 500 tried to stop him? As a mercenary, he stated he would be forced to kill them to save the greater quantity. However, upon reaching the other boat, 333 people remain and the other 667 have already got into a life boat. And so he repeated what he would do. This, of course, goes all the way down. On one's own, one cannot save everyone. I believe that the best way to help the future would be to eliminate the idea of average among people. (There is an excellent TEDx Talk titled the Myth of Average, decent speaker with an excellent point) The idea of an average hurts both the lower end and the upper end of students in particular. This, of course, limits the potential of those students, making it a prime area for change. My primary principle is likely to be altruism, if I'm to be honest. However, I'm not about to pretend that altruism is easy. It takes a concerted effort from all for altruism to work to its fullest extent. As for being good and looking good, I'm going to ignore the fact that good is objective. While this is an excellent point, I feel that prior responses cover this idea effectively. Naturally, being good is better than looking good from an objective standpoint. However, one cannot simply will themselves to be good. This is, effectively, trying to look good. Ultimately, it's likely that being truly good does not exist. For example, I enjoy helping people. That's simply a fact. However, does that taint my actions? By wishing to do good to make myself feel better, am I ultimately being selfish? From an objective standpoint "no, Owen, that's stupid." However, if it is the intentions that make something good, it is likely that my desire to help is technically an attempt to look good, or at the least not intrinsic good.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the main difference between “looking good” and “being good” is the motivation behind a person’s actions. If someone is focused on looking good, they are mainly concerned with the way that other people view their actions; mainly only concerned with their own image, and not being good purely to be good. I feel that there are two main types of “good”. One type is when a person is good to themselves and uphold their values, rewarding themselves. The other is helping other people. Both can be manipulated by somebody looking for a compliment and hoping people think they are “good”, as that person makes it known somehow that they just accomplished a good deed, be it to themselves or to others. In short, I feel that to “look good” is to be not genuine. Someone who is “being good” is instead doing that action out of the goodness of their heart; their moral “goodness” is ingrained in their character and they do “good” actions regardless of whether or not anyone witnesses, recognizes, or knows about the deed.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the only responsibility our generation has is to make the world better for the next generation in some way. Regardless of the action, we should improve the world in some way so that the next generation will benefit. Possibilities of improvement like this genetic research, a revolutionary science that will benefit many of later generations, are beneficial, but it is not the only way to contribute. Another thing to consider is the impacts of those changes that our generation makes on other generations. Always, the goal is to have a beneficial outcome for future generations, but it is also important to keep in mind the negative consequences of those societal changes and how much they will negatively impact the other generations. In looking at how to improve the world and what we can contribute, we should weigh both the positive and negative consequences for the future generations, not just our own, and plan accordingly.
ReplyDeleteI think that the difference between looking good and being good is how the public sees you. You can be good and look bad, referencing pop culture, in Harry Potter Snape was a good guy but looked bad. A lot of teachers who students don’t like, like the ones who give too much homework, we don’t like but they are doing that for our own good. It’s also possible to look good and be bad. One hypothetical could be someone could look good because they donate to a charity, but that money they donate could be stolen.
ReplyDeleteI think that the hardest part to deal with when making a change would be the other problems it creates. One issue would be if you can solve a problem it could create other issues such as a population boom. This is an issue because then it would be a competition for resources and space. I think we need to focus on human rights issues such as making sure everyone has water, food, and access to shelter. When we do this we also need to prepare for the outcomes of these fixes.
ReplyDeleteThis is such an overwhelming subject-- multiple aspects that our generation should approach instantly come to mind: terrorism, global warming and climate change, as well as up-and-coming scientific vs. moral issues such as the video posted to this blog. I believe that our generation should take the time to analyse and create a set of the genuine values as well as analyze the beauty of human life as it originated, and also how it has evolved. Perhaps if we reflect back on this, we will see the true beauty of the chance and uniqueness of each human: random combination of genes- not chosen and engineered. If it were not for many flawed genes humanity would not have been able to make so many incredible advancements in medicine and the understanding of the human mind and body. Maybe if we could raise the understanding, beauty, and value of human life maybe urgency would be placed on these issues- as well as help us know how to solve them.
ReplyDeleteAs far as "being good" and "looking good" goes, this is almost an impossible topic to come to a consensus on due to the great believe in relativism today. Not only is relativism a huge hurdle to the "good" dilemma, but also many, including myself, believe that 'beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.' It's apparent that in today's society "looking good" is more popular than "being good" which I believe is the driving force in almost every world problem today. Although this gene recreation is amazing for the prevention of disease and illness, I do not believe that we should use it to create a "perfect person." I also believe that it could have incredibly dangerous consequences. As seen throughout history, it is often the exciting yet dangerous trends/ actions that are most popular yet result in immense chaos and corruption.
ReplyDeleteWe, as a generation, cannot do much of anything. We, as individuals, can. I'm coming off as terrible libertarian in the blog posts, but sometimes that's what happens when you sit through a week of finals and then sit down at your computer to do an assignment you were supposed to do months ago, and that assignment is answering a bunch of hypothetical questions. I apologize, and digress. We are all idiots. We are too lazy to do anything substantial. Even our most recent push, occupy wall street, was just a bunch of people sleeping in inconvenient places for long amounts of time. Still though, I think its from this laziness that our innovation will come. The biggest thing our generation is going to change is the insane lack of comfort in the world. Especially America. Can you imagine a time where you had to carry your phone in your pocket? Now it floats next to you! Do you feel sick from lack of exercise? Heres a new pill! We're about to get all WALL-E human up in this world.
ReplyDeleteThat said, and I do apologize to anybody (Mr. C) that actually had to read that last comment, I do think there will be some massive strides in the medical world, especially with cancer. As much as people don't like being uncomfortable, they like dying, and having their loved ones die even less. We are a population that innovates not out of necessity (at this point) but out of discontent.
ReplyDeleteThe future can be a scary thing. So scary that most people devote their entire lives to trying to make it less so. It is this fear that also drives the ideas of 'making an impact' and 'changing the world for the better'. Both very grand notions in their own right but in their grandness comes their flaw as well. Everyone shoots to change the world for the better and everyone fails. This is because their simply is no better or worse. Better and worse changes with each passing decade, each year, each month, each second. Our notions never remain steady and therefore many people go out seeking an unachievable dream only to face disappointment in the end. Of course many realize that this notion is nearly impossible and satisfy themselves with an average life, surrounding themselves with loved ones and a decent wage. But if this is what generally end up happening then why don't we just all lower our expectations a little bit and shoot for reality, not the impossible. Well the answer is actually quite simple. Because that's no way to live. As humans we set goals (even if they are largely unreasonable) and we have hope (even if the facts say we should be hopeless) and we have dreams (even if they will never become reality) and it is these things that make us human. I realize that this is a very roundabout way of addressing the question answered but to pull it back to the point, I believe that every one should do whatever they please in making an impact. Because that's whats going to happen anyways. Some are going to have ideas that will change the future of this earth forever and some are going to throw their lives into a meaningless job and some are going to find love and some are going lose. That's just the way the world works. Until the world stops working that way and then something else may happen.
ReplyDeleteTo address the question of how we should apply our principles to shape the future, I believe that the answer is a very complicated ordeal. First it is essential to point out that within this question is the answer to a different question. "How should we shape the future?" "By applying our principles." But this in itself is going off of the assumption that our principles can even shape the future. Who is to say that my principles will change anything? A principal is defined as a fundamental truth that serves as a foundation. But isn't it true that their are no fundamental truths? The only provable fact being that I think, therefore I am? So going off this logic it seems that a principal is an opinion of a fundamental truth. The key word in this sentence being opinion. So the answer to the question 'How should we shape the future?' is 'By applying the opinions we have of fundamental truths'. So by examining this we see that the original question "How should we apply our principles to shape the future?" is not so much a question as it is a statement because it built around an answer that it is assuming to be true. But what if we shouldn't shape the future by applying our principles? Then the question itself has no purpose. And so I say that this question is really unanswerable because it is merely an opinion.
ReplyDeleteShaping the future is a difficult task, the future is unpredictable, and we as people change in the smallest of time. When we change our perception of the future changes with us. And due to this grasping whether or not we make an impact that is positive or detrimental to the future is one of the hardest things we can do. I think that DNA and genetic altering can be a way to shape the future in a positive way, to some extent. I think that using the information we know about genetics can help us to cut down on genetically passed down diseases, this is something that happens already, an example of this is Tay Sachs, a disease that mostly occurs in the Jewish community, although the disease is rare many Jewish couples get them selves screened before they decide to have children. By having gene screenings more popular other than just in niche communities, many issues could be fixed, hereditary diseases can be cut down, and for couples that want children but both carry for some trait can adopt. As long as DNA and genetics are used along these lines I think that we should only delve further into genetic research.
ReplyDeleteThe difference betwixt "being good" and "looking good" is quite frankly something I don't really care about. Screw being a good person as long as you have the look you can do what ever you want. Yes, one may be better for you in the long run but whose to say which is which. I could thing that being good will get me no where and hey, it might, while on the other hand being a not as good person and just looking good may get me places. It all depends on the work you want to do. To be honest I'm all for looking good.
ReplyDelete