Feminist: The view point from a feminist would be to decide what would personally empower you such as in the fifth case you would go to the movies with your friend rather than ditching him because by going to the cool kids party you are reinforcing the construct of what a popularity is rather than being true to yourself and going to the movies. This is the same approach you would use to decide the other cases, it would have to be a decision you take on your own rather than a decision you take based on a mob mentality.
Virtue Ethics: In the fifth cases you would go to the movies because that's the virtues thing to do. By showing your friend loyalty and other virtues characteristics by not taking the invitation to the party. A virtue ethicist would act in a way that shows virtue, this means for all the cases you would be respectful, honest, loyal,but also reasonable. It can really be summarized into one quote,"character is the things you do when no one is looking." This is virtue ethics because a virtues person is basically the characteristic that they have and what they wish to do with them. If as in this case of the movies, if you value the friendship and really consider this person someone you care about you won't leave them for some temporary fun. You will do what someone who is really a good friend does and that's to put aside these 5 seconds of fame "opportunities", which don't ever cause anything but short term pleasure, and be a loyal friend.
Nietzsche: He moved away from the mob mentality. He was more about the decisions you made having to be things you wanted in life they had to be based on your personal values and morality. As in the case of the conflict between the party and your friend. The decision is based on what you want to do not on what the vast majority wants. Although, that leaves a lot of room for interpretation some would say you see your friendship to be strong enough that one cancelled plans wouldn't hurt it and it really is measuring how strong of a friendship it is, but also it could be taken that if you have this singular mentality you won't go the popular kids party because you don't need to be part of the large mob of "popular" kids.
Benthamian: Benthamian's seek what will give them net happiness, although this is a hard concept because happiness isn't something that is universally defined. What may cause you happiness may cause another misfortune. In my opinion benthamian has to include part of Plato's philosophy such as what makes you happy has to be something that won't cause harm to others. In the fifth situation yes going to the party would cause you extreme happiness maybe, but that if your friend doesn't know that you choose the party over them. That when your net happiness turns into you being selfishness because you only care about your happiness you don't acknowledge the consequences of your actions. When instead you could go to the movies with your friend and have even a greater happiness because you know you have great company and your friend is also happy, so the happiness you feel is multiplied because you know in a way you made your friend happy.
Kant: Kant has this golden rule that is basically to do as you would want to be done to yourself. Your actions should be a reflection of what your values and morals. For the conflict of your dad telling you to lie because that way you can fit in and still have your normal group of friends without having to deal with peer pressure. You wouldn't lie because that's just not being honest which is an extension of the golden rule, you don't want others to lie to you so why would you lie. Then if your friends are really your friends they won't haze you for not drinking because they will respect your personal decision as you would respect theirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment