<p>marite, thank you for the link to the article. it is an interesting research.</p>
<p>That was a fascinating link, marite!</p>
<p>FWIW: My daughter at Harvard maintains that just about everyone that she has met is either a first born, only child, legacy, or has an older sibling at Harvard or another Ivy.</p>
<p>Ah, it’s time for Harvard to ask - is it fair? they may need contributions from others and should consider diversity and recruit seond borns, 3rd borns. :D</p>
<p>:)…</p>
<p>Should the adcoms become birthers? :)</p>
<p>“Should the adcoms become birthers?”</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>OK…I’m starting to understand Kant. I think. </p>
<p>I have a duty to do the right thing no matter what the consequences. The actual act has to be moral. And the act has to be done with good will.</p>
<p>So …I can’t lie to protect another because the lying itself is immoral.
Also…from wikipedia…thanks Marite.</p>
<p>Kant’s three significant formulations of the categorical imperative are:
Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
Act as though you were, through your maxims, a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.</p>
<p>I noticed that some of Kant’s contemporaries thought he was not readable and at least one, after trying to read Kant’s work, gave it back to Kant and said it was unreadable. </p>
<p>So that’s cool. I was worried dementia was settling in. :)</p>
<p>One point in Kunt’s philosophy is motive matters a great deal. If you do good things but out of selfish motivation, that is immoral, like the shop keeper’s case, and the spelling bee’s case.
If you don’t tell a lie but tell a deceiving truth out of the intention of not hurting other’s feelings, your incentive is moral so you’re good. (Incentive in this case - not to lie? )</p>
<p>One thing I really don’t understand, (among others) is how can there be only ONE moral low? what is there to gurantee my concience is also yours?</p>
<p>There isn’t one moral law.</p>
<p>We all have our own.</p>
<p>That’s why there is so much disagreement. :)</p>
<p>And it’s Kant. </p>
<p>rotflmao</p>
<p>hmmmmm… so I was off here. I need to think and maybe listen/read again. Thanks for the discussion dstark.
It’s interesting that he pointed out that Aristotle is the only philosopher among all that’s be discussed who associate award with merit/deserve.
So far (I’m half way done in EP11), I think Rawis is easiest to understand - absolutely this doesn’t mean I agree with him. His last point (goes beyond even afirmative action) is: ok, if you have special talent, we let you go ahead and make money, get rich, as long as we set up a system to make sure you gave a lot of what you get to those who are poor for whatever the reason. </p>
<p>I did not know John Rawis before this lecture and his veil of ignorance stuff. What a theory! I wonder if it’s reasonable to state that he is a typical product of great depression phobia. Sorry if there is some opinion implied. Don’t mean it, and won’t be offended by any disagreement. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, when I ran through all of my (first-born) D’s H friends and roommates that I know about, this statement is true for every single one of them! Amazing.</p>
<p>I like Rawls. I want to reserve the right to like or dislike any philosopher’s views …depending on the situation.:)</p>
<p>Rawls views…</p>
<p>“Each citizen is guaranteed a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties, which is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all others;
Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:
to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (maximin rule);
attached to positions and offices open to all. The reason that the least well off member gets benefited is that it is assumed that under the veil of ignorance, under original position, people will be risk averse. This implies that everyone is afraid of being part of the poor members of society, so the social contract is constructed to help the least well off members.”</p>
<p>I guess some of the arguments are “What is the greatest benefit”? And is that a necessary goal?</p>
<p>I do believe in redistributing some income to the poor and lower middle class.</p>
<p>So herandhismom…oh yeah… only child. 
Bay, are you a first born?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not even second born. Interestingly, however, my oldest sibling has received the most academic degrees, but is the lowest-income earner of the family.</p>
<p>Well…some people aren’t motivated by money.</p>
<p>True, and many people who are not motivated by money end up rich in spite of themselves, too!</p>
<p>Yes. That happens too.</p>
<p>Look out for Chinese students. They’re all first-born (and last-born, too). :)</p>
<p>:)…</p>
<p>
Sure I love the discussion and see from diff. perspective. That’s what great about this course. I disagree with some philosophers but they’re all so bright. following their thoughts and logic is a very worthy endeavor.</p>
<p>dstark, Since John Rawls is not an idiot, nor are many others who agree with him, sometimes I kind of vacillate between ideas. but…</p>
<p>I’ve seen poor people in this country - not homeless poor but pretty bad. they have to work 16 hrs a day and 6 or 7 days a week to just make ends meet and they may still not meet. My kids’ once babysitter is like that. some of their friends are like that, including some I know very well. Of course I don’t want to say this in front of them but I can say it here: I’m not rich but I’m okay. I worked hard to get what I have. I don’t think I should be forced to give them what I have against my will, because I SEE HOW THEY LIVE. If I lived like they do I would be just as poor.</p>
<p>I don’t want to say much detail but I see people (including myself) started off in a much lower position than the babysitter and the neighbor and understand the value of hardwork so they do well eventually. I am disgusted by whining and begging for others to give, this could be done through government. </p>
<p>This thought would not be changed moving toward the other direction.
What I mean is: for example, bill Gates did not start filthy rich. He gained his wealth based on justice in acquisition and justice in transfer. so he is not to be coerced to give his wealth to others unless he wants to. (I’m not all against tax. Government does need money.) It’d be nice if he wanted to give me money (oh yeah :D) but he should not be forced to. It’s fair and gives motivation for people to use their talent to get rich. </p>
<p>NO I’m not a libertarian even though I do agree with them in some ways. but too many things I don’t agree with them. I’m not a good philosopher or … typical “to be or not to be” kind of person. So I chose to do science. :)</p>