For this third paper, I want to talk about making an argument for legalizing DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients. DACA recipients currently have the ability to work in the United States and have been here for a large amount of their life, but they should be able to have the security for the rest of their lives that they won’t have to fear for something such as deportation. By legalizing the DACA recipients, they’ll have the opportunity to earn higher wages than the wages they earn already. Another benefit that can come out of legalizing DACA recipients, would be an even greater tax revenue coming from it.
I’ll be using Aristotle in The Nature of Virtue to support my argument and the benefits that will come out of the legalization. I could argue that the highest good for the political science will be legalizing the DACA recipients and use some of his own words to support it. The whole DACA recipient population will be flourishing, meaning that eudaimonia will have been reached.
I plan to incorporate more parts of the Aristotle article, but I need to read more closely what can relate. I also want to find more articles that will support the legalization and be able to support Aristotle a lot more.
When I first read Fricker’s account of testimonial sensibility, it didn’t make sense to me. I had to read the article over a few times for me to try to grasp the concept. I eventually understood how it is developed as you do something. It’s not something that one could have been amazing at in life without ever having practiced it. So this definitely does ring true to me. I wouldn’t be able to do certain actions in my life if I didn’t learn how to perform them. I can’t ride a bicycle on a whim if I never learned how to ride one. Sensitivity is developed over time with practice and a person eventually gets used to doing something and they will achieve.
Everyday, we encounter situations in which we have to trust adults or people who have an excess of virtue around us. When we go to school, we listen to the professor teaching and we don’t think twice about the information they give us. The professors are known to us students as inferior and them being always correct, but do we ever have a thought of doubt about what they’re teaching? Next, we are known to trust our parents. Our parents have taught us things since we were little and we never doubted them until we hit an age where we thought we knew better than them. Our parents had a virtue of excess when we were smaller children, but now that we’ve grown, we believe that we should be given that virtue of excess since we are supposed to have so many new ideas and good ones in our head. Overall, I believe that Fricker’s stance on testimonial sensibility does encounter reflexivity of how we trust people very easily and give them a virtue of excess.
The Highest Good and political science
At first when I read this section of Aristotle, I was confused as to how political science had to do with anything. Isn’t political science about politics? Well I eventually realized that Aristotle has a total different interpretation of political science when he describes the highest good and political science. The way I understood the highest good was sort of like having a goal that was beneficial to ourselves. I had to reread the section a few times so I could fully grasp the concept of what the highest good could be for the political science. Eventually while discussing what it could possibly mean, we came up with how it can mean how it is we exist with other people.
We were determined to have our mind set on something rather than just beating around the bush for so long. As Aristotle says, if we know what the good we’re trying to aim at is, then it will hit the mark. We need to think of the highest good as something that wouldn’t only work for an individual, but for a whole community of people sine that is what Aristotle calls a political science. The happiness of a community is better than the happiness of an individual. There can be nothing above the highest good since it’s the highest thing possible there is, and everything would just fall under it. The political science meaning how we exist with the people in our communities is very important for the highest good. If an individual is flourishing, then that means that the whole city should be flourishing. The highest good is not about an individual and its own good, but rather the communities’ goods. If a person is happy, the whole community should be happy as well. Aristotle then goes on to talk about his methods of political science and can lead to the conclusion of how one of his main ideas is ethics and a long life health. These two things are what is mostly needed to be able to enjoy the life as Aristotle talks about.
Is social media our more current version of Nozick’s experience machine? What, if anything differs and how? Does your response further discredit psychological egoism?
Robert Nozick’s article, The Experience machine, brings up the idea of a time machine people could go into for 2 years or longer, depending on their desire. Nozick goes on to explain what are some of the options people have to choose from when going in to the experience machine. The library of different events is talked about and goes on to say that people can plan their experience machine experience ahead of time for the 2 years they can be in there or for a longer amount of time. This experience machine could have been a major life change for people. There could be some people that experience their life in the real world, while there was other people in basically a box filled with liquid being a “blob”. Nozick brings up different arguments as to why there are people that would be opposed to the idea. I understand why people would feel like they do not have a purpose if they were to go ahead with the experience machine idea. Some people want to have a purpose in life or at least do something with their life. Instead of just being a “blob” for two years, people want to be able to have a grasp of reality or at least have the option of leaving the experience machine before the 2 years ago if they do not like their experience.
The current version of Nozick’s experience machine would definitely be social media. Social media has taken up such a big part of many peoples lives. People can spend many hours glued to their phone every day, and some even more than that. If one was to choose the experience machine, one wouldn’t be experiencing those moments, rather than just seeing these events happen. This scenario is so much like social media because one looks at their phone on all these different apps such as Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, Facebook, etc. and sees event happening in other peoples lives. A person can be looking at their Snapchat and see what fun it is that people are enjoying such as going to a party or going to a bar, and feeling a bit down because they either didn’t get an invite or because they were just too lazy to actually make an effort to go out and experience different moments of fun. I myself have been in that position of where I’ve gotten an invite to go out, but since I’m already laying in my bed, I say no. Later on as I’m looking through social media, I see my friends who are posting different things about that event that look like fun and I have a moment of regret for not having gone out. This can be related back to one of Nozick’s arguments as to why people wouldn’t want to go through the experience machine. Instead of just seeing the events happen in front of us but not having the reality of experience is not worth it. Every morning before I wake up and I’m still laying in bed, I lay there for a solid 10 minutes just checking what it is that people have posted since the night before when I fell asleep. Sometimes I don’t even think about what it is I’m supposed to be getting ready for, but I get plugged into my phone and just look through everyone’s social media feed that has been posted. The same goes for my night routine when I get into bed before I fall asleep. I’ll lay in my bed knowing I should be sleeping, but I’m just scrolling through social media. It has become something I just do out of habit and don’t even think about it. Personally, I wouldn’t go through the experience machine because I would definitely want to live different events instead of just seeing them happen in front of my eyes.
Saving someone from a burning building is completely different than a drowning child in a small stream, but I still believe that a person should react to both of these situations in the same manner and thought. Personally, I would go into both of these situations knowing that I am putting my life is at risk, but I could be helping someone else and saving their life. There should not be a difference between these situations that would cause someone to change their actions. If one is going to put their life at risk to save a drowning child, why wouldn’t they put their life at risk in the situation of saving an adult or a teenager from the burning building. The action of wanting to save the child from drowning would be more of an instinct because they’re smaller and have yet to experience their life, unlike an older person. When one thinks about the burning building and whether they want to go in and save any people they can reach, they will think more about their own safety because they don’t want to think about how much higher the possibility of them getting hurt is. Many people would think that there wouldn’t be both instinct and self-interest in both of these scenarios, but there is. If I saw a child drowning, my instinct would be to go and save them, but deep down, I know that I will eventually get praised for my accomplishment. In the scenario of the burning building, there is an instinct that is telling the person to go into the building and save people, but they as well will think about the self-interest that could come out in the end of this situation. One will be praised a hero for taking people out of a building building.
Joel Feinberg talks about psychological egoism and how it can be described as an act only out of self-interest. According to Feinberg, there can never be a person that is not selfish. A person needs to be selfish to know what unselfish is. In Hobbes’ world view, unselfish does not exist because unselfish behavior cannot be empirically observed. A person would not be able to tell when a person is being unselfish to someone else, if they do not believe they are being selfish themselves. I understood that Feinberg will always believe that people are selfish in every action they do to try to do an act of kindness. When a person goes into the water to save the drowning child, they are doing it out of instinct as well as out of self interest, therefore being selfish. Even if a person isn’t trying to be selfish, Feinberg describes how there can be two types of selfish, a good and bad selfish. If a person wouldn’t go into the burning building to save others, one would debate that they are being selfish because they aren’t thinking about the people that could possibly die. There is also the possibility that they go into the fire to rescue people, but people would still think they were being selfish because they wanted the glory. Overall, I believe that there is not a difference between the actions taken at each of these scenarios.