thewaJJfJower

never stop creating keep on building keep on becoming

[thewajjfjower]

Birth Strike

November 24, 2019 

Birth strike is a worldwide movement of people who have decided not to procreate or have children due to climate change. One of the goals of birth strike is to foster a movement that would force the world to create awareness geared towards actions addressing the impending doom the is climate change. The people behind the Birth strike movement choose to not have children because they want to prevent their possible progeny from inheriting in a dead earth.

I think there are two scenarios that could possibly happen, first is the possibility that the progeny of the current generation surpasses the previous one, meaning they will be better-upgraded versions of the previous generation. The possibility that they are the “hope of the future”. They are capable of addressing and solving the problems that the previous generation created. The second possibility would be that the problem, that is climate change and the impending doom of this world, is so irreversibly unfixable that nothing can be done to solve it. This would result in a world unable to foster any lifeform.

Does supporting the movement birth strike solve the issue of climate change, global warming and the impending desolation of the world? People who support birth strike forgo having children, to lessen the carbon footprint contributing to the death of the planet. But the number of people supporting this movement is not enough to make a significant difference in the our already deteriorating planet. In order to address the issue, the emphasis must put be on main factors that contribute to the death of our planet, one of which is capitalism.

Birth strike may not be a solution, but it contributes leaps and bounds towards pushing the issue forward. People who are on birth strike believe that they are contributing towards the saving the planet. This unorthodox approach creates awareness and that is better than nothing. At then end of the end having children is an autonomous choice and it is up to the individual to believe whether your progeny will be “the children of the future” or they will be “the children with no future”.

[thewajjfjower]

VEGANISM

November 10, 2019

Veganism is a way of living, that aims to exclude, as much as possible and as practicable as possible, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food. Clothing or any other purpose. There are many ways to practice veganism. The commonality of them all is a following plant-based diet that avoids animal foods such as meat including; fish, shellfish and insects, dairy, eggs and honey and avoiding animal-derived products, products tested on animals and places that exploit animals for entertainment.  

How does veganism impact the world? Veganism promotes health, reduction of animal cruelty and planet protection. One would think that with all the positive objectives that veganism promotes, surely there would a considerable amount of vegan in the world. So, what limits veganism?

 It cannot be applied to everyone.

Some argue that veganism cannot be applied to some parts of the world, because it fails to use the available land efficiently. A strict plant-based diet would feed fewer people than other diets like a dairy friendly vegetarian diet because it would fail to use perennial grasslands typically used for grazing. For people residing in deserted locations devoid of any plant produce, being vegan is not an option. Especially in the lower tier of the social class who lack the financial capability to access viable produce, meat alternatives, and over-priced cruelty-free products.

It is hard to maintain.

Veganism is not framed as a movement but an identity. You don’t do vegan, you are vegan. This means any consumption of non-vegan products relegates people to a non-vegan status and deters people from attempting a vegan diet.

I think the concept of being a vegan is great. It has so many benefits, but I think I cannot apply it in my life, because it is very high maintenance. Maybe I will just adapt some of the postulates that veganism advocates.

[thewajjfjower]

Assisted suicide

November 10, 2019  

Euthanasia is the act of terminating the life of a terminally-ill patient. Patients usually undergoing euthanasia are at the endgame of their disease. There is no other option but death. Euthanasia has several forms; active and passive.

Active euthanasia involves the direct and deliberate induction of death to a patient. Active euthanasia involves active involvement usually in the form of a drug that induces death. Passive euthanasia, from the name itself, is the act of allowing death to occur naturally to a patient. Passive euthanasia is usually done by withdrawing treatment, such as pulling the plug on the life-sustaining machine of lost cause comatose patients or withholding treatment, such as not carrying out surgery that can prolong life for a short amount of time.

Of the forms of euthanasia, if I were to choose which one would be more ethically sound, I would pick active euthanasia and here is why.

It is more economic. 

Consider a terminally ill cancer patient who has exhausted almost every financial source they have to prolong that patient’s life but despite all the efforts cancer triumphs. Assuming the patient is not the only valued family member of the family it would better to allocate the remaining funds for the future generation of the family. It would be better investing the remaining eggs in a defined tray rather than in a broken basket with no guarantee of being fixed.

It recognizes patient autonomy.

Administering assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a rigorous process that recognizes the patients as the highest authority. In certain countries such as the United States, Laws require that a physician diagnose a terminally ill patient as having a life expectancy of six months or less and a second doctor then must concur with the diagnosis. Patients must request the lethal prescription twice verbally and once in written form with a waiting period of at least two weeks between the first and last requests. Lastly, the doctor who writes the prescription must believe the patient is mentally competent to make the decision. The law also requires that patients be able to take the pills on their own. The safeguards that exist in the laws of states that legalized physician-assisted suicide protect patients’ rights and maintain justice. Not allowing a patient to decide when his life should end is, in fact, denying him his freedom.

It is the last act of mercy you can give to a patient.

From Greek etymology of the word, from eu ‘well’ + thanatos ‘death’, well death or good death. I think that is the ultimate goal of euthanasia – to end whatever remaining suffering is left and allow the patient to carry on the other side in a somewhat pain-free manner. Euthanasia is morally acceptable because it decreases the

misery of everyone involved: the patient, the caretakers, and the family and friends of the patient. Living itself, in my opinion, is just tolerated suffering, at least in the last remaining moment of the patient he felt nothing, no more pain. Prolonging a life certainly filled with suffering is crueler compared to dyeing feeling nothing.

[thewajjfjower]

VIRTUE ETHICS

October 6, 2019

We are what repeatedly do, Excellence then is not an act but a habit – Aristotle. This is one of my favorite quotes from Aristotle. Aristotle focuses on virtual Theory. Virtue Theory is an empirical theory that highlights an individual’s character rather than following a set of rules. Aristotle and other virtue theorists claim that if the emphasis is placed on being good people, the right action will follow naturally. Virtue theory mirrors the ancient postulation that humans have a fixed nature – an essence, and that the way we flourish is by adhering to that nature. Aristotle described this in terms of what he called proper functioning.

Everything has a function and a thing can be considered “good” depending on the extent to which it fulfills its preset function and “bad” to the extent that it doesn’t. For example, the function of a pen is to write so a pen that does not write is a bad one. The same principle can be applied to humans. Humans are animals. All the proper functioning which holds true to animals applies to us. The human need to grow, be happy and fertile. In fact, humans are considered as the “rational animal” or the “social animal” thus our function extends to being reasonable and logical.

Aristotle argued that nature has programmed us the desire to be virtuous, in the same way that seeds are built with the drive to become trees.

But how did Aristotle define “virtuous”?

 Aristotle stated that to be virtuous means doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right amount, toward the right people. But this explanation is to still too vague. Aristotle further explains that there is no need to be specific. If you are virtuous, you know exactly what to do. He defined virtue as a set of robust characteristics, that when developed will lead to predictably good behavior. It is what he called the golden mean, which is the midpoint between two extremes, which are called vices. It is the right blend of excess and deficiency. There is no all or nothing concept in this theory and it always depends on the situation.

According to Aristotle Virtue is a skill, a way of living. It is something that can only be learned through experience. Virtue is a knowledge he called practical wisdom.

But how does one become virtuous?

One becomes virtuous by emulating what Aristotle calls “moral exemplars” – people who already possess virtue. We are built with the ability to recognize and desire to emulate moral exemplars. An individual becomes virtuous by observing, learning and emulating them. At first, it will be hard, but over time this action will become an ingrained part of one’s character. Eventually being virtuous becomes robust. It will manifest whenever you need it. It will become realized – it becomes effortless.

 But why do we need to become virtuous?

 The answer is EUDAIMONIA. A life well-lived. A life of striving. It’s a life of pushing yourself to your limits towards finding success. A eudemonistic life will be filled with happiness that the product of achieving something really difficult, something that requires an immense amount of effort, rather than just having something handed to you. Living a eudemonistic life means you will never be done improving. Choosing to live life in this way also means you’ll face disappointments and failures. This is Morality for Aristotle – Honing your strengths while on your weaknesses.

I think the abiding by the concepts of virtue ethics is a good way to live. EUDAIMONIA, I think, is what most of my generation wants to achieve. I know it is what I want to achieve. I believe life is not about finding yourself, it is about creating yourself.  To never stop creating – to keep on building, to keep on becoming the person that I want to be ~.

[thewajjfjower]

MORALITY IS NOT AN EQUATION

September 29, 2019

When the topic of utilitarianism comes to mind the phrase “the greatest good, for the greatest number” comes to mind. This phrase was also mentioned during class and it gave a view of the dark side of utilitarianism. In the utilitarian perspective, anything can be considered as a “utility”, tangible, valuable, and disposable.

In 2017, an online paper by Guy Kahane, Jim A. C. Everett and their colleagues, they highlighted this side of utilitarianism. They separated utilitarianism into two dimensions: (1) “instrumental harm,” in which it is permissible to sacrifice the few to benefit the many, and (2) “impartial beneficence,” in which one would agree that “it is morally wrong to keep money that one doesn't really need if one can donate it to causes that provide effective help to those who will benefit a great deal.”

I agree with the points made by both Kahane, Everett and their colleagues. In my opinion, utilitarianism translates into the ethical calculation, which is unethical and morally corrupt. It takes ethics and turns it into a simple matter of arithmetic. For example, suppose everyone was obligated to be an organ donor, to give the most utility to the most people, but if you had any kind of difficult illness or injury, they simply cut you into pieces and give your body parts to a dozen or so people. This would mean 12 is more than one. It validates this supposedly barbaric act.

This is wrong. Ethics and morality are not math equations. Immoral actions are still immoral even if the majority of people agree, or even if some kind of positive consequence can be perceived by those acts. Morality is engraved in the action itself, not found in the product. Morality must pursue to circumvent undesirable consequences as opposed to purely converging on positive ones.

I don’t subscribe to utilitarianism. I believe that actions are either more or less immoral. I do not believe that we can translate moral “goodness” as a simple math equation of subtracting the lives that suffer from the lives that benefit.

[thewajjfjower]

HEDONISM

September 29, 2019

Hedonism is defined by Micheal Onfray is an introspective attitude to life-based on taking pleasure yourself and pleasuring others, without harming yourself or anyone else. It defines happiness as the net maximum pleasure, pleasure defined as the absence of pain.

Through the eyes of this ethical one achieves happiness via pursuing pleasurable things in life. However, I do not agree with this statement. For me, happiness is long term and pleasures are short-lived. Pursuing happiness by doing pleasurable things is not true happiness. In the long run, trying to find happiness solely through hedonism leads to a sense of meaninglessness and emptiness. Life cannot be a cycle from one pleasure to the next. After a time, the brain will become desensitized to action and require something ever-increasingly stimulating. Leading to worse and worse behavior.

[thewajjfjower]

EGOISM

September 22, 2019

People are motivated by happiness. When an act is done for others, people are motivated because of the reward of satisfaction upon completion of the act. People are social creatures and selfish in the most fundamental sense. One cannot draw the line between altruism and egoism- they are intertwined.

Altruism is rooted in the ego. Yes, there is this awareness that the act is done because it is the right thing to do, but subconsciously the act is done because it rewards our moral framework. It is still self-serving. It still fits with the definition of the egoist perspective, that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s action.

Thus there is truly no true altruistic act 

[thewajjfjower]

Paying Back

September 15, 2019

Should children give back to parents? Should the offspring give back to the progenitor? I think there is no universal rule for this. This is situational. It depends on the house you grew up in. In depends on how you have defined “home”.

Personally, I would say yes. I grew up in a decent home. It was not perfect, but my parents did the best they could to provide for our family. My parents sacrificed a lot for me. Especially my mother. She is my rock. She is one of the people I look up to in life. She has been through a lot. She was a professor, but she gave up her job to take care of me and my brother. She always has my back, supporting me in every venture I wish to pursue, be it with art, my studies or life.

When I was in my second year of high school, my world was shattered. My brother, 11 at that time suddenly passed away. Our family was at our lowest. It’s was so hard to see my parents so helpless. Words cannot describe how painful it was to see my parents talking to the corpse of my dead brother. I couldn’t breathe at the sight of them apologizing to my brother. “Anak sorry ‘di ka naligtas ni mama”, my mother said as she hugged my brother for the last time.

Two years ago, my mom got sick. She suffered from an acute kidney infection which led to the resection of her right kidney. I was so scared. I was so traumatized by what happened to my brother. But this time it was different, I was 19, older, more capable of being the pillar my father can hold on to, and so I did. As I promised my brother, I took care of our family, because it was the least I could do for him. While my father was busy collecting funds from different charities to fund my mother’s surgery, I took care of my mom. I stayed by her side all throughout her stay at the hospital. Thankfully the surgery was a success. This happened during the holiday season. Thankfully we were discharged before Christmas.  

My parents have been through a lot. This is why I want to give them the best version of the world I could possibly give. I want to somehow mend their wounds, take them under my wings and just shield them from all the fiends of the world. 

[thewajjfjower]

Absolutism vs Relativism

September 15, 2019

Absolutism, from the world itself, upholds rules to the absolute degree. All moral commands are true at all times regardless of context, culture, or situation. Relativism, views moral values, relative to the viewer, to the context, culture, and situation. It considers the consequences of moral actions when it comes to deciding whether an action is right or wrong. Which of the two would I prefer?

In the absolutist perspective, rules are defined. Morality is not based on individuals. This enables societal conditioning, to share common values. An example of this would be rules governing religious sectors. Absolutism also gives authority to human rights legislation. It allows a society to evaluate the morality of another society.  Since there are a set of rules as a reference, decisions can be more quickly made. Moral rules are evaluated critically. Rules apply to everyone, regardless. There exists a concept of fairness.  It gives clear moral judgment.

Relativism only works if we live in a perfect society. Humans are prone to commit an error, we lie, cheat, and steal. A universal moral code must exist to govern society and facilitate equality. Without a universal moral code, there is a possibility that personal moral code would reign supreme. It also creates a society born out of personal bias.  Factions would be created. Factions who focus on sharing similar perspectives rather than varying outcomes. Community seclusion may occur often due to the distress levels which occur if different definitions are available. People would favor their own moral codes and ethics at the expense of others. It would create anarchy. It allows views and discernments to become general truths. Any concept becomes the fact if cultural relativism is applied to society. This is the most noteworthy disadvantage of this perception. An opinion immediately develops into fact. Discernments become real. One could easily fabricate a story, include it in their personal morality, and there would be nothing that anyone could do to stop that person from accomplishing whatever outcome he/she desired.

Honestly, I would prefer neither of the two because both have their weaknesses.  Absolutism is too immutable, while relativism is unsubstantiated. But if I were to pick one I would choose absolutism given that it has more pros than cons compared to relativism

[thewajjfjower]

The Limit

September 8, 2019

Up to what extent are we morally accountable for the consequences of our actions?

In my opinion, one must have a personal definition of moral accountability. This is very subjective and it varies. It also influenced by a lot of factors like one’s upbringing, values, and beliefs. 

Another thing to consider is the scope and limitations of our actions. Up to what extent is our scope of influence? This is also where one’s definition of influence comes to play. By influence, does one mean direct or indirect? The next thing to consider is one’s definition of limitations. Up to what extent is the line?

By first having clear personal definitions of these, then we can proceed to determine our limit.

9.8.19

[thewajjfjower]

The ring of Humanity

August 25, 2019

In the legend of “The Ring of Gyges”, it argues about the nature of humanity, that it is self-interested, and that justice is merely a compromise, an alternative to injustice. The story reflects about the dangers of power when it lacks accountability and the importance for individuals to create a standard for internal harmony.

From the title itself, Gyges was a Shepard who found a ring that gave him the power to be invisible and he used this power to do immoral things. Glaucon used the story to give two assumptions regarding the relationship between man and justice. First, man is only just because it is better than the alternative punishments that come with being unjust. Second, when man is given power, in this case the invisibility that the ring possess, man would always choose to do evil instead of good because all the pleasures of life arise from doing evil things. Glaucon fails to account in his argument how complex humanity is and how varied man is as a species. Gyges may have been capable of doing all the atrocities in the world, but it is not applicable to assume that all men would do the same.

Another story that is quite like the story of Gyges, is the Lord of the Rings by author J.R.R. Tolkien. There were two hobbits, who came across a ring with the power to make them invisible, Frodo and Gollum. Gollum, used to be a normal hobbit named Smeagol, but when he discovered the ring and its powers, he became corrupted by it and its power. He even named the ring his ‘precious’. Frodo on the other hand, saw the ring’s power as a burden and set out on a quest to destroy it. Frodo used the ring’s power several times, only when he needed to use it. He did not succumb to the power of the ring nor use the ring’s power for personal gain.

Both stories are applicable in today’s landscape. But I find Tolkien’s approach more believable. Both stories feature a ring that gave the power of invisibility. But Tolkien’s story cites an example of what will happen if we succumb to that power. Nowadays, invisibility is reached through secretiveness, confidentiality laws and rights, and the lack of substantial accountability. This is evident especially in the Philippines current political landscape. There a lot of Gollums appointed in public servant positions, inebriated with so much power that they lack the most basic principles of humanity.

Humans possess an innate power other than the ring of invisibility, and that is the freedom of their own choices whether the path they walk on resembles that of Frodo or Gollum.

8.25.19

[thoughts-memories]

[yoursummerdreamz]

[cronologic]

[wolftramp]

Vintage Blog

[crossconnectmag]

“Broken but open” by Jericho

hi, i’m a 20-year-old design student from Italy. i’m starting to scan and paint all the illustrations from my moleskine and this is the last one. they’re all pretty much personal. hope you can relate… the motto is humans before everything else.

you can find me on facebook here or on my art blog here on tumblr.

have a nice everything, everyone…

[thewajjfjower]

and I don’t know how to get through with life anymore...

[thelovewhisperer]

At some point, you’ve got to just jump. You’ve got to quit being scared of the “maybes” and “what-ifs”. Quit cheating yourself out of the best thing that could ever happen to you. Quit cheating him of the same. Fall hard, fall long, and fall forever.

Follow for more quotes about life (via thelovewhisperer)