I knew you’d be strict with the words you used but I didn’t think you’d be that strict!!!


Like Skygazer said; you’d didn’t allot for many options.


If my parents asked me to buy a bar of butter so we can have a snack, they’d expect me to exercise some wisdom. I could go around a 2 block radius or even 3 looking for butter but beyond that I’ll return home. They’d be disappointed in me if I return home empty handed. At least I should buy a bar of margarine, cheese etc. as long as finances permit.

I read your post several times and I had to think many times about the words you used. At first I thought the 10 million was the salary which meant that for him to get paid, he would really have to play. The words “enticement” and even if given the money; Jordan still wouldn’t play got me thinking that there would be no assurance.

So I too carefully worded my reply. I agreed with Skygazer’s idea but added several of my own. When I stated that Ginebra would return the money to me, I meant that the money wouldn’t go directly to Michael but would be coursed through the team manager as my friend asked.


Since like you said there were no conditions and our task is only to give the money……. it would still be up to our wisdom in ensuring the fulfillment of our friends wish. Our friend didn’t give any more preconditions (maybe he had difficulty talking as he was dying but the fact is that he didn’t) and so had faith that we would exercise sound judgement and proper diligence in the handling of that money.

You never stated in what denominations the money is in. How much would the bag weigh (I am ashamed to say that I have never held even a million PESOS in my hands). Can I carry it alone? It could be problematic if I have to have someone help me carry it. Is the money scattered about or strapped in bundles. If in bundles; do they leave a mark around the bag enough for a passerby to notice that I’m carrying a load of money. It would be no good to either of us if I get waylaid and join my friend sooner than I hoped.

One of the first things I’d do is go to a bank and have 99.99+% of that money changed to a check. The residual is AHHH!!! expenses. (Whaaaaaaat? You expected me to use MY money for gasoline, meals, etc…while I’m going around with that much of his money doing his favor? I’m not a saint!!!)

Then I’ll set an appointment with the team manager and tell him of the plan. It would do him no good to keep the money for himself since I can always call the bank to stop payment if he does not accede to my friend’s wishes. (but I guess I’ll have to assume ownership of that money and lie that I found it in my backyard otherwise the tax men are going to slice that money with taxes aside from any living relatives my friend may have left.) And I’ll get a receipt!!! I wouldn’t part with a thousand Pesos without some kind of acknowledgement.

So we go in public that the Ginebra team has been given a “grant” to entice Jordan to play for Ginebra. (More often than not; media also serves as protection from hanky panky.) And like I stated, given Jordan’s stature and with media watching, he won’t take that money and NOT play. The team then would have to give the money (or check) back to me as I have assumed ownership of that money and use it for saving the ……………….

If Jordan agrees to play then I would wrangle a deal from Ginebra to give a piece of their PBA pie (of course it might not even be 10 million Pesos but its better than nothing) for saving the……………… You think they’d refuse? I don’t think so especially if I announce it in public.

If I clasp my hands together; my left is over my right. I feel uncomfortable when it is the other way around.

Well, justice league, I have to give it to you....I admire your sense of creativity. hehehe But not to get lost on the creative details you made, I'm sure you do realize where I am trying to get at with my interpretations given to Skygazer. With your plan, and interpretation, be it as it may be, I see that you give priority to what is "good" over to what is "right". Saving the lives of the children is more important to you than performing your duty. And interestingly enough, being a left-hand thumb over a right-hand thumb person, suggests that you are a teleologist, which suggests that you give emphasis to what you achieve in your actions. In other words, what you achieve from your action determines the moral status of an action - the end would justify the means. If you have to be creative in giving this money, carefully planning out the strategy, calculating the probability of doing a certain way of performing your duty (not just giving the money to Ginebra, but through your carefully designed plan), you would achieve your "real" end of saving the lives of the kids and at the same time achieve a sub-end by doing your duty. Killing two birds with one stone, kinda deal. Be it as it may be, I think it still boils down to this that you do find it more valuable and ethical to save the lives of the cancer kids rather than to provide some "grease money" for Michael Jordan.

Me? I would probably do the same thing. I probably won't be as creative as you are. I probably would just choose the simpler way of using the money for the kids. As a consolation for my friend, and as a pathetic attempt to patch up my guilt to my late friend, I probably would set up a foundation or a hospital wing (or whatever the left-over money can afford) under my late friend's name. hehehe

Cheers,
labguy

PS.
So going to the next dilemma, what would you do if you were put in such a situation where you have to choose between killing your 5 year old child to save the lives of 20 people or letting the 20 people die to save your 5 year old child?

ang hirap naman ng mga choices mo labguy... he he he..

sorry to say.. i keep my five kids. If I save the 20 people, after that, it would be probably hard for me to live, and besides, 15 more people really doesn't make a difference with 84 million and 5 than , 84 and 20 more. he he heh e... i'm just lazy to put than in numbers.. mahina ako eh!

Hi Skygazer,
Don’t worry, like I said, there are no right or wrong answers in such questions. If one was to be put in such a situation, I don’t think it will ever be easy for anyone to make a decision in such a case. The point I am trying to make is that contrary to what Utilitarianism states that morality is determined by the majority, we see that such a notion is not plausible. Reducing ethics to a mere formula or numbers, is pathetic.

Utilitarianism has a lot of flaws. A few of the objections to this philosophy include:
1. Utilitarianism is the “doctrine of swine”.

2. Utilitarianism asks too much of human beings, since, strictly speaking, we are morally obliged to maximize happiness in everything we do.

3. There is insufficient time before acting to calculate the consequences of an action.

In the first objection, it can be observed that since the philosophical view did not distinguish between refined pleasures such as those associated with the appreciation of art, music, literature, etc. and “animal” pleasures associated with eating, drinking, sex, etc., Utilitarianism is a moral theory worthy only of swine. It appears that the pleasures of sadists, masochists, arsonists, voyeurs, etc. are to count equally with the pleasures of those who are “normal”. This possibility strikes most of us as unsatisfactory as we know that there are other things of intrinsic value besides pleasure. The modern utilitarians answered this charge, though, by insisting that we pay attention to the quality of the pleasure as well as the quantity of pleasure. John Stuart Mill stated, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Mill believed that everyone who had experience of the higher pleasures would choose the higher pleasures over the pleasures of a pig and it is those pleasures that are to count in the calculation of what is the right action.

Looking at the second objection, it implies that Utilitarianism's expectation for humanity is too high. It seems that Utilitarianism does not require that one's motive should be to maximize the happiness of those concerned, but rather that one's actions have that consequence. With that, Utilitarianism doesn't seem to be saying anything about what our motives should be, so long as the consequences are good. However, this poses a problem in certain cases such as when a vicious act turns into a moral act. Taking into consideration, moral luck, a bungled murder that unexpectedly leads to happy consequences does not make the act moral, right?

In the “insufficient time” objection, utilitarians suggested that human beings have been around long enough to have learned which actions generally bring about pleasure/happiness, and which bring about pain. With this in mind, we do not have to do a lot of critical thinking every time we want to decide what to do. However, if that's correct - about our having learned that certain actions are evil, then what good is Utilitarianism? How is it different from deontology (a philosophy that states that morality is dictated by duty)? With Utilitarianism, it seems like we ought to know what to do without the help of Utilitarianism.

Relativism

There’s another concept in ethics that point towards the notion that morality is relative. This concept of ethical/moral relativism is of various forms. One of it’s forms is called Cultural Relativism (CR). This states that morality differs in every society and is a convenient term for socially approved habits. So, according to this view, if a society approves of a habit or an act by making it a norm, then that would mean that type of act is morally right, for that particular society. CR, as a theory in morality, suggests that there is no universal truth in ethics but only various cultural codes. With that, we can say that our own code has no special status; it is merely one among many, therefore we have to be tolerant of other people’s or culture’s belief that are different from ours.

Do you support this? Do you think Cultural Relativism is plausible?

Well he is ruthless.

I'd be wary to trust his word!

In the movie Ransom; Mel's character realized that if he gave in, he would never see his son alive again.

There is no assurance that he would keep his word.

(How would I effect the death anyway? Would he be foolish to give me a gun? Would I pull on a lever etc... I hope he gives me a gun!!!!!)


I fear that if I choose to save my child; he will kill the 20 and we follow suit.

Now if I kill my child, he'd likely kill the 20 too then me or worse let me live knowing I'd be dead inside anyway for the folly of my choice.

I won't give him the satisfaction. I'd choose nothing!!! I'd do nothing!!!

Why do I feel that your next statement will be about the Pacific island residents who practiced (I think they discarded this already) cannibalism of their relatives (when they passed on)?


KURU! KURU! KURU!

Actually, no, I wasn't gonna give that cannibalism blurb. Although I am aware of that case. I was actually thinking about Ruth Benedict's studies and the case for the Nazis. Are you familiar with that? Seems like we've been reading the same books.

Yes, that's a tough situation to be in. You have to remember that if you choose not to do anything, it also means the 20 people will die. In this case, there seems to be a no win scenario. If I were in that position, I would probably just shoot myself. Sure, he'll probably order the death of my child and the 20 people as well, but like you said, I won't give him the satisfaction of making me feel responsible for the deaths of the 20 people and my child.

So, justice league, do you see Cultural Relativism plausible?

That is if he would give you a gun.

I'll read the rest later.

Like I previously stated; I also am a man of science.

But please do tell me of the Nazis. That I don't know.

It was a weekend so I had time to read about Ruth Benedict.

I don't touch up on philosophy really except when it comes my way.


Seems she recanted about that because of the Nazis. We should be tolerant to a point of other morals but I firmly believe that moralities have to pass some kind of a test before it becomes acceptable to others.

It was obvious to her that the morals of the Nazis didn't pass her test (whatever it was, but I have my own).

Hi justice league,

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, I don't have too much time at the moment as my significant other just woke up. I don't want to start our morning with an unpleasant vibe. hehehe Good to see that you read about Ruth Benedict. I'll give you more of my take on that next time when I get a chance. Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

In 1998, a dictionary (or even 2 dictionaries) defined Filipina as a domestic helper from the Philippines thereby labelling all Filipinas as domestic helpers.

Did we have any moral cause to complain and ask for its retraction?

I am not familiar with this case. Do you have the info on those two dictionaries so I can check them out (publisher/dictionary title/publication place etc.)? Until I verify, the best I can do at the moment is to deduce what may have been the case. I don’t suppose the definition of “Filipina” was written as domestic helper. Would it be possible that the term domestic helper was used in the context of just an example? In that case, I think the example was plainly stupid. But I don’t really see any case on immorality on that. Sure it was ignorant and inaccurate to define Filipinas as domestic helpers. I know fully well that there are lots of non-Filipina domestic helpers as well. Surprisingly, here in Canada, China ranks above the Philippines as source of Live-In Caregivers (although we certainly are in the top 5). So I think that definition was merely a popular example, not the most accurate example though, but popular nevertheless.

I’m not sure what you meant with that question but I’m assuming that with you raising the question of morality in branding Filipinas as domestic helpers, you think that it is somewhat derogatory. Were you asking me if we did have moral cause to complain and ask for a retraction back in 1998 or is the question more in line with “Do I think we have a moral cause for complaint”? The first interpretation of the question, my answer is, I do not know. I don’t know if the Philippines ever complained and asked for a retraction in 1998 because of that. Like I said, I am not familiar with the case and its history. With regards to my second interpretation of the question, do I think we have a moral cause to complain, my answer would be – no. What does morality have anything to do with one being identified as a domestic helper? Does being a domestic helper mean the person is somewhat like a worthless lowly maggot unworthy of respect by the society? Of course not! My significant other was a caregiver, I had a short stint of being a caregiver as well, but we are not ashamed of it. I think it’s honorable work. I think our fellow Filipinos should give domestic helpers a very high regard because domestic helpers are deemed to be the country’s modern day heroes. Domestic workers play a huge role in contributing to the country’s economy. I actually find it more immoral of fellow Filipinos looking down on the personhood of domestic helpers. The mere description of Filipinas as domestic helpers does not necessarily imply that Filipinas are degraded. Sure, the definition is inaccurate, stupid, and even ignorant, but not necessarily derogatory. They could have just defined Filipinas as female humans of the Philippines or even females humans of Philippine background, or something to that effect. But to define Filipinas through occupation, I think is unintelligent. We may have a case to complain and ask for a retraction if we base things on (in)accuracy, but to use the morality angle, I think is a little too much.

So that’s my take on that.

How about others? How do you guys feel about this case? Do you guys think that being identified as a domestic helper is an insult, and therefore immoral?