Yogan's Journey to Life

What if we all come together and pool our money, and then buy the world? After we buy back the world we can distribute it amongst ourselves. How does that sound? It seems smart to me. Because together we have more purchasing power, and the world is really the only thing of value that you can buy. So why not buy it? Let's buy America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and don't forget Australia. Let's buy the oceans. Let's buy the sun. With all the money in the world I am sure we can do it. So obviously this is a ridiculous thing to consider doing. But it does reveal something important. That is money currently is just a way to decide/determine how the world is split up among the people. That's it. Right now the world isn't divided evenly, is it? It's not fair right? Well... shouldn't we divide everything evenly, what do you think? Perhaps a thought may come up that certain people don't deserve to have the same as everyone else, that some deserve either...

So I will be continuing with the Moral Philosophy theme that I started yesterday with a post on Kant's Categorical Imperative .  I mentioned Mill's Utilitarianism, which was another topic covered in my introduction to Ethics course in Reed College. Let me say that Mill's writing is much more clearer or easier to read than Kant's writings. I copied and pasted this from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism_%28book%29  ~~~~~ The essay is divided into five chapters, namely General Remarks; What Utilitarianism Is; Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility; Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible; and On the Connection Between Justice and Utility. In the first two chapters, Mill aims to define precisely what utilitarianism claims in terms of the general moral principles that it uses to judge concrete actions, as well as in terms of the sort of evidence that is supposed to be given for such principles....

--> So a really cool point opened up today in my social psychology class. We were looking at the tragedy of the commons, and the prisoners dilemma and ways that social psychology has found that may be useful/relevant. Both of these terms are common situations that are studied in different domains, one being Political science and another Economics.             So one point I remember I thought of in class but did not get a chance to share was that if one simply were to consider the factor of time and long term costs, then the tragedy of the commons and prisoners dilemma are straight forward. If you abuse everyone then you are giving permission to everyone else to abuse and so you guarantee that there will be drastic consequences for all, including yourself. So there is something wrong, or uneducated in the human in seeing the short term benefits, and see that through time the events that will come to pass. This is imp...