Mundane Morality: Sarah Buss on Respect

The first prompt we are discussing is from the Reddit post “WIBTA for not apologizing to smothering in-laws?” This post is written by a bride and discusses how she is fighting with her in-laws. She writes that, because her in-laws have said and done multiple extremely rude things, she sprayed her mother-in-law with water from a hose and is wondering if she should apologize or not.

Buss takes a Kantian deontological approach to moral significance. She believes moral significance is derived from manners and their use within; appearance, cultural relativism, and being agreeable. Concerning this specific reddit post Buss would believe, through manners and appearance, that the bride is in the wrong and should apologize to her in-laws even if they were rude first. Buss fundamentally believes that, “To treat people with respect is to act in a way that acknowledges their dignity, and to act this way because they have dignity (802).

Even though the in-laws might have been rude first and were not being polite or respectful, the bride is further increasing the disrespect by escalating the conflict (spraying with a hose). She is also not acknowledging her in laws with their innate “dignity,” choosing to see their actions in the worst light possible instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, Buss wrote previously that “The point of good manners is to create a certain appearance, to show others that one does not care overly much for one’s own dear self (799)”. The bride did not apologize by adhering to manners to “create a certain appearance”, the bride is then exhibiting the opposite of “not car[ing] overly much for one’s dear self” which reveals a more self-interested nature rather than one of benevolence, which Buss believes is central to manners and appearance. Since the bride did not apologize to her in-laws the bride is not only not treating her in laws with their innate respect/dignity but is revealing she cares more for her wants then their wants. The bride’s actions exhibit how her manners do not give her a good appearance and are therefore are morally wrong.

The second prompt is focused on the Reddit post, “AITA for telling my friend that I don’t care about her sexual orientation”? This post deals with an individual that has come out as lesbian to their friend group. This individual is lesbian and has conversations with the author of the post in which she tells them to explore their sexuality and has asked, what the author believes are inappropriate questions. The author told her that she does not care about her sexual orientation, which hurts the individual who then accused the poster of being a “closet homophobe”.

In order to determine if the person is morally right to say that they don’t care about the individual’s sexual orientation, we will use Sarah Buss’ perspective of Kantian deontology with a focus on manners and their moral significance. Buss believes that in order to be polite, one must treat the other as an object of respect. To make her argument that manners are morally significant, Buss states that manners are different from morality as they encourage people to make themselves agreeable which acknowledges one’s dignity. She says that “people have a basic moral obligation to make themselves agreeable to others,” and that “making oneself agreeable to others is not only an end in itself; it is also, and more importantly, a means to treating them with respect” (798).

In relating these quotes to the example, Buss would say that when the author of the prompt says they don’t care about the individual’s sexual orientation, it is a way of them not making themselves agreeable to others, thus is morally wrong. In addition, Buss says that “to treat someone ‘‘with respect’’ is to treat [them] in a way that acknowledges [their] intrinsic value, or ‘‘dignity.’” (797). By saying that you don’t care about another person’s sexual orientation, you are not showing them respect, as well as not acknowledging their dignity. Instead, it is making it seem as if you do not value the person. That the person’s feelings and thoughts are not valid; that they don’t even matter in the first place. To make one agreeable is to show consideration, which would make people less inclined to harm others, care more about people’s well-beings, and be conditioned to regard people with the dignity they deserve (800).

Although the poster is well within their rights to not, for example, attend a political protest in support of gay marriage, they are actively disparaging their friend’s intrinsic choices and preferences unnecessarily by verbally attacking them. The lack of agreeability that the author seems to have would result in the opposite of this and would lead to an immoral life, one that is severely impoverished. The author in this scenario needs think more about how their actions affect those around them – even if the issue is not significant to the poster, it clearly means a lot to their friend.

Summary

Often, the most significant challenge with moral philosophy comes from the fact that there are usually multiple individuals involved in any issue, each with their own moral preferences, predispositions, goals and worries. In both of these cases, it’s possible to see both sides of the argument. For the first, it’s possible that the poster had been experiencing years of mentally exhausting comments from their in-laws, and out of pure, instinctual frustration they pointed their hose in their mother-in-laws direction. This action still isn’t morally admirable, but adding different levels of context can help some justify different moral situations. The beauty (or downfall, for some) of deontological ethics comes from its relative certainty on some issues – although there are many things that are probably still immoral that are not “banned” by its standards, it takes clear and definite stances on some issues.

As Amy Olberding has previously shown us, a significant amount of “moral” action occurs in the arena of everyday life – the small moments between people that, while potentially insignificant on their own, build up to define the way people feel about each other and morality in general. Her argument is designed to emphasize the importance of manners – by mindfully acting in a way that signals to others that you care about their dignity enough to be polite, humans send each other constantly reinforcing messages that they should each continue to care about each other.

Buss reinforces this argument, but takes the opposite approach by relying on Kantian arguments about the importance of treating rational beings as ends themselves and with respect (as they are an equally autonomous being). For her, the respect that manners convey is the exact same as the respect that morality in general creates – because of this, being ill mannered towards someone is as bad as being more actively immoral. In the cases discussed, there is no one right answer. However, in both cases, they require the poster to put aside their pride and choose to directly express their respect for others. They don’t have to cave in and take their side, but they have an obligation to each other, and themselves, to treat the people around them with as much respect as possible.

Kantian Ethicists Subscription to the Golden Rule: A Quick and Simple Guide to the Collective Deontology

Golden Rule:
Treat others the way you want to be treated.

Prompt 1: My boyfriend wants to follow me and live with me after he graduates from his university, but I’m not sure if I want to be responsible for changing his career trajectory and have him move to a new town. But at the same time I still want to be with him.

In this scenario, we have a girlfriend and boyfriend who are very close, as they should be in a relationship. The boyfriend wants to stay with the girlfriend after he finishes college. The girlfriend however does not feel comfortable changing her boyfriend’s life and career to stay in the relationship. However she still likes being with him and wants to stay in the relationship. Relationships are a huge factor in our life, and we believe that in order to gain a full philosophical role that adheres to manners, we believe that she should stay with her boyfriend.

Although Buss and Olberding differ for their reasons behind manners’ role within a given moral framework, they can both agree that an important component of etiquette is establishing and maintaining the appearance. For Buss, the appearance is meant to serve as a selfless act for which true acknowledgement of the other takes place. Specifically, acknowledging the other’s intrinsic value, or dignity (Buss 796). Regardless of how an individual feels about another, they are rational beings and thus deserving of respect. And by appearing respectful in behaving with manners, we thereby directly express the respect we have for others.

With that in mind, the partner of the boyfriend has a relatively straightforward approach to their dilemma. In order to show the boyfriend respect, Buss argues that the partner needs to be agreeable. In this scenario, that would endorse a more passive and accepting approach from the partner. The fact that the partner wants to stay with the boyfriend makes the decision quite simple. The partner should listen and ultimately agree with the boyfriend’s plea to stay together because his value would be acknowledged as a result. Moreover, the relationship may also strengthen because the boyfriend would feel recognized and more importantly, entrusted. Therefore, I would recommend the partner prioritizes the relationship and stays with the boyfriend.

Prompt 2: I have a friend who is part of the LDS church and does not believe in gay marriage (I definitely do). We have been friends since we were in kindergarten, and of course at that time we didn’t think about these differences. Should I not be friends with him since he doesn’t value LGBTQ+ rights?

Our society is one of manners and courtesy. This means that in essence, we have a code of rules that we have set in society. On this prompt, we see two friends with differing views on gay marriage and LGBTQ+ rights. One of the friends is a member of the LDS church, an organization known for their lack of respect for the LGBTQ+ community. Should they continue to be friends even though they can’t agree on this political issue? We believe that in this situation, respect is paramount. Thus, the individual belonging to the LDS church should have a conversation with their friend about the issue. Regardless of whether they decide to end the relationship, we believe both individuals should be treated with respect in the process.

One of the most critical components of manners – otherwise known as etiquette or courtesy – is how an individual presents themselves. A follower of Kantian moral philosophy, Buss believes that every rational being, humans included, are worthy of respect and should be treated as such through the act of manners. Manners, Buss believes, are a matter of good morals; to interact with another individual without proper manners is to act immorally. As a result, our response to the matter of friendship with a member of the LDS church is fairly straightforward. If you would like to act with good manners, the suggested course of action is to remain friends with this individual for ending the friendship abruptly would be considered rude, especially if the individual asking this question has never conversed with their friend about the topic of valuing LGBTQ+ rights.

This being said, we make this suggestion only on the assumption that the individual asking this question would not be directly harmed by continuing this friendship. This is to say, if the individual is a member of the LGBTQ+ community, of which this possible friend does not value, then our advice would then be for the individual to end the friendship but to explain to their former friend why the friendship is ending. The reality is that respect and manners are a two-way street; you can treat someone with good manners all you want but if the other individual is not doing the same for you (not treating you with respect as a member of the LGBTQ+ community), then you are bringing harm unto yourself by letting yourself be treated with less respect than you deserve. You owe it to yourself to ask to be treated with respect, even if that means ending the friendship; we only ask that you still treat your former friend with respect by letting them know why you’re choosing to let go of what was once a good relationship.

We based our moral advice here on one primary notion: that each and every human being has inherent value because they are human. Thus, everyone deserves and should be treated with respect. Even in scenarios where one may need to be blunt or even confrontational with a friend or colleague, one must always keep respect in mind; it should be at the forefront of every interaction, no matter the circumstances. This is not to say, however, that one should just be a pushover – one should also expect to be respected by others. It is moral to treat others with respect, but it is not immoral to expect that same respect back. It is also worth noting that respect, manners, and etiquette can still be maintained during arguments, debates, and confrontations. This principle is how we decided upon what moral advice to give to the people in the two situations above – as long as you are making decisions with the humanity and value of other people in mind (as well as showing this through your actions) you will almost certainly be behaving in a way that is moral.

Means to an End

Kant on capitalism and moral obligations to others.

In terms of the ethical standard problem, Kant states that “the categorical  imperative is thus only a single one, and specifically this: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law,” (Ak 4: 421). To determine whether or not the maxim is universalizable one must first establish the maxim, then consider what the corresponding universal law would be, and finally determine whether or not this universal law is plausible or if it presents a conceptual contradiction. If a maxim being universalized presents a contradiction then one must not do it because it is  “impossible to will that  their  maxims  should  be  elevated  to  the  universality  of  a  natural  law, because  such  a  will  would  contradict  itself” (Ak 4: 424).

Kant also presents a second way of considering his ethical standard saying that one must treat “the  human  being… as end in itself, not merely as means to the discretionary use of this or that will,” (Ak 4: 428). This is to say that one cannot simply use another human being as a means to an end but instead must consider them as an end in and of themselves. Kant also distinguishes between perfect duties, which are the exceptionless imperatives that state one cannot do some action, and the imperfect duties which are those that one ought to do but do not have to do in every situation.

Ethical Consumption Under Capitalism

Is the term “no ethical consumption under capitalism” true? And if so, is it even possible to live a virtuous life if capitalism exists? If it isn’t, is it possible to create an ethical system that allows for virtuous living and what would it look like?

What does Kant define as ethical?

“There is nothing it is possible to think of anywhere in the world, or indeed anything at all outside it, that can be held to be good without limitation, excepting only a good will.”  

(9; Ak 4: 393)

Kant provides a framework that claims that the only thing that is purely good is good will. Kant says that universalized maxims can inform one on how to act. If it cannot be applied to every situation, then it is not an ethical decision. The good place does a good job deconstructing the ethical implications of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which there are the people in charge of the means of production and there are the working class who are often exploited and used as means rather than ends. In order for one group to maintain power and excess of production, another group must be kept down and oppressed. That means that when it comes to consumption, there are hardly any good decisions to be made. A good example of this is in the good place when Chidi is debating what type of muffin to get for breakfast. He is trying to calculate harm reduction and the lesser of two evils, but regardless of the other options, they are both still unethical because of the working conditions people face in order to produce these. Bad things are still bad regardless of the circumstances you have been put in.

Kant would likely criticize the people who formed and participate in this system that gives people little to no option about whether or not they do the right thing, especially because companies and powerful people work hard to mask their immoral behavior. You can’t make autonomous decisions if you don’t have all of the information—the fact that corporations and participants in the system treat workers as means shows that capitalism itself is an immoral system, therefore participation in it is inherently bad.  The only way to act ethically is to defy capitalism—so it is likely that Kant would agree with the phrase “no ethical consumption under capitalism.” This doesn’t mean that you cannot live ethically if capitalism exists but only if you are not an active participant in said society. 

Kant would say that there’s no inherently ethical system for virtuous living, but a better system would allow for individuals to better make informed decisions because they would be aware of the consequences of what the system is doing. A better system would also encourage doing the right thing rather than rewarding people for selfish behavior. The way Kant’s theory works is that people do the right thing out of duty. A better system would be one with more accountability and transparency, which would directly link to more people acting upon these duties and having more ethical options.

To tie this into the trolley problem, categorical imperatives are commands that you must do regardless of your desires. Kant would likely criticize capitalism for being the system that puts people in the position of being tied to railroad tracks in the first place, and putting the responsibility on others to make decisions (e.g. pulling a lever) that would still lead to an unethical decision. This however, does not change the fact that the action you take under capitalism is that you are often forced to pull the metaphorical lever. Even if you are forced to do a bad thing because of your circumstances, it’s still not morally permissible.

Moral Responsibility to Educate Bigoted Housemates

“A is the only minority within an otherwise homogenous group (let’s say B, C, and D are the rest of the members), who all live together under one roof. While each individual in the group has good intentions and are against any form of bigotry, members of the group unknowingly commit micro-aggressions upon A. A vocalizes these concerns to the group, and is met with uncomfortable silence. B, C, and D don’t want to see themselves as bigots, so they choose to ignore A’s concerns. A recognizes that they themself are not responsible for educating B, C, and D on micro-aggressions, and chooses to spend less time in the house. B, C, and D see A spending less time with them as a sign of rudeness (and during the pandemic, they also see it as a lack of concern for their health), and collectively begin to resent A more and more as time passes. 

A is aware of all of this. A wants to educate B, C, and D on their behavior but simultaneously recognizes how futile the endeavor is. A wants to respect themself and their identity by leaving the house, but simultaneously does not want B, C, and D to resent them. Both action and inaction make A’s life more difficult. A does not want to leave this housing arrangement because it would be too financially burdensome, but at the same time recognizes their own deteriorating mental health the longer they stay.

If B, C, and D refuse to change, what obligation does A have to fixing this problem? A can’t completely remove themself from the house, and, with every effort to try to fix the situation, A recognizes that they are being drained of their autonomy and self respect. I am not looking for a solution to this problem (I want to make clear that there is no real one under the condition that B, C, and D refuse to participate), but rather, what obligation does A have to improve their life even if they know fully well that there will be no progress? Is there any obligation to resist oppression at all if all avenues for progress are barred?

An alternative way to say the same question: what obligation does A have in improving their life if both action and inaction result in a net decrease to their well-being?”

There is a lot to unpack here, so I’ll address this in chunks. 

“A recognizes that they themself are not responsible for educating B, C, and D on microaggressions”

If the maxim here is I am not responsible for educating people on microaggressions, then the universal law would mean that no one is responsible for educating people on microaggressions. We’ll say that microaggressions are immoral, because if they go unnoticed, they can lead to worse immoral discrimination against groups down the road. Thus, saying that no one is responsible for educating people on microaggressions is impossible, because microaggressions themselves are immoral, so letting them go unnoticed is an immoral act. So, the maxim becomes everyone is responsible for educating people on microaggressions, and no one is exempt from this. If it is a maxim, Kant would say we have an duty to do it even if it goes against our own desires. So, unfortunately, Kant would say that it is your duty to educate your housemates on their microaggressions. However, the outcome itself doesn’t matter; if your housemates choose not to listen, as it seems they are not, it is not your duty to make them listen. 

“B, C, and D see A spending less time with them as a sign of rudeness (and during the pandemic, they also see it as a lack of concern for their health), and collectively begin to resent A more and more as time passes. “

Kant says we have a duty to not lie, under any circumstances. However, this is different from not telling the truth. If your housemates are not directly asking you why you are spending less time in the house, it is morally permissible to not tell them. But, if they have asked you, it is your moral duty to tell the truth: that you are leaving the house because the environment they have created is uncomfortable. While the truth hurts in cases like this, telling your housemates why you’re leaving the house may lead to a better discussion about the negative environment they have created for you. 

“Is there any obligation to resist oppression at all if all avenues for progress are barred?”

Let’s start by formulating a maxim. Here, it seems like the question would lead us to I will not resist oppression because all avenues for progress are barred. Now, let’s universalize it: Everyone will not resist oppression because all opportunities are barred. If no one resists oppression, no progress in society will be made, and the opportunities that are there will be thrown away. So, it seems like it would be a duty to resist oppression because if one does not, they perpetuate the oppression in society. Just because resisting oppression doesn’t seem to work in every instance doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, because resisting oppression furthers humanity and the autonomy of the oppressed communities.

Synthesis

Kant said “Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as end and never merely as means” (AK4:429).  Both problems are problems because they have created a world where it is acceptable to use people as a mere means, like how a cup is used to hold water. The first problem specifically asks about the ethicality of consumption within a capitalist system, Kant would most likely argue that capitalism does treat people as mere objects, so therefore it is an unethical system. This can be seen with companies like Apple and Nike who pay workers in other countries a minimal salary for work in unsafe conditions to produce a product, another example of this is the use of undocumented immigrants in agriculture as a way to pay a fraction of the price for seasonal labor. This system has essentially universalized a law allowing for those in charge of a company to use their employees as a mere means to achieving a large profit, which most people including Kant would say is wrong. 

In the second situation we are faced with a similar but slightly altered conundrum. As per how the situation is described to us it seems apparent that persons B, C, and D find it acceptable to allow for their microaggressions to run rampant and destroy the relationship they have with their fourth housemate. It seems as though this majority is aiming to not be viewed as discriminatory whilst still acting in ways that are bigoted, this in itself is immoral because it creates a world with a condriction. This means for them to achieve this goal they must write off or discredit what person A is attempting to convey to them, phrases such as “it is just a joke” or “you are overreacting” achieve just that. By using similar phrases or by ignoring person A altogether the other three housemates are able to use person A’s emotions against them to ultimately achieve their goal, whether it takes the form of person A being less present around the house or ultimately moving out. So if person A is not around to inform them of the bigotry in their actions then they have no reason to think they are doing anything wrong, which enables bigoted behavior. 

You mean I Kant act on my disagreements with others?

Are individuals justified in wishing death upon Donald Trump?

TL;DR: This person’s question is quite straightforward. They are wondering if wishing death on the person and president Donald Trump is justified. Perhaps this question must be broadened to include wishing death on any person and whether or not that is justified at all. 

According to Kant, yes, individuals may wish death upon Donald Trump because it requires no action. Consider utilization: if everyone were to simply wish death upon Donald Trump (but not actively try to kill him) there would not exist a contradiction. The world would continue to function normally. If we were to take this one step further and ask what would happen if everyone wished death upon everyone else, would there be a contradiction? Our group thinks not because this is not an action, people would not go around killing everyone. Instead, they would have private internal desires for everyone else to die. This does not mean that anyone would die, instead it would foster an individualist society in which we wish death upon others but still partake in cultural norms for our own personal benefit. Most people will choose duty over acting on these wishes and maintain a moral life anyway. Meaning, we can wish death upon others without erupting into chaos.

Kant’s definition of a maxim reveals that morals depend on action, he writes, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become universal law” (37). He calls the reader to act with a maxim that can be universalized, but thinking about something would not qualify. Since Kant only deals with actions, individuals are justified in wishing for that death upon Donald Trump so long as they do not act on these feelings.

Can I still be friends with someone who does not believe in gay marriage?

TL;DR: This person has an acquaintance who is a part of the Latter Day Saints Church and does not believe in gay marriage. They have been friends since they were kids and now only know that their friend does not share the same beliefs they do. This person is wondering whether or not they should stay friends or not due to differing beliefs. 

For Kant, this would result in an impossible world because the maxim is contradictory, meaning that it would be immoral to do this. Kant reasons that every situation can be made into a short statement or maxim, which for this case would be ‘I will not be friends with someone if they have a different worldview than me’. After forming a maxim, Kant says that we should universalize or make it applicable to everyone. The new maxim resulting from this would be ‘Everyone should not be friends with someone if they have a different worldview’. Now, we must assess the universalized maxim and look for any conceptual contradictions.

In the context of this specific situation, Kant would advise this individual to continue being friends with his friend because this maxim is internally contradictory. This individual takes issue with the fact that their friend does not support the fundamental rights of another group of individuals. In this particular context, the outgroup here is the LGBTQ+ community but any other racial, cultural, or social group could be imaged as well for the purposes of this analysis. As previously stated, the maxim here is contradictory because if we universalize the act of unfriending someone for having negative beliefs about certain groups of people, no one would have any friends. As Kant states in a similar situation,

“The case could sometimes arise in which [an individual] needs the love and sympathetic participation of other, and where, through such a natural law arising from his own will, he would rob himself of all the hope of assistance that he wishes for himself.”

Kant, 40

If individuals become completely individualized and the maxim of not being friends with someone because of their different worldview becomes universalized, people would have very little friends. Because humans rely on other humans for “love and sympathetic participation”, this maxim is contradictory to will. Therefore, Kant would say that there is an imperfect duty for this person to keep being friends with his friend who does not believe in gay marriage.

Kant Ethics: Testing the Universalizability of Mundane Actions

Are individuals justified in wishing death upon Donald Trump?

Should we wish death upon a sitting president, and is someone justified to do so. The maxim in this is “I will wish death upon someone who is morally despicable to achieve personal gratification. Thus the categorical imperative is the moral obligation that you get when you follow that maxim. Does Trump’s despicable nature justify those thoughts and would Kant believe such a thought to create an impossible society?

The purpose of such thought is primarily to prevent violent action by providing some level of personal gratification. Therefore, this is the maxim for this particular prompt: Everyone who wishes death upon someone who is morally despicable achieves personal gratification. To test its universalizability, we have to argue whether the subsequent law of nature would produce a contradiction. To reach that conclusion, our group discussed the universalizability of the following statement: Everyone who wishes death upon someone who is morally despicable achieves personal gratification. In this specific case, a wish does not constitute a physical action. Wishing things is simply the act of thinking, which by all accounts, is something everyone can do. Moreover, one individual’s thought, if kept to themselves, does not cancel the ability for another individual to think. Therefore, the act of thinking does not produce any contradictions, which according to Kant, confirms that a society is possible to exist under this maxim. This maxim is morally permissible and does not violate the categorical imperative. With this in mind, individuals are justified in wishes directed toward morally despicable individuals.

I have strong romantic and sexual feelings for one of my previous teachers, whom I am very close with, have known for years, and deeply care about. I am of age and she has never made any advancements towards me, but I have this feeling that the bond we have is deeper than platonic. To be honest, I’m not sure if the bond is real or if I’m just delusional. I feel as though I’m betraying and taking advantage of her by thinking of her like this, but the feelings do not go away. I’m worried this will ruin our relationship if I tell her, so I know it’s best to ignore it yet still find it impossible. What are your thoughts?

The purpose of confessing feelings to an authority figure is to achieve full honesty and transparency. The law of nature connected to this maxim is that everyone who expresses romantic feeling will achieve full honesty and transparency. The question of whether this maxim would force a contradiction will be examined in the following paragraph.

Before we advise this individual, we’d like to make a note that, to make our Kantian analysis, we are giving this individual the benefit of the doubt that they are treating their former teacher as both a means and an end. Moving forward, we have identified the maxim of this question as being, I will tell my former teacher how I feel about them to achieve total honesty and transparency. We have also identified the corresponding law of nature, which goes, Everyone who expresses romantic feelings to an authoritative figure achieves total honesty and transparency. Now comes the big question: are these statements universally true? The answer is yes. We believe that both statements will result in zero contradictions for the immediate result (with regard to the purpose). If anything, the only contradictions that might exist are in the side effects, but Kant has emphasized that his test of universalizability does not consider effects beyond that which is the intended purpose.

Given that the maxim has been deemed universal, we can confidently suggest the individual that, should they decide to tell their former teacher, they will not have done anything that is morally wrong or unjust. We emphasize that the individual is not morally obligatory to confess to their former teacher, only that it is simple permissible.

The Permissive Nature of the Categorical Imperative

Our moral advice here stems from the fact that, in accordance with Kantian morality, many actions are indeed permissible (and moral). This is because whether or not an action is permissible hinges on the maxim itself and its universalizability, rather than the consequences of that action. This is to say that if the maxim (or the framing of the action, i.e. “I will do ‘x’ in order to ‘y’) is found to be universalizable (resulting in no contradictions at all) according to sound logical reasoning, then the action is entirely permissible and moral. 

For the first prompt, our conclusion that wishing death upon a sitting president is justified (or at least a permissible thing to do) was reached by following this reasoning process. Even if someone were to disagree with this conclusion, we found it to be universalizable under Kantian morality because it does not result in a contradiction.

This same line of reasoning holds true for the second situation as well; no contradiction is created by one willing this action (being upfront with romantic feelings for a former teacher) to be universalized. Again, one might stand in stark disagreement with this action, but because it does not strictly result in a contradiction given the maxim that we have established, it is entirely permissible. 

To reiterate, the most important aspect to note in understanding our Kantian advice for these two situations is that Kant’s philosophy has nothing to do with the consequences of actions, but rather their universalizability.

Trump and LGBTQ+ Rights: A Kantian Perspective

The first prompt we chose asks whether individuals are justified in wishing death upon Trump.

Kant states, “there is only a single categorical imperative and it is this: act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (AK 4: 421). A maxim is a general rule that contains an action and a purpose. What this quote means is that it is necessary to look at the rationality of the conduct rather than its morality. This quote also mentions universal laws which are governing rules which humans have to follow. In order to test for universalizability and see if something is a universal law, there are a couple of steps in a procedure that one must follow. The first step is to formulate a maxim. The next step is to universalize the maxim. Next, we have to evaluate the possibility. A maxim that is not possible would result in an impossible world. Lastly, we have to come to a conclusion whether it is a universal law or not. If it is the latter, the action will be considered a moral duty.

In this example, the prompt is asking whether or not individuals are justified in wishing death upon Donald Trump. To see if wishing death upon Donald Trump can be a universal law, let’s do the universal law test. The maxim would be “I will wish death upon Donald Trump because I disagree with his opinions”. To universalize it, the maxim would change to “everyone will wish death upon Donald Trump because we disagree with his opinions”. Next, it has to be considered if it is possible or not. Everyone wishing death upon Donald Trump is impossible and is not practical. Not only do many people agree with his political views and the way he governs but if all people were to justify murder through difference in opinion then there would be anarchy world wide. According to this scenario there will never be a point where everyone wishes death upon Donald Trump, therefore this scenario is not universalizable. Furthermore, within the scenario concerning if killing Trump or his death is justifiable, the scenario maxim leads to an impossible world; one where a contradiction takes place. According to Kantian philosophy since this world is not possible ( a world where everyone kills due to disagreements or everyone disagrees with Trump), it is not considered a universal law, and instead the moral duty of NOT wishing death upon Donald Trump arises.

According to Kant and his Humanity law concerning moral duties it would be unjustifiable to wish death upon Trump for it contradicts his Humanity law. Kant defines the humanity law as, “the human being, and in general every rational being, exists as end in itself, not merely a means to the discretionary use of this or that will, but in all its actions, those directed toward itself as well as those directed toward other rational beings, it must always at the same time be considered as an end” [Ak 4:428]. Kant’s humanity law can be compared to the Golden rule and can be simplified to not using people to reap consequences/desires for people are goals/ends in themselves. Concerning whether wishing death upon Trump is justifiable or not, if the question concerns justifying killing Trump to reap beneficial political policies then the death of Trump would not be justifiable for Trump is a “rational being”. Within this scenario Trumps death is justified due to said person reaping the benefits of his death but Kant states that no rational being should be used as “merely a means to the discretionary use”. As well, due to Trump’s autonomy he is considered as an “end” instead of as “means”. However, If killing Trump is justified for the greater happiness of the country or one’s self it is still not justifiable for you use the death of Trump to be either “directed towards itself” or “ directed toward other rational beings”. Furthermore, Kant described his humanity law “ground principle” o as “Rational nature exists as an end in itself [Ak 4:429]”. The grounds of his principle clearly states that Kant would find Trump’s death unjustifiable for within this scenario if his death is justified for the sole benefit of the positive consequences that one could reap then Trump is not being treated within his “Rational nature”. No matter what justification towards Trump’s death, if it is based on others or one’s self reaping the benefits of his death, Kant would believe it is unjustifiable for it contradicts his law of humanity.

The second prompt asks whether it is acceptable to end a friendship over a difference in “opinions” – in this case, regarding the value of LGBTQ+ rights in a society. It may be possible for this to be simplified to the question of whether a person should stop being friends with another person due to a difference in opinions.

However, it is not appropriate to reduce this particular conflict to a mere difference of opinion, this is not a debate about abstract economic policy or favorite schmear flavor, but the eligibility of a group of people for basic human rights. Kant’s categorical imperative may actually lead us to unusual conclusions about human rights. Here we address the specific scenario: the poster is struggling to decide whether a friend not supporting LGBTQ+ rights is enough reason to end their friendship.

Based on the categorical imperative, there are three (previously explicated) steps by which we should evaluate whether this action and purpose aim at the good. Kant requires these hypothetical rational agents, which are essential to the structure of his moral philosophy “act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature” [Ak4: 421]. The maxim should be articulated as a “I will cut off my friend to express the value of LGBTQ+ rights.” In order for this action to be acceptable to Kant, this maxim cannot be a partial demand, you must act in a manner that all other people can also act.

Next, we should universalize the maxim, and in this imagine a world where all people take the action, namely cutting off friends who do not support the rights of LGBTQ+ people. All people would cut off friendship with people who do not endorse the same values concerning the human rights of LGBTQ+ people. If individuals are cutting people off in order to change the opinion of the friend, this contradicts the humanity law as we are treating those individuals as mere means. Not supporting rights for LGBTQ+ people also might encompass a broad range of beliefs which have varying degrees of exclusivity, and distinguishing between these beliefs if not explicated may result in unwarranted or unreasonable action. This maxim is explicitly about whether the individual values the rights of LGBTQ+ people, and not about the opinions that they hold about LGBTQ+ people in general. Regardless of these consequences or complications, the maxim does appear universalizable and it produces a coherent world in which friend groups are divided based on differences in beliefs. Friendship is a voluntary relationship between two people that is mutually beneficial, thus there is no teleological contradiction with the nature of friendship.

Kant’s formula of humanity suggests that one is never morally justified in using another person’s humanity as a mere means to an end – even if that end is to save your own life. When attempting to apply this to the case at hand, the maxim that is being applied must be considered. If the poster’s maxim was “I will no longer be friends with this person so that they change their minds about LGBTQ+ rights,” they may be using them as a means to achieve an end. In this case, it would seem as though the poster is actively changing their interactions with their friend to achieve the outcome of them changing their mind, which would involve intentionally including their friend in the realization of the end. Even if the poster thinks this will benefit their friend, they are still actively implicating another’s behavior in the production of their desired end, which Kant would say is not morally permissible.

However, if the poster’s maxim was formulated to be something like “I will cut off my friend to express the value of LGBTQ+ rights,” Kant’s answer could be different. In this case, the friend is not being used merely as a means, but is employing their own autonomy to choose how they spend their time and which ideas and arguments they expose themselves to and tolerate. They aren’t using the friend’s humanity as they aren’t expecting any result to come from an action on the part of their friend – instead, they are changing their own actions to attempt to respect and support the autonomy of others to make their own decisions regarding who they marry and how they spend their time. This maxim seems much more universalized, and almost approaches the definition of friendship – the ability to choose to surround yourself with people who you enjoy spending time with and who improve your life. Ultimately, Kant would probably support cutting the friend off if the purpose of the action is narrow and personal enough to remain both universalizable and to respect the autonomy of the friend in question.

Mengzi’s Human Nature and The Petty Life

Mengzi makes it clear that, in his eyes, all humans are born with the mental tools that they need to live a morally good life. He writes that humans have a set of tools (‘hearts’) such as compassion and approval, which when internally practiced and followed produce the ‘sprout’ of virtues (2A6). “Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are not welded to us externally. We inherently have them” (6A6). However, while we have the hearts that are necessary to produce good virtue, he makes it clear that humans have a responsibility to use the tools they have been given. “People having these sprouts is like their having four limbs. To have these four sprouts but to say of oneself that one is unable to be virtuous is to steal from oneself” (2A6), he says.

In this post, we will consider two different situations that challenge Mengzi’s conception of human nature and virtues.

1. I have a friend who is part of the LDS church and does not believe in gay marriage (I definitely do). We have been friends since we were in kindergarten, and of course at that time we didn’t think about these differences. Should I not be friends with him since he doesn’t value LGBTQ+ rights?

From our contemporary moral standpoint, it is clear that the homophobic friend is being immorally discriminatory. We think Mengzi would agree, as it seems that they are choosing not to use their heart of compassion and relying too much on their heart of disdain. Mengzi also makes multiple mentions to the slightly intuitive nature of intrinsic morality. He suggests that someone not burying their parents would feel a visceral moral guilt (6A15), and that even when individuals choose to ‘chop down the trees’ of their natural goodness, they have not destroyed the nature of their goodness (6A8). Instead of the friend’s hearts producing virtuous sprouts, they are hurting the people around them and choosing to ignore their moral potential. Mengzi writes that human nature is like water naturally flowing downwards, but cautions that water can still move uphill with force or intervention. Even if there are problems, the friend can still make choices to return to their virtuous nature, but is choosing not to and instead continues to push the water uphill. He also mentions that a significant part of acting virtuously is taking the natural feelings of care that we have for those we love and extending it to everyone, near and far (1A7). This friend is doing the opposite, insulating themselves from others which Mengzi suggests would actually hurt his ability to provide for himself and his family.

In response, one might point out that Mengzi makes multiple references to the impact that environment has on whether someone is acting virtuously or not. He writes that “in years of plenty, most young men are gentle, in years of poverty, most young men are cruel” (6A7), and uses the metaphor of the same seeds in different soil and water conditions to highlight the importance of one’s surroundings on their hearts. A good modern example of this could be Edmund Kemper or David Berkowitz – two serial killers that are obviously not virtuous people, but looking into their history, we can infer the factors that stunted their emotional growth and capability to develop empathy. They were both horribly abused physically, sexually, and emotionally by their mothers, which definitely contributed to their lack of empathy. This impacted the way they treated women, because their growth was stunted and they were. Mengzi would claim that even given this, it in no way justified their actions. I will expand more on why he thinks this in a minute.

Growing up as a member of the Mormon church, surrounded by a community that largely holds homophobic beliefs, there is cause to believe this person has grown up thinking that their beliefs were not only moral, but that believing anything contrary would in fact be the immoral decision. Jules, who grew up in Salt Lake City, Utah, took the city bus past the temple and the mall owned by the Mormon church every day. They have seen firsthand how the ways in which someone is raised can impact their worldview and perspective on others. As part of the LGBT community they experienced great discrimination from many members of the church in their youth, and late into my teen years. Mengzi would probably argue that constant indoctrination from a young age is what influenced these people to discriminate against the community when they saw that they were not living the life that they viewed as ethical or good. Interfering with someone’s ability to live the good life can be derived from a lack of empathy, which comes from a lack of understanding. From a very young age, these people learn many lessons about how homosexuality and sexuality in general are a sin. This means that it is likely that this person’s childhood friend is exhibiting symptoms of their upbringing. The friend believes they are helping the writer achieve benevolence and live a virtuous life, but his intentions are guided by naivety.

Mengzi writes that “if one must violate and rob the willow tree in order to make it into cups and bowls -must you also violate and rob people in order to make them benevolent and righteous” (6A2)? Jules has seen mormon friends change their opinion after exposure to new ideas, and even leave the church itself when they realized that the institution of the mormon church was doing more harm than good. This further supports the argument that, ultimately, the poster is justified in feeling upset with their friend, because they are no longer a child and there are limitless opportunities and resources one can use for education today.

However, despite Mengzi’s acknowledgement of the impact surroundings can have, he still places the responsibility squarely on the individual to grow and continually apply their tools to be, and remain, virtuous. “The office of the heart is to reflect. If it reflects, then it will get virtue. If it does not reflect, then it will not” (6A15). Even virtuous people need to be constantly reflecting on their place in the world, and this friend is not excluded from that responsibility. Ultimately, the poster would definitely be justified in ending the friendship from Mengzi’s moral perspective. Although this is an example of a lack of personal introspection and growth on a smaller scale, tendencies like that can have a very significant impact when they are displayed by those in power.

2. Are individuals justified in wishing death upon Donald Trump?

On October 2, 2020, Donald Trump’s lack of consideration for others caught up to him, and he contracted the Coronavirus. Examining Donald Trump’s upbringing can better help us understand how he has failed to develop moral virtues by Mengzi’s definitions. Trump grew up in New York and made his money from real estate his father gave him (“a small loan of a million dollars”) to start off his life. One million dollars is a significant amount of money, especially considering that in 2020, 40% of Americans couldn’t afford a 400 dollar emergency (ABC News). However, despite being set up so well, he continually made poor business decisions and relied on his financial status to hire lawyers and send people hush money to cover up his failings. Mengzi states that “those who follow their greater part become great humans. Those who follow their petty part become petty humans” (6A15). He is not being good when he does not even know what the “Common man” wants and thus is a faulty leader and following the pettiness that lies in his heart.

Trump also seems to be so far past cultivating his hearts that he no longer resembles Mengzi’s ideas about human nature. Mengzi believes that humans have all the tools they need to be virtuous, but understands that circumstances can affect how easy it is for someone to flourish. “Although there are some differences, these are due to the richness of the soil, and to the unevenness in the rain and inhuman effort” (6A7 149). However, Trump is not simply the victim of bad circumstances. He has continually chosen, when given the opportunity, to do what is best for him, even at the cost of others. In 6A7, Mengzi says “in years of plenty, most young men are gentle; in years of poverty, most young men are cruel,” and yet we see Trump continually living years of plenty and remaining cruel which allows me to believe he is closer to an animal than a human (148).

Death is the true equalizer in the human experience. Not only does it happen to all humans but we know that it will happen to all humans. We think that Donald Trump is a despicable man and leader, who has torn families apart that were, and still are, looking for a better life. As a result of his mishandling of the global pandemic, 205,000 people have died. The only thing that matters to Trump is his own life. Because he has actively chosen to ignore his human nature at every point in his life, we think that individuals would not be morally wrong in wishing for his death.

Mengzi’s Opinion

Mengzi’s General Moral Theory

Mengzi’s moral philosophy hinges on the presupposition that human nature imbues people with an inherent tendency towards goodness. However, it is up to the individual person to practice deep reflection in order to cultivate virtues within oneself. Although, Mengzi does recognize that environmental factors can make a large difference on whether or not a person ends up committing good deeds. And while it is natural to tend towards goodness, one must be an active participant in this tendency, regardless of the environmental factors that may be attempting to quash their morality. It is the moral responsibility of the individual to nurture this tendency and not inhibit it. And if one does this properly then one will be morally good. This responsibility to be moral is grounded in the personal good more so than the societal good. However, Mengzi does go on to say that, “Anyone who can with words fend off Yang and Mo is a disciple of the sages” (3B9). This is to say that one’s moral responsibility extends if they are able to enact good effectively.

First Moral Dilemma: I’ve always considered myself politically active, and when Black Lives Matter protests started happening, I really wanted to be apart of the movement. However, because of the pandemic I’ve been living with my immuno-compromised grandparents. Is it my moral responsibility to help the movement like I want to, or should I prioritize my families health and well being? It kind of is a matter of life and death.

The first prompt deals with the necessity of participating in protests for Black lives matter, a movement that started with holding police accountable for their murder of Black people, but has, in the past year, become the foundation upon which a broader the resistance to white supremacy and fascism is expressed. Given the safety of protesting outdoors and the protection afforded to you by an N95 mask, realistically, transmission risk is quite low. Whether or not you actually are politically active hinges on you taking action, not whether you see yourself that way or now. Mengzi might remind you to honor your just inclinations as your desire to support this cause flows naturally from your sprouts of virtue that honor righteousness and benevolence. Mengzi’s challenger states “Human nature is like a willow tree; righteousness is like cups and bowls. To make human nature benevolent and righteous is like making a willow tree into cups and bowls”, (Mengzi 6A1) and Mengzi responds that the shaping or virtue does not require the destruction of our moral inclinations, rather the extension of our desire to be just and benevolent in the face of injustice. Mengzi is also not a consequentialist, so even if the outcome of attending in person protest may put your grandparents at a higher risk of COVID exposure, that hypothetical outcome should not overshadow your just inclinations. Regardless of your youth, you also put your own body on the line in protest, both in terms of possible long term health consequences and the high probability that you will be shot, gassed, or assaulted by a white supremacist.

Second Moral Dilemma: Of course we have a duty to act ethically, and it’s ethical to work to make the world better – but how far does our duty to work towards improving the world extend? How much, or how little, should we work towards improving the world and not acting directly in our own interests?

The second prompt dealt with the question of how far does our obligation to act ethically and make the world a better place extends. The question here involves duty. Just how much should we seek to change the world for the better? Should we constantly be making grand efforts with the goal of ending injustice and proliferating righteousness? Mengzi’s writings focused primarily on self-cultivation and making yourself a better person through nourishing virtues. Mengzi would then argue that if one focuses on cultivating themselves, the good deeds and ethical actions would follow naturally as “the office of the heart is to reflect. If it reflects, then it will get [Virtue]. If it does not reflect, then it will not get it,” (6A15). Therefore, one should always attempt to help others and better the world but should not do so with the wrong motivation. One should cultivate themselves and the virtues within them so that then they will truly desire to help the world and it will not feel like a chore. Mengzi says that in terms of virtue and virtuous actions “seek it and you will get it. Abandon it and you will lose it,” (6A6). Your obligation lies first to yourself and making yourself the best you can be and then from there ethical actions will naturally follow.

Us vs. The World

How far should our moral responsibility extend?

Last week, we talked about the Nahuas’ moral philosophy and their belief in rootedness. This week, we are moving on to Mengzi, who interpreted the Confucian Way. Similarly to Aristotle and the Nahuas, Mengzi’s philosophy supports a virtue-based ethics, emphasizing intention right along with the acts themselves as well as repetitiveness of those acts as the way to emulate good virtues. He focuses on benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom as the four main virtues, and says that each human being has “sprouts” of these; if we grow these sprouts, we will be on the way to becoming our best selves (2A6). While we all naturally lean towards being good, environment and circumstances matter:

“As for the people, if they lack a constant livelihood, it follows that they will lack a constant heart. And if one simply fails to have a constant heart, dissipation and evil will not be avoided.”

Mengzi 1A7

Human nature naturally tends toward goodness, but our circumstances can hinder or get in the way of that nature. Once our environments are stable, we can stop focusing on basic needs and begin to reach outside of our immediate environments to extend goodness to others. Mengzi says that part of human goodness comes from the care and compassion we feel for those close to us. Thus, in order to be good to others, we must extend those natural feelings and treat others with the same care and compassion we usually reserve for those close to us:

“Treat your elders as elders and extend it to the elders of others; treat your young ones as young ones, and extend it to the young ones of others; then you can turn the whole world in the palm of your hand.”

Mengzi 1A7

The best way to know whether or not we are on the right path, we must reflect in order to keep the greater good in mind. While we all have the capacity to be good, sometimes our circumstances can lead us astray from that and we must reflect in order to learn from our mistakes and stay on the right path. 

A Pandemic Dilemma: Grandparents’ health or BLM protests?

“I’ve always considered myself politically active, and when Black Lives Matter protests started happening, I really wanted to be a part of the movement. However, because of the pandemic I’ve been living with my immuno-compromised grandparents. Is it my moral responsibility to help the movement like I want to, or should I prioritize my families health and wellbeing? It kind of is a matter of life and death.”

Priorities. That’s always the question, isn’t it? For this specific case, our protagonist is torn between their familial responsibility to protect their immuno-compromised grandparents during the COVID-19 pandemic and their responsibility to their community to advocate for social justice with the Black Lives Matter movement. While our protagonist would love to attend the BLM protests, they must also consider the health risks to their grandparents that may result from this decision. They’ve turned to us for help in answering this life or death question: “Is it their moral responsibility to help the [BLM] movement like they want to, or should they prioritize their family’s health and wellbeing?”

According to Mengzi’s ideology, benevolence should be extended to others in order to be considered a good person and one should fulfill their four sprouts (natural tendencies). In this prompt, the individual asks whether or not going to the BLM protest is her moral responsibility or whether she should prioritize her immuno-compromized grandparents. From Mengzi’s perspective, there is an order of nurture when extending. In order to extend benevolence, one should start with the people closest to them. In this case, the individual would start by taking care of their grandparents. Additionally, Mengzi would say that because the individual chose not to go to the protest, they are showing proper action and their sprouts have been properly nourished. If they had gone to the protest, they would have risked their grandparent’s health for the greater good of the protest. Compromising one’s grandparents for what may feel like the best way to show support for BLM seems to be unethical, especially because there are plenty of ways to show support for the BLM movement and still be politically active in ways that don’t require going to the protests. Even at that, they run the risk of spreading COVID-19 to even more people at a protest! Not just their grandparents! 

Outward Extension: Exactly how far outwards?

“Of course we have a duty to act ethically, and it’s ethical to work to make the world better – but how far does our duty to work towards improving the world extend? How much, or how little, should we work towards improving the world and not acting directly in our own interests?”

To what extent must we act in an ethical manner? “How much, or how little, should we work towards improving the world and not acting directly in our own interests?” This is our protagonists’ dilemma. If one chose to act in a manner that benefits their personal life, will they be frowned upon for not spending their time on actions that have impacts on a larger community? In other words, should our goal be to always make a change in a large manner or is it acceptable to focus on smaller change?

Mengzi’s philosophy remains centralized around the fundamental theme of hearts for capacities for virtue and the underlying goodness of the human person. While big questions like this may be difficult to answer, using Mengzi’s philosophy, the “answer” becomes more evident. As every individual already possesses the proper tools to become a virtuous person, the question about morality in the greater community starts here. To do what is best for the community is to do what is best for the individual. A closer investigation of this may clarify the point; if one expends all their energy just to accomplish tasks to better the community but consequently results in worsening the individual themselves, as a whole, the community is not really better off. Even with the extra attention on the community, it is the individuals within the community that determine its moral standing. Maintaining a moral life will result in a moral community, it is not something individuals have to try to reach. 

Conclusion

Both prompts ask the question of “Should I focus on the moral issues in front of me or should I focus on the larger and more complex issues out in the world?” Where the first prompt focuses on a smaller scope and asks about whether or not they should compromise their grandparents’ health or attend a Black Lives Matter rally, the second prompt extends this outwards and asks just how much they should be working towards assisting the world, rather than focusing on the problems directly in front of them (acting in their own interests). The second prompt assumes that the problems in the world are not in their own interests, but, depending on the issues within the world, these problems could be directly affecting that person and their own interests.

If we want to ‘make the world a better place’, one way to do this is to act with compassion towards other people, regardless of their characteristics. Not only will we actively be working on our own characters, but also extending our moral characters to serve our communities. As stated in the first prompt, it is easier and generally more helpful to work on the issues directly in front of us. By thinking about the world as our loved ones, we serve both ourselves and the world.

The Mengzi Dilemma: Where Should Our Priorities Be?

Here, we have two prompts that both address the ethical standard question in some capacity. The first prompt describes the concern an individual has with superimposing their career desires and aspirations on their boyfriend. I suppose this individual is experiencing a sense of guilt for compromising their boyfriend’s autonomy. The individual may also be concerned for future stability. The boyfriend’s priority is being with the individual, but it may cost him a focused and esteemed career path. The boyfriend may be content with following this individual because he does not have a clear career path in mind.

I believe Mengzi would lack sympathy for the boyfriend and challenge the partner to help the boyfriend self-realize his irrational decision-making. Mengzi believes that everyone has the potential, innate tendencies that “tend toward goodness” (6A2). However, the environmental conditions that an individual exists in could influence their trajectory. Like the barren mountain, which lacked the necessary nourishment to actualize its nature, the boyfriend must insert himself under the material conditions necessary for his flourishment (6A8). Moreover, the individual must recognize that their selfish desire to stay close to the boyfriend may prevent his ability to self-cultivate. This individual must emphasize to the boyfriend that his spontaneous tendencies are misled by the “office of the ears and eyes” (6A15). Mengzi would suggest that the boyfriend listens to his heart, for “the office of the heart is to reflect,” and if he reflects, “then he will get virtue” (6A15). With reflection, encouraged by the boyfriends partner, he may find reconciliation with prioritizing his conditional needs.

The second prompt addresses an interesting ethical standard dilemma between prioritizing others and prioritizing the self. Similar to the previous prompt, this individual, who is considering not physically participating in the Black Lives Matter protest, is potentially denying herself an opportunity for self-cultivation. With that being said, I believe Mengzi would recommend this individual to show a level of benevolence and awareness toward her grandparents. As much as the BLM protest is an opportunity for self-cultivation and self-discovery, empathizing with the grandparents is an opportunity toward making her virtues independent of self-interest. Because of this, I believe Mengzi would argue that caring for the grandparents would have more impactful implications on the path toward goodness. “Treat your elders as elders, and extend it to the elders of others; treat your young ones as young ones, and extend it to the young ones of others; then you can turn the whole world in the palm of your hand” (1A7).

Mengzi would have trouble with both these scenarios given that they each sacrifice opportunities for cultivating specific innate virtues. Ultimately, Mengzi would argue against any feelings of cognitive dissonance or uncertainty. In the case of the clingy boyfriend scenario, the boyfriend’s partner has feelings of uncertainty toward allowing the boyfriend to sacrifice self-growth for their physical partnership. This concern is a result of self-reflection, which is “the office of the heart” (6A15). Mengzi would admit that an internally disharmonious individual is acting in accordance with their humanity, for “there is no human who does not tend toward goodness” (6A2). However, it is exactly this internal struggle that should alarm an individual of their decision-making. The same could be said for the BLM scenario. Mengzi would suggest that the concern she has for her grandparents suggests that she reflected, and is trending toward goodness. The next important step, however, is to trust these feelings of uncertainty to lead the individual toward an unraveling of their innate virtues.