Hello there! I am excited to establish my first personal website to share my learning to the audience. Through the case study, I am able to apply my knowledge from the philosophy course to make responses to local issues. Also, I can make connections across many courses that I take as my progress in my degree.
Both Michelle and Tim share a value of individuality. When they are holding different points of view, they choose to express themselves, rather than blindly obey the other, which shows that they are capable of developing independent thinking, and they are acting as unique beings. Moreover, both of them are sharing a value of courage. Specifically, Michelle has the courage to speak up for the people in need, and she boldly makes changes on the policies on food donation because she believes it is the right thing to do. Michelle understands that she has to bear all the responsibilities for the impact may cause to the neighbourhood. Yet, she is brave enough to make such decisions. On the other hand, Tim is also a courageous person. For example, he has the courage to challenge his director, Michelle. We can see Michelle as an external influence on Tim, because Michelle represents the authority of the neighborhood house. However, Tim is able to summon up his courage to ask his boss to change her mind, even though he is taking a great risk of being fired by offending Michelle. Therefore, these evidence show that both Michelle and Tim are individual beings and have the courage to pursue what they believe in. In fact, Michelle and Tim do have their own values seperately. For instance, Michelle has a value of prosperity. She wishes to see all her clients receive material comfort. Since she is responsible for the food bank, she hopes that her clients are able to remain healthy bodies while alleviating their financial pressure at the same time. Furthermore, Michelle has a value of generosity. She puts the health of her clients at the first place. Even though she realizes that the number of donations go down, and the food bank’s shelves look bare, she still decides to sacrifice some amounts of the donations in return for good health of residents. Furthermore, the value of joy motivates Michelle to make this decision. Better health condition of her clients also brings her a sense of achievement. On the other hand, the value of moderation motivates Tim to challenge Michelle. Specifically, the rational consideration reminds Tim that the extreme method of Michelle may lead to bad results of the food bank, such as low donations and bare shelves. The banning of donations of processed foods is too extreme that the disadvantages are more than advantages. The value of moderation warns Tim to avoid such harmful extremes. Moreover, unlike Michelle, the value of recognition also motivates Tim to appreciate Michelle’s good intentions while opposing to her opinions.
I believe that Michelle’s decision follows most of the values that I have attributed to her. For example, the value of joy (eudaimonia) is her motivation to work for residents’ interests and benefits. These values become the Reason (Logos) for Michelle and Tim to make their own personal decisions. Both Michelle and Tim are not afraid of expressing their voices and opinions. Similarly, Socrates was a strong supporter of making decisions solely by his own reasons. He was not afraid of the power of authority. Death is something that he “couldn’t care less about” (Plato, 32 C-D). Plato also interprets Socrates’s goal that humans’ logos should not be restricted by any outward tyranny, such as conformity, authority. On the other hand, it is untrammeled by any inward tyranny, which he refers to any desire or fear for wealth, reputation and so on. Indeed, there are risks involved, and no one “goes willing toward the bad” in general conditions. They are concerned of being the minority, since the principle of the obedience of minority to majority has been widely adopted by modern countries in both political and legal system. But Socrates thinks that it is the rational human nature that distinguishes human beings from other animals, so that they can “act only on reasons that [they] accept”. Therefore, when it comes to an intolerable situation, human beings should try to take actions based on their reasons, rather than blindly obey the majority or the authority. According to Socrates, wise persons always do what they think it is the best choice, because their knowledge “makes them always right about what is best” (Cooper, P.38). Both Michelle and Tim are acting based on their logos, which are the values they believe in.
In fact, I suggest that their values are compatible. First of all, Michelle should not completely refuse the food donations of processed foods. Instead, she may encourage the donators to offer ingredients rather than nutrient-poor foods, so that her clients are able to apply their skills from the free cooking classes by cooking these ingredients and making healthy meals. Also, this may increase the number of donations. Moreover, Michelle and Tim can put effort into a big advertising campaign to promote the relationship between nutrient-poor food and physical conditions. So that residents in the neighborhood begin to donate more ingredients and less high-calorie, high-fat, high sodium, nutrient-poor foods. Since both Tim and Michelle desire to solve this issue from the perspective of communities, such a solution establish a good balance among their opinions. It does relieve the condition of nutrient-poor donations, and the food bank’s shelves does not look bare.
Bibliography: