To be moral or not to be moral

In  Justine's blog, she writes about moral questions and this reminds me of when me and my roommate sit around and ask each other theses sort of questions. We typically do this before we go to bed because we feel like we can think about it easier. But in most situations I feel like I am being selfish because most of the time i way out the pro's and the cons. most of the time Carrisa, my roommate, puts my life on the line. In some situations a life would be at stake. Like running in to a burning building to save a baby and either the baby lives and i die or the other way around. These questions honestly get me thinking about what I should do in a moral situation. I mean, i could die a hero, or live as a coward. But dying also means that my family would be hurt too. But if the baby died and he or she were the scientist that found the cure to cancer that would be the worst tragedy. I think in moral dilemmas there is no right decision, I think that the actions should just be on a boost of adrenaline and one should just go for it.

Hero?

A conversation that got started in class that really sparked my interest was is a true altruist a hero? Is this true in every situation that we encounter? Well lets start with basic facts, like, what is a hero? A hero is someone who either saves the day, like a super hero, or someone who puts themselves in danger to save someone else, like running across a busy interstate to save an infant.Both of these two descriptions show that ONE person is doing something for another PERSON. Both of these situations put the potential "hero" at risk of being hurt or even worse, death. But could a "hero" also just be a normal person walking down the street and helps an old lady cross the street? This is a valid question because he isn't actually gaining something from the situation but he is potentially saving that old women's day. He could also be putting himself at rick because the street could be a busy interstate. In this situation, I would think that this person would be a hero to that little old women but the whole world may not think that because it wasn't this daring act. Once again, I think that it all depends on who is perceiving the situation at hand.

What is "Selfless"?

One of the questions that this reading sparked in my head was is there such a thing as being completely “Selfless”? and if there is how can I get there? Well, first being selfless is doing everything for everyone and not gaining or losing anything by it. So I would have to stay completely neutral. In that I would have to help only the  person involved. Therefore, I couldn't get anything out of the situation like advice to put in my own life. In every situation that a person encounters I think that they always gain something, even if it is just as minuscule as advice. 
 Now how to get to selflessness, I think after reading all of this over a few times that no one can ever get there. This is because talking to a selfless person would be kind of dull because they would be afraid to actually get something out of the situation so they may not offer advice to listen to their fullest. I think that being self-interested would be a good goal for anyone to try to achieve. This is because you can still gain from any giving situation and be a good friend. 

Selfless or Selfish

How can someone who is described by everyone around as selfless then describe themselves as selfish? Of course there are so many differences between these two words. One thing I don't understand is how someone can be both. I guess,I think it all depends on perception of the situation at hand. For example, I know that if I were to do things for someone and I don't directly benefit from it, it would seem selfless. But, on the other hand if I thought that I was gaining something, that I like helping people, I could see my self as selfish. I do like to help people but I never see it as a selfish act. I mean, this is making me think of the quote that one of my friends used to say, "50% of the people don't care about your problems, and the other 50% just listen so they feel better about their own lives." I mean, I have never directly said that it makes me feel better about my life, but, I guess in a weird way it would but it's not a direct reaction. So I think that I don't try to help people for selfish act, but, it could appear to someone to be that way depending on how the perceive the entire situation. 

Happiness

During the Aristotle chapter the conversations in class basically revolved around happiness and how to achieve it. I think that happiness can only be grabbed by someone who strives to meet self-actualization. This is because Maslaw's Hierarchy of needs. It says that all the needs add up to one another and with out the one below you cant have the one above. For example, if you don't have biological needs then you cant possibly have the safety needs. I think that self actualization is the only possible way to get happiness.

Differences

One question that I thought about while reading the chapter on Aristotle was what is the difference between Plato's forms and Aristotle's categories? Plato's forms refer to how the brain classifies and organizes what we perceive. He then breaks these up in to four sub groups: Classification of general terms, ultimately real, to do with what we know, and to do with how we should live life.

Aristotle's categories rejects Plato's view of forms because he states that it is singular in a plural situations. He writes mostly about the same characteristics being applied to animals. For example, a dog being dog like. The main reason he rejects Plato's theory because he doesn't believe that the characteristics are in a separate world. He believes that they are right there with it. 

They share similar beliefs of characteristics being important to a person remembering what something is and how the mind organizes it. Aristotle writes more about the stereotypical parts and Plato writes more about the  biological aspects.