The person (me) has the right to refuse, but that’s one thing that we have agreed that will not happen in the perforance of the team. It’s a sad feeling that the peson did not join the activity because of the displeasing approach of my team. I do not know already if the team may think that it just so happened that we have different perspectives in life, that’s why we have different acceptance of the matters that are happening to us. The team may thhink many things against me. Say I am rude, unethical, inconsiderate, impertinent or whatever they want to name me, it’s all because they do not understand my stand.
Aristole’s point of what is good thinking, is that “… there is no way of telling what is genuinely pleasurable (and therefore what is most pleasurable) unless we already have some other standard of value… to live our lives well we must focus on one sort of good above all others: virtuous activity. It is the good in terms of which all other goods must be understood. ” (Kraut, Richard, 2007). So that’s it, Aristotle himself said that there is no definite matter that is pleasurable, unless there is the understanding between the two different people.
A person would not be able to understand the perception of the other, unless he or she will make a study and understanding about it. It would be better if he or she will put some empathy, because through empathizing the other’s perspective, there will rise consideration which will lead to understanding. In life, there are lots of things that are hard to understand. I also have an argument with my boyfriend because of some religious matter. I can not understand why he can not tell me his real perception about the religious practices. We are both Christian, but there are some misunderstanding because he and I have our own interpretaion about the lectures in the Bible. We came to the point that even in a single matter, we are arguing each other because we can not make into a conclussion that is made by both of us.
He pushes his understandign which is opposed to what I believe is right. Actually, we are both right of our stands. The thing is, he wants me to believe what he believes in. I, too, wants him to understand what I am trying to say. I understand what he argues, but it seems to me that he do not understand my side. Sometimes, I get annoyed at him because I think he’s someone who’s immature, self-centered, and childish…
but later I can realize, why is it happening to us? Considring that what we argues about is a religious matter? We should have make a better agreement and a very good understanding about it. We should agree with each other’s perspective instead of arguing about it. Other people says that it’s just normal that people argues with the religious matter. It is still because of the effect of a very diversified groups of religions according to them. It has been the politics and the religion that are very unstoppable to argue about because both side of the argument can prove righteousness and can justify each other.
But what is really good anyway? I believe that good is something that makes other people happy and that does not offend, hurt or destroy other people’s interest. But as Aristotle have stated on his writings, “… what is good does not require expertise in any other field. ” (Kraut, Richard, 2007). How can we determine if it’s good with other people, when ther is a given fact that people has their own perspectives in life and has their own idea of what is good or not. Also, the concept of 7 happiness still has classifications.
There are happiness for other people and not happiness for others. Because of different perspectives in life, people do not understand each other, even sometimes, extreme explanations have been tried to deliver, but still the misunderstanding is present. I would like to acknowledge the idea I am getting from Aristole’s books of ethics that is noted by the author Kraut that is the source of this case study. Aristotle, as I have understand, wants to stress out that here is no definite good and bad in this world. What is ethics is what people understand as the right from wrong.
The three examples of experiences mentioned in this paper shows different scenarios and different people involved, except me. The first example is the couple who did not have a sanitaion before they went to street. For me, that is bad. That’s unethical. That’s not the proper attitude in the society. But who am I to say they are wrong with what they showed and acted in my presence? They have their own reasons and perspectives. I would not know if for them, that is what they call as normal, or that is just how they are being casual in living their lives. The second scenario, the fat guy.
He’s very notable for me because of his very unconscious behavior when I took a look at him. I seemed to be informing him by my stare, but he seemed to be as if he’s not aware of my message, or he just doesn’t care if I found him very disorganized and dirty with his meal. I may not know if he do that just because he prefers to be pig out in the table. I may not know if he just do it because that’s the way he found eating as pleasant as it is. Maybe he founds pleasure with the sounds of his chews or the sound of his mouth. Maybe that noice adds savor on the food he eats.
That’s his perspective, and that what makes him happy. 7 The last example about the amazing race team is something that is more related to me because of the presence of my own reaction. The incident was not just an example to study the other people’s perspective about what can make a self happy through their perspectives of what is happiness in life. The team had nothing to do with my decision of quitting their game. I quitted because that is my will and that is what I think they deserve after making me feel I’m fooled. For me, that is good for them. That is what they deserve.
That is what I think they will learn from. I got irritated, so that action I made me satisfied because I think I have punished them by the mistake they have made to me. Their perceptions also, is something I can not blame. They may think that if they approached me, I will join them. They may think that if they invited me to be part of the game, I will be pleased. That maybe their perception in what the both of us will enjoy, or make us happy. They are in their teen’s age, the age where a person is very active in his or her life. Maybe, they think I can be one of them, at my look that is not obvious of it’s age.
When there are people who is hard to understand the other’s perception, it would be better if respect will be given to them. If you know that the person doesn’t understand you, then it is your turn to understand them like you understand your perception of what is good and what is not. As we have discussed earlier on this paper, ethics does not require expertise in any other field. It only requires understanding others as much as a person understands himself.
Kraut, Richard. (2007). Aristotle’s Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.