Yale 250 Forum

[CanadianWolf]

@melsaye: I've reread your Yale 250. Maybe Yale adcomms will appreciate your creativity & unorthodox presentation of ideas. "...youthful atomistic morality..." interrupted both of my readings.

[melsaye]

Huh?
I am not sure I get it, Joke's on me? (about the tree thing?)

[melsaye]

yeah i was thinking of changing it to atomistic, without the youthful.
The thing is when you're young you have an individualist view of morality and ethics. You never think that eating an apple has any moral consequences. Sex on the other hand is pounded into our heads and an ethical issue, who we sleep with, how we sleep with them, and what we do after them is a social issue at large...Relates back to adam and eve, and the original sin...Hence the youth, I wanna indicate a growth from that point...
Sex no longer is an issue of ethics, its love or relations or whatever between two consenting people, that is it. The apple on the other hand has weight to it. The lady I buy my summer peaches from in ontario (unreal peaches) has a face, has a family, and a Norwegian accent. She isn't rich, and depends on the demand for her fruit. If i were to get an American peach it would affect her, and her family, and the province, and then the tax payers....hence the more mature cosmo ethic.

[CanadianWolf]

I should have been more specific; the use of "atomistic" in that phrase is what caused me to pause.

[89vision]

OP: Do morals even exist? I think it is increasingly difficult in society to state that there are "morals" and that they are "holding strong." My question is, what do you define as moral, and how does society construct morality? Without an explicit definition of morality, I think the essay is unclear. The actions in your examples may be moral in that they adhere to your definition, but it may not fit my conception of morality. I think it would make your account stronger to begin with a definition of morality, and then using the examples to demonstrate how certain actions meet that definition. I think you need to be careful in assuming that all readers have the same idea of moral. You may also want to explain how two isolated instances illustrate that an entire society is moral, which is what I inferred from the introduction, be careful not to use acedotal evidence to prove a point.

melsaye:

Define ethics and morality. Again, you seem to assume that readers share your definition, or that there is a universal definition for an inherently subjective term. You briefly state that your choice of apple matters, but why? You discuss the dilemma, but not the consequences of your decision. Perhaps create a more complete essay rather than a focus on emotional reactions. When finished reading your essay, I was not entirely sure what the point was. To me, it seems like you are conveying a simple action with complex analysis and implications, but assume the reader understand what the implications of your actions are. I think you are trying to say that what you eat influences producers, but you do not detail what differs between the producers. Labeling apples as coming from different regions does not necessarily imply different processes, if that makes sense. Is this an attempt at attacking labor as a commodity? Mentioning Marx does not usually leave a positive impression.

[melsaye]

nice,
the reason why there is not conclusion or side taken, is because there I haven't taken a side. It's still a struggle for me, as a thinker and as an ethical individual.
That's the point I guess, is that alienated labor is an issue, but so is my getting the cheapest product to save me money, or even forgetting the cost, my tastes, I enjoy whatever apple tastes best, whether its from Canada, USA or Mars. But my struggle is there, the awareness of the effects of buying apples from different places have become evident. Where as once I ate an apple and it was just an atomistic act, it just involved me and my taste buds, in fact it was a healthy thing, an apple a day...
but now it becomes a struggle...if i buy an American apple, I am locking out Canadian competitors, and endorsing US subsidies. If I eat a Canadian apple I am paying more for a local product, and locking out apples from Chile which is a developing country, and could use my demand...etc...the cycle goes on and on and on...

[CanadianWolf]

The origin of the apple point seems quite clear. The unbalancing of your essay comes with conclusive statements such as "...it was not original sin..." in relation to your statements that indicate uncertainty & struggles since it is not clear how you are so comfortable with making conclusive statements in one area (sexual morality) while questioning another (lobor practices & economics).

CONSIDER: "My coalescence with Eve was an exchange that seemingly only affected the two of us; maybe it was not original sin."

[CanadianWolf]

My impression of 89vision's comment was how can you be so conclusive about morality in one area, while questioning in another without stating your moral foundation for your beliefs or concerns. This makes the theme of your essay appear disjointed & not well thought out.

P.S. It's good to force readers to question their values, but it's not good to compel readers to question the author's knowledge of his or her own product.

[melsaye]

maybe is definitely better, very smart catch there.
my certainty in one vs the other is that with sex, it is the two of us, the actions are observable, but you are right, they aren't always observable, emotions, and suppression of emotions for pride etc...in a relationship are dynamics that must be sought out through empathy...which goes back to the original point...maturity of ethic by considering empathy and economics of relations...

[CanadianWolf]

My final impression is that you're probably going to receive strong consideration for admission to Yale if your numbers are strong. It is a clever essay that just needs some refinement. As evidenced by the spirited responses in this thread, you will certainly evoke reactions with your Yale 250.

[kwais]

nice,
the reason why there is not conclusion or side taken, is because there I haven't taken a side. It's still a struggle for me, as a thinker and as an ethical individual.
That's the point I guess, is that alienated labor is an issue, but so is my getting the cheapest product to save me money, or even forgetting the cost, my tastes, I enjoy whatever apple tastes best, whether its from Canada, USA or Mars. But my struggle is there, the awareness of the effects of buying apples from different places have become evident. Where as once I ate an apple and it was just an atomistic act, it just involved me and my taste buds, in fact it was a healthy thing, an apple a day...
but now it becomes a struggle...if i buy an American apple, I am locking out Canadian competitors, and endorsing US subsidies. If I eat a Canadian apple I am paying more for a local product, and locking out apples from Chile which is a developing country, and could use my demand...etc...the cycle goes on and on and on...

look what you just did. You discussed an issue in English. You have likely misunderstood some of the original criticisms. There are a few kids in my classes who talk like you did in your original. The teachers and students alike really don't appreciate it. Being persuasive and human, in lay terms, is not easy. So your response that people as smart as Yale adcomms should get your topic is besides the point. They probably will, but that does not mean they will like it. Part of leaving college, in my opinion, is realizing that academia is but a slice of the world we live in. When I see my cousins (who are in their first 2 years of college) at holidays, they still speak in this language and people tune out. Step outside the very narrow world of your UG classes and talk to adcomms like a person

[89vision]

melsaye,

CanadianWolf is right about my comments.

Even in your explanations, you keep use "ethical" without defining it. Again, very few things in life are universally agreed upon, especially definitions. If you are trying to say there is a moral dilemma, you need to explain, in my view, what makes it moral. That would entail including consequences of choosing one apple over another. Your comments seem to me to say you believe our ideas of ethics and morals progress with age, or our understanding of consequences advances with age. I do not know if I completely agree with that, because it would seem to tie in to the idea that morality progresses. Advances in time do not entail moral, ethical or intellectual progress, and I really think if you want to make that argument, you need to tread carefully. Maybe you do understand things in a greater context, but that may not lead to more moral decisions. Maybe I am not understanding your position completely, and realize 250 words is very limiting, but that forces you to focus on clarity. Name dropping may not be conducive to such an objective.

Is the point "this was a moral dilemma I had?" Not why was it a moral dilemma?

[melsaye]

exactly. It is an experience of mine.
The point here is to show who I am on a very personal level. The whole idea is I am not universalizing any definition of ethics. In fact quite the opposite, I am saying I have evolved from a limited morality, to a more comprehensive perception; ethics. In other words, from morality to ethical principles based on awareness.
The consequences are there; in terms of livelihoods of farmers, comparative advantage, alienated labour, product dumping etc...those are the new measurable phenomenon of ethical behaviour, they are the new awareness for me. Fall from grace to plugging in.

As for Marx and Ricardo. Marx represents a dialectical way of thinking, seeing that every action and behaviour is tied in directly to another action or behaviour, in continuum/organic network of forces. Ricardo is an empirical economist, he uses ideal and atomistic, or individual based attributes, and then universalizes/rationalises that behaviour as economic laws. Their schools of thought represent what is essentially the main schism of analytical thinking in political economy and ethics.

I am not actually trying to convince anyone of anything. There is no argument, it is a self observation that is supposed to illustrate the conflicts of a thinker. A statement of Self-Awareness if you will.

[89vision]

Does thinking about a simple action with more complexity improve your moral reasoning? Does it allow for you to more or less accurately assess a given decision? I am specifically thinking of the phrase "Keep it simple, stupid." Or the "how do you put an elephant in a fridge?" question.

I think the issue with implications on producers and workers is that, at least in the organic sector, when companies say things are "humane," they are often highly exaggerated. For instance, "free range grazing" may be a half acre of fenced in grass. Pollack writes about these issues. Basically, does one production company have much more humane conditions? I don't know if that is safe to assume, because slave conditions exist in production sectors in all countries, meaning, perhaps, labor conditions do not vary greatly. Again, if you know a lot about the subject, perhaps that is true. Maybe not. But I do know slavery occurs everywhere from Florida to Brazil, and I personally can not imagine much better conditions for a seasonal profession that uses visiting workers and immigrants quite frequently. I know this is true of American practices, and we have high labor safety standards. I do not know if farm labor is the best example if the point is drastically different labor conditions. Talking about a pair of shoes and comparing an American factoring to a developing nation would be a much greater contrast.

I think the issue with Marx is, you think political philosophy/Communist Manifesto, which is a huge discreditor. If you are referring to an individual's secondary ideas, you probably should specify that. I took away class conflict, which is not what you are implying. That could be a spot you want to touch up. Ricardo, I view him as comparative advantage, not, again, what you are implying.

What makes you ethical?

I get the little action=mini epiphany. I have used that as well. But, again, if you are talking about anything moral or ethical, I think you need to be very clear about the definition you are building your story on. My set of ethics is probably very different than yours. My inferences are that you do not agree with exploitation, which is why thinking about the implications on the labor force by your apple choice is a conundrum. But I do not view it as a moral issue unless those workers are not voluntarily engaging in a mutual contract. So, if you say I define morality/ethics as caring about the conditions of others, than I can agree with your analysis. But if you are saying they are ethical in general, I would disagree. Hence, specify what you mean by ethics and morals and advancing both. Those are tricky words, and you can tell from my comments I did not infer what you were implying correctly.

These are just the things that came to mind from me reading it, I think the seeing a larger picture is a good theme, but refining its clarity may help.

[melsaye]

I enjoyed reading that analysis-great post.

The definitions aren't clear, I am merely setting limits to launch the kinds of questions that you just posed, an awareness.
Morality is defined broadly by relating the eve and apple/original sin...and I try to define ethics as merely being able to weigh the best action, by considering if the application of your moral or ethical principles manifest the intended goals. Hence a measurable Justice. And that's what I was doing, weighing it out, and those were the things i was aware of, from my perspective, that I could used to make my choice. What choice I made is beside the point. If your understanding of the terms was on a different level than mine, then so be it, your considerations of the situation would have been different, but the point is your personal discussion would have still revolved around the ideas of ethics/morality at a critical level. It's the process, not the result. And if we chose to discuss our different opinions as to what the definitions of justice/morality are, then that would be all the better, at that point we could really hash out some definitions.
Seriously, nice talking to ya man/woman, lol!
Are you applying to Yale as well?

[89vision]

Morality intrigue's me. I am trying to decide if any universal morals exist, considering most actions have been considered moral at one point or another. Adam and Eve is an interesting starting point for western society, but I mostly read Buddhist writings, and view morality as a balance between destitution and self indulgence. I am big on compromise and the middle way as being my idea of a moral life. I have read far more about eastern religion than anything else, so I do not have as strong a connection with Adam and Eve as you do, and am not too familiar with the story (I have never been to church).

I can understand the process of ethical dilemma. It is an interesting discussion. Moral questions are always dynamic, because they are culturally dependent. The big thing that interests me is whether we should make ethical and moral considerations in decisions, and instead should focus solely on a cost-benefit structure.

I took the October LSAT so I am waiting to hear back before deciding where to apply. It'd be amazing to go to Yale, but my application will not stick out.

[GerardC3]

"It's the economy, stupid."

[dot]

Melseye, you're trying too hard man.

Really, you can keep the theme and poetic twist, but tone it down a lil. I was reading and it and got bored because it doesn't read easily and I think "trying to hard." I really would not be surprised if your faculty review committee did the same.

[T00L]

Morality intrigue's me. I am trying to decide if any universal morals exist, considering most actions have been considered moral at one point or another. Adam and Eve is an interesting starting point for western society, but I mostly read Buddhist writings, and view morality as a balance between destitution and self indulgence. I am big on compromise and the middle way as being my idea of a moral life. I have read far more about eastern religion than anything else, so I do not have as strong a connection with Adam and Eve as you do, and am not too familiar with the story (I have never been to church).

I can understand the process of ethical dilemma. It is an interesting discussion. Moral questions are always dynamic, because they are culturally dependent. The big thing that interests me is whether we should make ethical and moral considerations in decisions, and instead should focus solely on a cost-benefit structure.

I took the October LSAT so I am waiting to hear back before deciding where to apply. It'd be amazing to go to Yale, but my application will not stick out.

is your username a sublime reference?