# data[].attributes.body
Sommers & Sommers, Kant: "Good Will, Duty, and The Categorical Imperative"

Mill, Utilitarianism, ch. 2, "What Utilitarianism Is"

The Dalai Lama, Ethics for the New Millenium, "The Need for Discernment"

# data[].attributes.body
Counter-Argument: Wouldn't the woman—through telling her Facebook friend—be causing more suffering and should therefore practice restraint?

Rebuttal:
"... this would be seen as an act which is a mixture of bad and good in which the good aspect counterbalances the bad to an extent, especially if the act is done with recognition of its wrongness,"

the woman can acknowledge the wrongdoing that;ll occur in her choice to tell the Facebook friend but Buddhism acknowledges the gray area in a lot of our moral decisions. She'd create more happiness from telling her friend than the suffering that'll occur; the "happiness" that'd occur from not telling her friend comes from a place of delusion. Therefore, despite the pain that'd inevitably occur, everyone in the situation would be better off knowing the perspectives of others.

# data[].attributes.body
By denying herself of any chance to tell the truth, the woman would cause spiritual dissatisfaction with herself which causes suffering.

"Whatever immediate advantage is gained at the expense of someone else is necessarily only temporary. In the
long run, causing others hurt and disturbing their peace and
happiness causes us anxiety. Because our actions have an impact both on ourselves and others, when we lack discipline, eventually anxiety arises in our mind, and deep in our heart we
come to feel a sense of disquiet" (Dalai Lama 186).

"Nevertheless, it is worth saying again that ethical discipline
entails more than just restraint. It also entails the cultivation of
virtue. Love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness,
and so on are essential qualities" (Dalai Lama 186).

if the woman were to deny the Facebook friend the truth, she'd live in a state of constant anxiety over whether or not she'd be exposed

especially since the ex-boyfriend is the one who's caused the most harm, by telling the Facebook friend she'd get ahead of the situation and have a say before things could get out of hand

by choosing to create love, she could reach out to the Facebook friend and potentially create a new avenue of healing for the both of them

# data[].attributes.body
Claim #1:

According to Buddhist ethics, wholesome action is determined by non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. If the woman didn't notify the Facebook friend, instead of acting out of loving-kindness, she'd act out of impulse and denying the  reality at hand.

'The three roots of the unwholesome are intertwined.
Greed and hatred are grounded in delusion, and greed may lead to hatred. It is said that greed is a lesser fault, but fades slowly, hatred is a great fault, but fades quickly, and delusion is a great fault and fades slowly. This gives a clear indication of Buddhist values, especially the need to develop wisdom, so as to overcome delusion. It is also said that common motives for evil deeds are partiality, enmity, stupidity and fear, and that greed, hatred and delusion can each lead a person to abuse others with the thought "I am powerful" ' (Dalai Lama 171).

Buddhism agrees with each in respectively acknowledging the importance of (1) a good motivating will, (2) cultivation of character, and (3) the reduction of suffering in others and oneself. This is because the first two of these are seen as crucial causes of the third of them, while aiming at the third, in a way which does not ignore aspects of the full karmic situation, is a key feature of the first two," (Dalai Lama 175).

if the woman were to not tell her Facebook friend, she'd be acting on the impulse to not say anything in order to absolve herself of any guilt

she'd also be lying to herself by refusing to tell the Facebook friend and living in a reality that doesn't matches the actual events that've occurred

if she were to tell the Facebook friend, she'd grow and become a wiser person by seeking out retribution for her actions and being able to provide peace for someone who's been lied to

# data[].attributes.body
What she doesn’t know can’t kill her, producing the greatest amount of happiness would be to just not say anything, because the truth would be more painful than the not knowing.

“For nothing except that consciousness can raise a person above the chances of life, by making him fee; that, let fate and fortune do their worst, they have not power to subdue him: which, once felt, frees him from excess of anxiety concerning the evils of life, and enables him, like many a Stoic in the worst times of the Roman Empire, to cultivate in the tranquility the sources of satisfaction accessible to him, without concerning himself about the uncertainty of their duration, any more than about their inevitable end” (Mill 154).

Although they may feel pleasure now, withholding the truth is only prolonging the pain that will inevitably come to pass once the truth is found out.

Utilitarianism focuses on the longterm happiness of us all, and sometimes, our happiness comes at a higher cost than giving into our lower pleasures. Nonetheless, these costs are meant to be paid if it is for the sake of everyone’s wellbeing.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim #2:

In order to produce the most happiness in any given situation, you must be impartial. The utilitarian believes that treating people the way you’d like to be treated is a key principle of morality, meaning that it would be most humane to tell her FaceBook friend about their partner’s infidelity.

"In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbor as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality" (Mill 155).

As a society that values honesty in relationships, it would be best to talk to the FaceBook friend

No one would like to be in the dark about their partner’s cheating, so it would be most empathetic (and it would produce the most long-term happiness) to tell them the truth

"The only self-renunciation which it applauds, is devotion to the happiness, or to some fo the means pf happiness, of others; either of mankind collectively, or of individuals within the limits imposed by the collective interests of mankind" (Mill 154).

Telling the truth could be considered a form of self-renunciation, as it can damage her reputation, or cause her shame/guilt to admit

A true Utilitarian would applaud her for telling the truth for the sake of everyone’s wellbeing, regardless of the risks

# data[].attributes.body
Claim #1:

Because happiness is a standard of utility, reaching out to her Facebook friend would produce the best possible consequence. Continuing the affair, or withholding the truth about their infidelity, would be subscribing to pleasure rather than promoting happiness.

"Men often, from infirmity fo character, make their election for the nearer good, though they know it to be the less valuable; and this no less when the choir e is between two bodily pleasures, than when it is between bodily and mental. They pursue sensual indulgences to the injury of health, though perfectly aware that health is greater than good" (Mill 150)

Establishes sexual desires as inferior to intellectual/emotional wellbeing

Morality is not to be sacrificed for sensuality

Her withholding the truth from the FaceBook friend would essentially be preserving the man’s ability to fulfill his sensual desires, and in turn, depriving herself and the girlfriend of their own happiness.

"To suppose that life has […] no higher end than pleasure—no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit—they designate as utterly mean and groveling; as a doctrine worthy of swine, to whom the followers of Epicurus were, at a very early period, contemptuously likened" (Mill 149)

To subscribe to lower pleasures, such as sex, is to dehumanize oneself and those who you affect.

"for that standard if not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether; and if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the world in general is immensely a gainer by it" (Mill 151)

The nobler action will always be the action that produces the most happiness in a situation. Although all of them feel pleasure in their current dynamic, they can only experience happiness once the truth is liberated.

# data[].attributes.body
Because Kant is so deeply aligned in choosing the next right course of action, I chose to use Utilitarianism as my counterargument. This philosophy would argue that the greatest good comes from the most net happiness. Therefore, telling his long-distance partner that he is cheating, would result in the opposite. Not only would you have to deliver the information, this would also impact both the women he is seeing not to mention the man himself.

“The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (152 Mill).

However, when considering the Greatest Happiness Principle, it is also possible to argue that ultimately his infidelity will surface and time will only increase the pain felt once the information surfaces. Furthermore, even within Utilitarianism, withholding this information would constitute a lower pleasure (for example short-term gain) instead of long-term fulfillment for everyone. While both thinkers have very different notions of the role of pleasure-- Kant believes it to be destructive and Utilitarian thinkers believe it to be central-- the evidence points me to believe they would agree that notifying her Facebook friend of her discovery is both the most moral thing to do and leads to the most happiness long term.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim #2: The Categorical imperative is central to Kant's views on morality which assesses if any action has moral worth if it can become the worldwide precident. Living in a world where people keep others' secrets that are damaging and impact others cannot be universalized.

"Moral persons act in such a way that they could will that the principles of their actions should be universal laws for everyone else as well. This is one test of a moral act: Is it the kind of act that everyone should perform? Kant illustrates how this test can be applied to determine whether a given principle is moral and objective or merely subjective. For example, I may wish to break a promise, but that cannot be moral since I cannot will that promise-breaking be a universal practice" (230 Kant).
- When applying the universality test to our moral quandary, it does not pass, making it critical for the woman to inform her friend.
- The Universality test in many ways acts in parallel to the golden rule which states to treat others the way you want to be treated. However, this motto is to take the actions that build the world you want to live in.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Kant 234).

# data[].attributes.body
Despite the range of different perspectives and approaches our three thinkers have, they'd ultimately argue that the woman must come clean to the Facebook friend. Kant's deontological perspective is that it's the person's duty to themselves and to society to tell the truth to their Facebook friend. This conclusion can be made by using the principle of a Categorical Imperative, which reveals a dishonest society would be harmful to all of mankind. Mill takes a different approach through Utilitarianism, as he establishes the promotion of happiness for all to be the noblest pursuit one can have. He would believe that sacrificing the truth would be giving into lower pleasures, that do not provide us true stimulation or happiness. Additionally in keeping the truth from them, she would fail to follow the Golden Rule, which is central to Utilitarianism. Buddhism defines wholesome action through three tenets—all of which would be exemplified through telling the truth—and promotes spiritual satisfaction through honest and kind truth-telling. Therefore, all three thinkers would advocate for the woman to tell the truth.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim #1: Kant argues that is our duty to remain truthful at all costs in contrast to falling prey to our inclinations. Therefore, notifying the Facebook friend would align with our responsibility instead of our inclination to disengage and ignore the issues at stake.

"Human beings who do what is right merely because it pleases them are not yet intrinsically moral. For had it pleased them they would have done wrong. To act morally is to act from no other motive than the motive of what is right. This kind of motive has nothing to do with anything as subjective as pleasure. To do right out of principle is to recognize an objective right that imposes an obligation on any rational being" (230 Kant).
- Pleasure is subjective and therefore we cannot attach positive morality to it. If anything, pleasure indicates poor moral character because pleasure drives poor decision-making.
- Instead what is right stems from objectivity and obligation which inform our sense of right and wrong.

“A good will is good not because of what it affects or accomplishes, not because of its fitness to attain some proposed end; it is good only through its willing, i.e it is good in itself” (Kant 232).
- Each action must be considered an end within itself not a means to an end. This further supports that she should notify the friend because it is not her job to take into account the impact, but it is the right thing to do.

"duty, does not rest at all on feelings, impulses, and inclinations, but only on the relation of rational beings to one another, a relation in which the will of a rational being must always be regarded at the same time as legislative, because otherwise he could not be thought of an end in himself" (238 Kant).