Their cheeks flushed with a light hue of red-violet as their paths crossed the following morning. Along with the essence of coffee beans, a new emotion hung in the air in their regular watering hole. A feeling to which they were both naive – shyness. Their exuberant morning conversations had suddenly petered out to a few pleasantries. Although they both tried to avoid eye contact by looking down at their phones initially, they were unable not to lock gazes and get lost in each other’s dilated pupils. For a fraction of a second, the hustle and bustle around them seemed to slow down before the barista snapped them out of the trance with their orders. They quickly gathered themselves and headed out to separate morning lectures, their paths diverging across the sun-kissed campus. Both knew how the other felt. But, they didn’t know how to proceed.

The lectures, which were once enthralling, felt like a dense fog. Their minds were preoccupied with the events of the previous evening. To properly understand the lessons, they both sauntered to the library, where once again, their paths collided.

However, this time they were adamant about having a proper conversation. So adamant that they spoke at the same time, paused to let the other speak at the same time, and speak again at the same time. Their awkward start drew out a chuckle from her, which he had grown to adore, and it broke the ice. But since their following lectures were fast approaching, they nestled in adjoining chairs to get their work done. He set up the Pomodoro timer while she pulled out her Lofi playlist. Like they had always done, but this time more endearingly, they shared earphones and began their notes with their elbows grazing.

They walked under a canopy of amber foliage and naked branches. The crisp fall wind flickered and plucked the remaining leaves, which swayed and swirled onto the maroon bricks that paved the walkways. The dried-out leaves gave a satisfying crunch as their footsteps fell. One of the steps was nonchalant, and the other came more rapidly as if to keep up.

She grasped onto her notebooks and binder, wrapping her arms around them tightly. Although her sky blue cashmere sweater should have provided ample warmth, she was still cold. The wind, picking up, caught onto one end of her scarf, but she didn’t mind. Her attention was on his eyes.

He spoke passionately about the Renaissance artists. When he got excited, his sentences would end on a slightly higher note, which she found endearing. In between, he stole glances at her, hoping that an engineering student like her was interested in an art history major like him. He caught himself almost losing his train of thought a few times because of her emerald eyes and flowing brunette locks. Nonetheless, he went on.

Suddenly, she leaned in and placed a kiss on his lips. It was over as soon as it began. She quickly pulled back, and a wave of anxiety washed over her.

He wore a perplexed look, and she couldn’t decipher the meaning. Did she overstep her boundaries, or did he like it? She had a dozen questions. Slowly, a smile emerged on his face. He slipped his arm behind her waist and pulled her in. It made her rosy cheeks blush even more. He looked deep into her eyes as if asking for permission. Then he moved in, and they held on for nearly a minute.

After pulling away from each other, they walked quietly, hand in hand, across the courtyard. Both of them were in shock of their own spontaneity and their feelings being reciprocated. Upon reaching their dorms, they mumbled a few parting words and went their separate ways.

The moonlight peeked through the window shades as I laid in my bed with my eyes unshuttered. My heart and mind raced towards her. The perennial flower that always bloomed. Her eyes, a soothing hazelnut shade; her hair, dancing around when she moved; her mind, a mixture of a serrated blade and a flower petal. When she spoke, my ears grasped to hold on to every single syllable.

As the sun rose, my hopes did too. I approached her with a rose in my hand and heart in my mouth. Stuttering through the first few phrases, I constructed a whole sentence:

Would you like to go out with me?

A phrase I had been planning for months to deliver had only taken a breath long.

The response took longer than the changing of the seasons. But, the answer transported me into a spring meadow.

Then came the next question – where to take her too? I had also pondered about this for a while. The movies? Too clique. A restaurant? My eating habits will push her away. A stroll through a park? Clique, but romantic.

I patiently waited for the full moon to rise to take her arm in mine. The first half was silent and awkward. Both of us, being on our first date, didn’t know how to proceed. But in the second, we opened up. We shared our dreams and aspirations. Funny stories and goofy jokes accompanied us till we reached the end.

When I opened the car door for her, my only thought was to spend more time with her. Simultaneously, wishing that she felt the same.  

Our ride back was a quieter one. She tilted the seat back and inspected the moon through the sunroof. When we reached her house, I too leaned my seat back and stole a few seconds more of the date. I closed my eyes to take in the moment. She left silently, but I kept my eyes shut – not wanting to let her go.

When I opened up my eye, the sun shone through the window shades. I got dressed and chose a flower from the garden. I again approached her with a rose. Same as the dream, I stuttered before asking the question.

At the sound of her answer, the rose wilted.

Although this essay was written for my World History class, I believe it ties, however loosely, into my current theme of western philosophers. Therefore, I wanted to post it on my blog.

Author’s note

The contact between the Christian Europeans with the Muslim empires in the Middle East facilitated by the Crusades included the reintroduction of the ideologies of Graeco-Roman philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato to Europe. This contact, coupled with the rise of the scientific revolution, where the entire world was viewed logically, and the fallout of the thirty years war, led to the rise of the Enlightenment, a phase of philosophical thinking in Europe. Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Montesquieu, and Voltaire challenged the power of absolute monarchs by calling out the immorality behind the policies of absolute monarchs, countering and disproving the reason given by absolute monarchs for their actions, ‘the divine right of the king’, and laying out a framework for a better government.

The questions of freedom and autonomy plagued enlightenment thinkers during the early modern era because the European economy was starting to leave its agrarian roots, which allowed intellectuals time to think and question the ongoing dictatorial reign of the governments. John Locke’s contemporaries were the two biggest champions of monarchical absolutism: King Louis XIV of France and Maximillian I of the Holy Roman Empire. Both abused their power by ruling their respective countries without any checks. This distressed many because it took away their ability to be rational beings. The selections from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argue that the nature of man is to make autonomous decisions, which has an air of Kantian morality, specifically the third categorical imperative, where freedom is defined as the autonomy of a man confined to a place not encroaching over other’s freedom. Locke’s argument directly challenges the authority of the kings because, under Locke’s definition of freedom, the power that impedes the freedom of others is illegitimate, which in turn calls the kings as illegitimate rulers. Locke furthers on the nature of laws by stating that their goals are to protect those freedoms, which exemplifies the immorality of the Kings’ rule. The complex nature of the style of the writing indicates that it was targeted towards fellow intellectuals and lawmakers.

Locke furthers his argument by attacking the root of the legitimacy argument by absolute monarchs of western society, the religion. Both of the aforementioned kings and nearly every single ruler in Europe has ruled under the doctrine of “the divine rights of the king,” where divine providence gifted the legitimacy of the rulers; therefore, those who oppose the king opposes the Christian god himself. Locke argues in a letter concerning toleration that because the Christian religion was extremely tumultuous and prone to civil wars, the leaders of the, whose legitimacy was based on divine providence, will not always be innocent. John Locke was living in the post-thirty-year war period, where thousands of Catholics and Protestants fought and died in Central Europe. Therefore divine providence is an unsubstantiated argument, and then in its extension, Kings do not have legitimacy. Voltaire’s Treatise on Tolerance broadens Locke’s argument by stating that religious dogma lack logic and should not be regarded in any scenario. This piece was written to convince both clergymen and the common man in a manner by contrasting religion in various scenarios to produce a different view of religion than the one expressed during the time. While Locke merely disproves “the divine right of the kings,” Voltaire undermines the entire institution of religion, which leaves the kings with no legitimacy and in turn, a higher rate of civil disobedience.

Any counter-argument that brings down an institution has the burden to provide a counter-plan, which Baron de Montesquieu delivered in his “the Spirit of the laws” . Montesquieu envisions a government the legislative, judicial, and executive powers are divided into various organizations so that they can keep a check on each other. Because a counter-plan is a product of the status quo, Montesquieu indirectly accuses the monarchs of the time as abusers of power since they have the powers to both writes and enforce the laws, which challenges the very existence of such absolute monarchical government.

By calling out the immorality of the laws, uprooting the legitimacy argument of the monarchs, and proposing a new form of government, the enlightenment thinkers laid the foundation of the eventual downfall of absolute monarchs. As it sparked revolutions such as the French, American, Latin American, African, Indian, Asian, and many more, the ideals of the thinkers are embedded into the mentality of modern society.

Growing up, we are regularly taught about morals: don’t lie, don’t steal, work hard, don’t be rude. They all make sense in general life because if everyone is immoral, then society will crumble. But what happens when we face ethical dilemmas? An ethical dilemma is situations where an action can be deemed moral or immoral based on your point of view; for example, even though killing is terrible, would you kill Hitler? Or would you steal from a thief?

When deciding what action is moral or immoral, there are two primary schools of thought: Kantian or Utilitarianism.

The word ‘Kantian’ describes the framework of morality set by Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century philosopher. Kant believed that morality stems from reason and is the same for everyone. Therefore, any actions caused by our desire are not related to morality because the desires are different for everyone. For example, working hard stems from the desire to achieve a goal; thus, it is neither moral or immoral to work hard. Kant builds on this by stating that for actions to be moral, they have to do for the moral rules and not the consequences. He breaks down the moral rules ( or categorical imperatives as he calls them) into three forms (formulations) :

1. Only actions that can be done by everyone must be used.
2. Treat others as you want to be treated
3. Your actions cannot affect the freedom of others

Through this rule, we can deduce that killing, lying, or stealing are immoral because

1. If everyone does them, then everyone is dead, or there will be no stability in society.
2. You do not want to be killed, lied to, or stolen from.
3. They do not allow others to make their own decisions.

Now Kantian ethics sounds excellent, but when you look at the ethical dilemmas. Not so much. For example, let’s imagine that 20 people are all going to die. But if you kill one of them, then the rest survive. According to Immanuel Kant, you should not kill the one person because killing is wrong.

This is where Utilitarianism comes in. Util dictates that morality is based on pleasure; therefore, the actions that cause the most pleasure should be taken. In the scenario above, Utilitarians would argue that one person was going to die in either world (all dead or just one dead), so by killing the one person, you save 19 people, increasing the pleasure in the world. The majority of the population agree with Util because the human mind is wired to weigh the cost and benefit of action.

Utilitarianism is comprised of 2 versions :

1. Act Utilitarian
2. Rule Utilitarian

Act Util is a strict form where robbing a bank to distribute it to the poor is moral because it increases the pleasure of those in poverty with comparatively less impact on the bank customers. Rule Util instead follows a set of rules that, in general, increases the pleasure and also looks at the long term impact. Therefore, robbing a bank is terrible because it normalizes robbery, and when everyone starts robbing, then the economy will be impacted and in turn, an increase in poverty. It also hooks the poor onto free money, leaving them no incentive to work. Instead, by providing with skills, improving their living conditions, and providing them with food would help them in the long term.

There is another major hole in the Util’s impact calculus (weighing the good and bad effects of an action): the 51-49 problem. Will you be willing to harm 49% of the population to improve the lives of 51% of the population?

Util and Kantian ethics can be quite confusing, but it comes down to a simple issue of priority. Util tells that morality is only based on the consequences, and Kantian ethics states that it is the actions that matter.

A speckled pattern plastered the floor with stride-long square tiles periodically breaking the pattern up, while similar foam squares rested on the silver grid. “Off cases”, “K’s”, “Dis-ads”, and “T-shells” littered the halls. Needless anxiety flowed through the veins of all the debaters as they all rushed from rooms to room and jubilation to dismay. Keyboards, in a formation like a cult circle, clicked in frustration.

Sitting in the corner, I contemplated my plan for the day : “1 more round to go and till then homework, Yay!! ” Sounds like a productive plan, but it is nearly impossible to get any work, other than debate, done at a tournament. At a tournament, there is always someone to cheer about or to cheer up or to chat with. I pulled out my homework an hour after the commencement of my plan, and started going through the tedious 10 part questions, but again it was left at the way side as I went to talk to others about their rounds. When I got back, there was a crumpled up 5 dollar bill left on my homework. The Lincoln looked so enticing that I pocketed it without anyone noticing, and left for my upcoming round.

After the round, I made a beeline to the snatch up the last remaining breakfast taco. I took out the crumpled dollar and as I was just about to hand it over at the stall, I pulled my hand back like I touched a hot stove. Instead, I pulled out a different bill and bought the taco. Then I thought – Is it fine to use the money that one finds? I mean finders, keepers. What if someone else finds and uses it, then wouldn’t I be stupid to not use it? But what about the off chance that the owner recovers it?

Days after the debate tournament, I was pushing the red cart through HEB’s counter, when I noticed the Red Cross jar. Overcome with moral righteousness, I pulled out the Lincoln and dropped it in the tin can. This was followed by a thank you from the cashier.

---

Now was the net morality of the actions positive or negative?

Utilitarians will break this argument down in 2 parts : 1st when I did not use the 5 dollar bill for buying the taco and donating the money. On the first part, proponents of Utilitarianism will argue that because I did not use the money for any personal gains, I was not selfish and did not act immorally. Secondly, they would further that at the end of the day the money helped those in need. This stems from the fact that it is important to measure morality based on the end results because helps achieve more pleasure and less suffering. Therefore, I was moral.

Kantians would counter the Utilitarian argument that I was not selfish by the fact that I obtained pleasure. Instead of gaining material pleasure, I got psychological pleasure because helping others makes one happy. Furthermore, I had no intention to donate until seeing the jar, and only did so to make myself happy. This is because I did not search for the owner once finding the money or actively find a method to donate it. Kantians would then state that under Utilitarian framework I was immoral because the owner of the 5 dollar bill was not able to buy food and went hungry, and the money would have gotten lost in the bureaucracy of the Red Cross. The net pleasure only went up for me a fractional amount compared to the net “sadness” of the owner; therefore, I was immoral. Kantians would also contend that the act of stealing is immoral because if everyone start doing it then the economy and in turn society would crumble.

---

So was I moral?

Shafts of light pierced through the east-facing windows illuminating the floor in a camera reel pattern. I removed the blanket and instinctively reached for my phone. Looking through the notifications, I noticed a peculiar lime green calendar pop-up: “Mother’s day.” “आयी शपथ! मी कस विसरलो? “I exclaimed in my mother tongue. (rough translation: ‘How did I forget?’)

For the rest of the day, it felt as if I was walking on a tight rope, worried that my mother might bring the subject up. Luckily, my mom, in the most unusual nature, forgot it was her day. But knowing she would figure it out sooner or later, I rushed for a solution. Going through multiple scenarios, from getting my dad to drive me to Ulta to walking to Target, I realized my mother would discover I am gone. Which would have terrified her initially and spoiled the surprise because my dad would have told her where I went to calm her down.

Thankfully, my mother herself unintentionally gave a solution: she wanted my dad and I to help her shop at the Barton Creek Mall. Which was a fantastic solution because my mother would never doubt that I would be interested in any of the shops except the ice cream vendor.
Once at the mall, my dad snuck me a $20 bill, and I made an excuse to go to the bathroom. Keeping one eye on my mom’s location, I made a beeline to ‘Bath and Body Works.’ In the store, I browsed through the various sections: Men’s, Flowers, Fruity, and Specials. Smelling the various aromas was as much joy as later presenting the gift to my mom. After testing many options, to fulfill my wish, I selected the ‘1000 wishes’.

To not arouse suspicion, I hurried to my parents from the back, so that they don’t see me. I swung around the left of my mom and presented her with the gift. To my delight, she loved it!

Calculating the intent, actions, and consequences, did I act morally or immorally?

Immanuel Kant, the 18th-century philosopher, would state that I was immoral because I lied to my mother by going to the gift shop than going to the restroom. According to Kant’s 1st categorical imperative (the universal law), an action is only ‘good’ when it can be applied in all scenarios. And because if everyone lies, then there will be no trust, which is essential for a functioning society; therefore, lying is immoral. It can also be argued that I did it out of fear of repercussions.

Those who prescribe to the school of Utilitarianism would counter Kant by stating that the morality of consequences is more important than those of the actions. Because at the end of the day, my mother was happy, lying does not matter. Furthermore, some might argue that I bought the gift out of guilt of not getting anything for my mother.

With arguments on both sides, what do you believe? Was my net morality positive or negative?

Note from the Author –

As of 10/20/19, this is my favorite piece that I have written because of the many nuances and subtleties embedded in it. The purpose of the article is to point out the hypocrisy of those who complain about the environmental destruction, but are actually causing the problem. The reason why I prefer this piece over others I have written before is the 2 world comparison : the passage describes a writer writing about a writer and both of them oblivious to their hypocrisy, but the external world writer realizes it, while the internal peaks his hypocritical behavior. Although I have spoiled the story for you, I promise it will allow you to relish the passage even more. But a fair warning that you will need to reread the article to fully understand it.

---

A hunch loomed over a machine, while the sounds rattled through the night. The quiet-loud machinery failed to press through a sea of thunder. Clouds, which enveloped the exposition, reflected the town underneath. They buried the twinkle in the eyes and skies. But no one bothered to notice because most were hiding under the slumber. The candle not burnt out, carefully places the processed pulp into the platen and moves the carriage away from the heart. Letters etched on the manuscript forming words, sentences, paragraphs, and finally, a cohesive tale flowed on the parchment.

A writer, whose name splattered all over opinion columns of papers, drives through the night sky for the 100th time while humming the notes of Breathless. Admiring the nature that the road crisscrosses, he judges the municipal on their decisions on building the way and formulates a critique in the local op-ed.

The end of the night draws closer as the rains stop sculpting a rugged surface down the infrastructure of the town. Speckling rays through the haze, the sun climbs out of the depths of the East. A stone-cold silence breaks with the muffled chirping of parents and children. Neon signs which illuminated the town – Masks! $1000 for a year’s supply! – Opioids! 20% discount – dim their lights. Electrical engines roar to life in garages as the self-righteous owners in their “environment-friendly” cars set out to work. The archaic machine keeps on going in its intoned chant, periodically chiming. The drink bubbles into millions of rising spheres, and when it sets, it seems like a miniature battle rages on the white circle over wood-hue liquid. It stimulates the creature lurking over the typewriter.

Sitting down on his laptop, the purple-robed figure ferociously jabs at the corruption that we call the government. In his flamboyant, if the not aristocratic style of writing, the author outlines the problem of building infrastructure through pristine forests: the destruction of dearly needed oxygen-producing trees, eradication of the habitat for animals, extinction of countless of creatures, elimination of indigenous cultures, creation of roads that propagates the burning of fossil fuels. Tired, the writer lazily gets up and instructs his assistant to dictate the current events. In her piped up melodious voice, she describes the state of the union, political scandals, and environmental challenges that mar the earth. Annoyed, he grunts, “I have to change the sound of Alexa. Who remains cheerful in this world of despair”.

Over the horizon, the nautical twilight ends, and the city begins. The writer drifts down the helix and settles in the vehicle. Cables fall off, wheels rotate, and lights illuminate the path before the evolved electric. The man physically and mentally meanders through the roads in a Laissez-Faire manner. The streets take him on a voyage, while the electrical lines approach the way and the mind of the author. Pondering on his usage of electrons, he continuous driving his drive on drives. Mentally, he swerves into an abyss of his article.

‘Society has to achieve a method for sustainable progress.’ ‘But how does society decide what is sustainable progress? ‘ ‘What is sustainable progress? ‘. The questions plagued and burdened him, which impacted his productivity. The unopinionated opinion column writer went to revisit his inspiration, but others had the same idea. The bane of modern life harassed him at the forest road, traffic.

On the road, he fazes out and stares down the tar pathway. He notes the cars which coughed like old cigarette smokers and he dwells into the alternate cars, like his, and their energy. His thinking leads him to the black ropes dangling parallel to the road. Intrigued by the source of the power in his car, he follows the lines though roads, highways, off-beat pathways to its origin.

The traffic ruined the serenity of nature because of the increased decibel level. From above it resembled a line of ants walking tiredly, but from below the phenomena sapped the strength of those stuck. A dense haze arose from back-pipes covering the road and seeping into the forest. The smoke visible only because was sun on a vacation down under. Though not discernible by the nose, the smell excited the wrong nerves bringing on pain. The subconscious anguish built up till he bellowed at the wheel, ” STOP DRIVING THESE DAMN CARS! Do they even know how much gas they are wasting? Walk. Just walk! .” Cooling down but flustered he mutters “I don’t understand why people drive. Maybe carpool? They are just killing the trees and us too.”

Three cylinders jutted out of a slab of concrete, molded in the brutalist architecture that came to define the mid-1900s. 1000 ft each, but they still their growth looked stunted. Black soot was sprinkled on the openings as it puffed clouds of Vantablack into the grey background. It clothed itself with a 7 foot vertical shiny grid. Inside the covering, mountains of carbon dotted the landscape. Structures hovered over the piles covered with a splotches of maroon brown. Opposite of the coal, spears protruded in an ordered formation with wires dangling all around it like a fork with mercury soaked spaghetti. The ropes, which the author was following, dove into the ground just short of the power plant.

This road is only worsening the Fucking problem! Why can’t people just sit home? Shit, the car is still on. I am losing gas.