Throughout Smoke Signals, we are met with many pairs along the journey of Victor and Thomas. Aristotle’s observations of friendship makes us ask, are some of these pairs really friends? In the movie we see people who maybe speak to one another, but may not be friends, or who have a different relationship entirely.

Not Friends

Victor and the both of his parents are not friends through the movie. Arnold is usually seen hitting Victor and drinking, and the two had a more parent and child relationship. Victor for most of the movie with his mother is still being taken care of by her. According to Aristotle, a parent and child relationship cannot be a friendship. I think in my own life I see parents and children becoming friends after they start to get older, when they can fully be a person apart from their parents. At times it never happens, but sometimes it’s beautiful. I have many thoughts about parenthood as a whole, but know as I am not a parent myself, its observations coming from looking at my own relationship with my parents and watching other people.

Friends of Utility

Victor and Thomas start off merely as friends of utility, Thomas has money to get Victor to Arizona and Thomas gets a trip to Arizona. Victor really does not like Thomas and it’s clear from the beginning that the two start off rocky, with Victor typically blowing off Thomas and blatantly not listening to him while Thomas is just seen speaking to entertain himself. Victor at one point says “what’s in it for you,” when Thomas offered to give him the money to go to Arizona. Thomas lets Victor be around him as we see when the two are playing basketball with some friends, but the two then event aren’t friends. Victor starts showing concern for Thomas when they are on the bus to Arizona, telling him ” You gotta look mean, or people won’t respect you. White people will run all over you if you don’t look mean. You gotta look like a warrior.” Thomas is very naive, and Victor starts to show him he cares by giving him advice on how to deal with other people in the world.

Friends of Pleasure

Arlene and Arnold sadly over the years are seen go from friends of pleasure to not friends at all, despite the love the family holds for each other. Arlene and Arnold are often drinking together, but as she realizes that Victor is suffering because of their habits, she quits drinking. Their relationship ends when Arlene is fighting with Arnold over money for beer that he had taken from her, money he claimed was “what was coming to [him].” Their friendship ended with their drinking, they no longer had a very good relationship once one of them stopped drinking to have fun. I have no doubt that she loves him very much, but they are not good friends through that portion of the movie no longer what love she has for him as a partner or the father of her child.

True Virtuous Friends

The first pair of true virtuous friends are Lucy and Velma. The two are seen wearing very similar clothing and driving around, one stopping the other from drinking and stopping with her. She tells her to keep her eyes on the road and they appear to be in tune with one another. For how little we know them, we can see they enjoy each other’s company and that they care about one another, they share concern and the way they interact sends that message without having to state it.

Arnold and Suzie did not know each other very long, but the two kept each other going. They would look after one another, and listen to each other to in a way heal themselves, and keep one another’s secrets for themselves. Suzie ends up calling Arlene, an act of compassion you would do if you cared about someone, even a little bit. He helped her get to work and I think her listening to him about the family he left gave him room to grow and reflect. They would end up having each other’s backs and understanding one other well.

In the end, Thomas and Victor’s journey to Arizona brings them closer together, far less hostile and more concern. Victor helped Thomas realize not to be naive and to dress normally, but that was not an act of true friendship to me so much as sharing his father with him. After Victor understands why his father really treat him and Thomas differently, he forgave them both and in the end, knowing Arnold was a major male figure in Thomas’s life, shares his father with him. You can see on Thomas’s face how important this is to him when he gets choked up and tells Victor what he will do with the ashes. This is a major turning point for the two, they trust one another and have this new moment where they’re home and they left some pain on the road from Arizona. He tells Thomas “he didn’t mean to,” one of Arnold’s first lines, and his defense. Arnold didn’t mean to start the fire, he didn’t mean to hurt his child this way, he didn’t mean to kill Thomas’s parents, and he didn’t mean to leave and never come back. It’s almost the point where Victor is forgiving his father once he understands the guilt he was carrying, and that he has to move on from it and let his father go.

Word Count: 933

Blog Prompt 15: Do you agree with Aristotle’s proposition that there are three types of friendship: friendship of pleasure, friendship of utility, and friendships in virtue? Can you identify people in your life that fall into any of the three categories?

I agree with Aristotle’s proposition that there are three types of friendship. I feel that though this is the nature of polite and courteous conversation, when people hear the titles of these friendships it makes them want to defend themselves as if something is wrong with these labels. These friendships just happen in life, it isn’t anything bad, and friendship is simply an interaction or a connection between people. These friendships can evolve from one to the other, it is not permanent how people get along. I’ve had this happen to me, a friend I felt was a friend of virtue started changing and they could not make the good choices they were able to before, and I felt like they ket breaking my trust and blowing off anything I could say to try and ease their mind. They went from someone I wished I could hang out with and go to for help to someone I didn’t find nice to talk to anymore. In the same evolution my other friends of virtue all evolved from utility and pleasure, knowing that I started to trust them more was great. I believe Aristotle’s proposition is a great one that really describes how communications make connections well.

The first is the friendship of utility, which is “in virtue of some good which they get from each other.” This means simply that this person and I mutually benefit off one another, and nothing more. This does not mean that I am using them, in return they are getting something from me too. For example, I go to Starbucks often, and I know some of the baristas faces because I am often there. I say good morning and I order my coffee, then they make it, a simple transaction that takes place every day around the world between many people, the communication is normal. This is a relationship of the utility friendship, I am able to get my chai tea latte and they are able to get paid and tipped for their work.

The second type of friendship is the friendship of pleasure. Despite what we associate pleasure with today, this friendship merely derives from enjoying each other’s company. Young people in Aristotle’s eyes are said to make more friendships of pleasure, one reason being that “those who love for the sake of pleasure do so for the sake of what is pleasant to themselves.” It is a more self centered friendship, you like someone because they entertain you and you can stand their company, but this is a step up from utility. The difference is that friends of pleasure “do wish to spend their days and lives together,” as they have fun when they are with each other. In school you make many friends of pleasure, you grow up with people you have fun and hang out with, but sometimes you don’t have each others numbers, or you only play a sport together, it is very common for this friendship to bloom. I’ve had many in my classes that made it easier for me to become comfortable asking for help, despite our only common factor being we are taking the class and need a study buddy.

The last and highest form for friendship is the friendship of virtue. This is what we should be thinking about when we think about our best friends, the ones we stay with because we know they care about us and we know that we care about them. This is care for wellbeing, concern for each other’s happiness and goals. Aristotle describes it as “perfect both in respect of duration and in all other respects, and in it each gets from each in all respects the same as, or something like what, he gives; which is what ought to happen between friends.” You two respect each other and want the best for each other, and oftentimes a great deal of care is put into this relationship. We find that in the other types of friendship is it less easy to trust one another, as this friendship gives such a strong sense of trust it almost makes it impossible to feel or be wronged by one another. I could count on one hand how many of these close friends I’ve had in my life, and each of them I trust more than I feel I could imagine trusting anyone else.

The people in my life that I have grown to trust are those who started off as merely friends of utility, or even less, just someone to talk to. I remember walking up to someone who would become my virtuous friend, and all I wanted to do was sit with someone so I didn’t look so alone. Over time I realized that we shared common interests, like shows or games. So they became became a friend of pleasure. Somewhere in our time talking I realized that we had ignored talking about our problems, but at some point we both realized when the other wasn’t feeling great. It was the long nights we stayed up and realized that we could trust each other that made us realize we had this love for one another. We were able to give each other the troubles we couldn’t handle alone or with our parents, and we looked for some kind of reconciliation in ourselves. Bottling those feelings up made us scared to communicate, but the more comfortable we became with it, with years between for trust, we became unbreakable.

Word Count: 955

Blog Prompt 12: What are the Dalai Lama’s main commitments? What are their benefits? Do you share any of his commitments?

The Dalai Lama’s main commitments are to are self discipline, compassion, contentment, forgiveness, tolerance, and religious harmony. The Dalai Lama wishes that the children of the future can learn that the “idea that dialogue, not violence, is the best and most practical way to solve conflicts” rather than what we see more of today, countries at odds with one another do not give other countries much of a chance to speak or make a statement.

This emcompasses self discipline, being able to stay in the present and to be able to handle what is going on today without being completely controlled by fantasy or things out of our reach. Compassion for other does make us vulnerable, but it is better for those who need compassion the most, and for those who don’t know they need it. Compassion is not only about pity, it’s about trying to understand what someone may be going through, and showing care in that they are truly struggling, whether or not you’ve been through the same. I think that the worst pains you suffer happen in situations where people aren’t showing you compassion or try to write off your troubles as if they didn’t exist. For a long time I was self conscious and struggling with the fact that I was underweight, I didn’t like for people to mention it because no matter what I did I couldn’t make it to average. When my own family started making jokes about it I couldn’t handle it, we had our talks after but it was hard for me to deal with that momentary lack of compassion. You see worse acts throw away compassion, such as when the government had to clarify how they handled cyberbullying. When someone online would harass someone to the point that in their struggle they take their own lives, the law had to get involved over the volume of cases and the complaints. These cases were issues of the first amendment, but were unprotected due to the fact that the words typed meant harm, and the outcome was death. If the world was able to show compassion for each other, it would help improve the lives of others not just online, but globally. I can’t imagine how great that would feel. Compassion has a lot to do with forgiveness and tolerance, to forgive people for the sake of yourself and to be able to accept differences between you and others without hasty judgements.

The commitments I find that I share with the Dalai Lama is compassion, tolerance, and religious harmony. Personally I understand that I come off harsh, or rash, but I would hate for someone to feel as I have in the past under little compassion. I think that many people could be living happier and more confident to date if even a few people showed them more compassion. Tolerance for me is something I’ve been taught, to treat people how I would want to be treated and to simply respect people. I try to respect people whether or not they at the moment are respecting me, I have to understand that they have something bothering them that has nothing to do with me. If it seems to, I have very few times had to sit down with someone and ask what was up in order to get everything in the air and to cool down a situation. I personally have little ties to religion, but I know some of my family has heavier ties. I am not the person to bring someone down for a religion that they believe in that brings them comfort and direction in life. Sometimes I may not understand, but by no means do I get to put someone down for a religion. I don’t think religion or anyone should subjugate people, but that is a disagreement with a specific concept and not with the idea of following a religion.

Word Count: 674

Should organ sales be legal? Give the Kantian argument. Do you agree? Where would a utilitarian stand?

Organ sales at the moment is illegal, but like many other laws, like drinking and driving, littering, and pirating music, they are often broken. Although most of what I listed is other than drunk driving does not have the same affect illegal organ sales does on the body. The difference between organ sales and organ donation is that for one, you are making money off of your own organs. If this was legal, there would be more hospital protections, such as verified surgeons and anesthetics. Legalizing these sales makes it so that the practice is done safer, but does not change from how we see in the movie Dirty Pretty Things. There will still be underground operations, and there will still be people getting taken advantage of for their organs, that was without a doubt already happening today. I think though that the autonomy and the effects of organ sales is really what matters to people the most in usual thought. For me, I see no other benefit of making sales legal, and I believe that it should stay illegal. Although I am on the fence about it, I understand the benefits for many people who need the organs, but it is hard to say what will come of the sales.

For Kant, the CI cannot allow organ sales to be legal. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, this idea of duty is passed around with examples on how being duty based at times cannot be looked at as good for everyone. ” For one thing, as with the Jim Crow laws of the old South and the Nuremberg laws of Nazi Germany, the laws to which these types of “actions from duty” conform may be morally despicable. Respect for such laws could hardly be thought valuable.” These actions were in fact grotesque, and bring about a thought evoking session on organ sales. If we are giving away organs as charity or because you feel as though you must, it may be seen as something from your duty. When you start to sell, then things get dirty. When you look at good will for Kant, it mostly means that you have rationality and that you have a duty in order to do something. The fact that you put a price on something from your body also devalues humans as something worth meaningless strips of colored paper. This makes it nearly impossible for Kant to approve of organ sales. You have no obligation or duty to sell your organs, and it isn’t rationale unless you are in need of fast money, Kant couldn’t say this is the correct option for anyone. Selling something makes it so that everything suddenly revolves around money, it has nothing to do with morals once you slap a price tag on it.

For Mill’s utility, the GHP makes it so that if the majority of people are benefiting from it, then it is morally justifiable. The sales for organs has the potential to shorten the donor list so that those without money will be able to get organs before those who could pay or who would rather pay for them. I do think though that the sudden push to sell organs would help everyone stay healthy, in order to have good working organs to sell. Healthier people at times can be happier than those without as good of health, so it would make sense to keep your product as good as possible so people will buy them. But I think that overall, minorities will still be exploited for organs, like in the movie. I think that under the GHP, often times the minority will be stumbled over in order to better please the majority, which was something Mill is against. Your actions must be “not at all motivated by a prospective outcome or some other extrinsic feature of our conduct except insofar as these are requirements of duty itself,” so if the outcome is money, there is no duty to sell organs or allow the selling of organs.

I find that I agree more with Kant in that putting a money value on your body for anything like labor or sex or your own organs is something I cannot easily agree with, but that I understand that this is something that does happen, an that at times someone can willingly make the choice do to do if they would please. I also have never been in such a situation, and think that the money someone could make from these situations might not be enough for me to justify selling parts of my body. I still have a job but in society and living with other people, I don’t have the comfortable option to not have a job, it’s more of a force, even if I am happy to work. I agree the sales of organs could make people happy, but I lean more towards Kant’s thought to keep organ sales illegal.

Word Count: 844

What are the strengths of an argument applying the utilitarian calculation to open borders? Is it a good argument? How could it be better? What are its main objections?

The main strengths of the argument applying to the utilitarianism goes as follows;

1. Opening borders is better for the GHP, and human welfare as a whole.
2. Open borders may speed of the end of poverty
3. There could be a 50-150% increase in the global GDP

Conclusion: Open borders can increase the social and economic welfare of the world.

The argument is a good one, with the premises given, it is hard to try and disagree with the utilitarians in saying that this will bring less happiness. It will bring joy to many people to be able to go to and from countries without penalty or repercussion, especially into a safer environment for themselves. The thought of the end of poverty seems so distant, like it could never happen even in the lifetime of me or my baby cousins, but the end that sooner would benefit generations to come. The end of poverty means giving more people a better quality of life, which the greatest happiness principle makes a main goal in society. It was noted in the texts that even a ten percent increase in the GDP translates to trillions of dollars, which can affect the people that are not in the top ten percent, raising that which everyone earns.

Given all the good from this argument, there are still concerns that others have regardless of whether or not these arguments are pointing the situation in a positive direction. The first and weakest argument is that in the U.S., the amount of immigrants coming in will detrimentally lower the rates at which the country makes scientific and technological advances. This argument comes from the very illogical idea that “low IQ immigrants” will lower the productivity of “high IQ natives” of the U.S., which for one isn’t correct in any way, shape, or form. The argument relies on outdated and ill concluded facts that have no relevance to the U.S., like higher paying jobs being paid less in low income countries. Pay scale is not universal, and IQ has been proved wrong over and over again throughout time, mixing the two to come to the conclusion that immigrants drag their old society’s concepts and problems is also an issue. It implies that problems like communism will come in to a country because those who were once ruled by it will spread it into a new country by existing. The whole Golden Egg argument is one born out of darkness, which is sadly a strong argument for those thinking in out next issue, nationalism. The argument of nationalism is simple yet scary, that we, the U.S., should only look out for the good of the U.S., and screw anyone or anything trying to interfere. The final argument is less about the people, and more about animals. The concern is that more animals will be put to death to feed more and more people. My main issue with this argument is that thought there is avoidance in it, and then it distracts us from the issue of immigration and open borders. With the amount of waste in the states to begin with, there might not be much more added suffering anyways if now what was once being wasted is bought by new immigrants coming in and out of the country.

Word Count: 577

“How does Mill avoid the paradox of hedonism–the notion that if we pursue only our own happiness, we will never be happy? Is self-sacrifice a virtue in utilitarianism? What role does the principle of impartiality play in Mill’s calculation?“

Mill is able to avoid the paradox of hedonism in utilitarianism by stating that no one person’s happiness can be more important than another’s, not even in the relative sense. Your family’s happiness is just as important as a lesser off or more well off families. Another way he is able to avoid hedonism is by repeating that utilitarianism is for “mankind collectively” rather than the pleasure of oneself. Although it seems to be a paradox that you act for happiness, not all the time is it only for your own happiness. He makes a clear point to “the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct… not the agent’s own happiness.” You cannot be happy for yourself only when the concept is to make good for a community rather than the self. In relation to self sacrifice, those who give up their own happiness for that of others is something that is a virtue. For someone to give up their own happiness for the good of others is something that both does good for the community and keeps you from indulging in self satisfaction. With virtue in mind, Mill states that “all honour to those who can abnegate for themselves the personal enjoyment of life, when by such renunciation they contribute worthily to increase the amount of happiness in the world.” Those who are able to give up for themselves can give more for others. Although, someone who gives up their own self desires without the want to better the greater good specifically “is no more deserving of admiration than the ascetic mounted on his pillar.” You cannot be happy for only yourself when the concept is to make good for a community rather than the self.

The role of impartialism, or “to do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself” is something that is ideal to “constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality” within the concept. To be impartial is to leave bias behind in making a decision. Say you’re applying for a job and there’s only one more spot available. If both you and the son of the bpss of the company are applying, there is the thought that the son has a better chance than you do. To be impartial is to thrown away the fact that he is the son of the boss and look at his credentials alone, and put you two on equal grounds. Impartiality brings about a sense of equity and equality.

Word Count: 461

Mill’s concept of utilitarianism morals is based off of the consequences of the moral choices in question. Although his search for pleasure is often mistaken for typical Hedonism, he means to strive for an overall contempt life, through hardship. Most hedonism is selfish, and focuses on the pleasures of just yourself, whereas Mill wants something akin to a democratic hedonism. He wants for everyone to be as happy as they can with the help of everyone else. He ranks these hapinesses by quality, the high and low pleasures. The low pleasures are the ones that come easy, like sex, whereas the high pleasures may be family or hard work in life. The utilitarianist way is not based around seeking pleasure sexually, but around being happy with your life in it’s whole with the high pleasures being a big reason in contemptment of your life. Hedonism is based more to the lower pleasures and still avoids pain, but can focus on the more literal form of happiness as well. Mill’s concept rejects the focus on the low pleasure and emphasizes the high pleasure as what defines what is moral or immoral.

Mill’s reasons to support the Greatest Happiness Principle are to support the greater good with the “intended pleasure, and the absence of pain,” for their happiness rather than only your own happiness.

The pig in this philosophy is something looked down upon, a creature who lives life only knowing the lower pleasures and without our knowledge as humans. It is happy, but unaware of the world around it, and thus is compared to a fool. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” is to say that we would rather live with our knowledge and happiness in this world rather than a pig’s life. The pig is not an intellectual, and enjoys a humble life knowing next to nothing but it’s instincts, though when compared to hedonism, Mill is speaking of a deeper happiness based on accomplishment of yourself and community. To call it a “pig philosophy” is wrong on many levels, even the connotations of a ‘pig’ today twist the concept into something darker. His mentions of the pig are used to refer to someone who only and solely focuses on those lower pleasures.

Although sometimes humans chasing the higher pleasure wander off into the low pleasure, Mill understands this and is not surprised. He explains how some “pursue sensual indulgences to the injury of health, though perfectly aware that health is the greater good.” The greater good is almost never immediate, and Mill is aware of this, and aware that sometimes humans need that quick pleasure to keep from being so displeased. Pleasure in Mill’s thoughts are something humans can’t wait forever for, and that needs to be nourished in order to survive.

I’m conflicted with Mill’s utilitarianism, although it is thought provoking and in some cases seen in life, I can’t agree with the tyranny the majority has. That kind of a community will plow through the minorities in those situations, and it will stomp out the motivation to make the greater good happy once the other side is no longer held to the same level. Although I agree that I would rather live my sad life than be a rich man’s cat or a pig doesn’t mean it’s because I want the higher pleasures, I want that to keep consciousness and because I wouldn’t trade my life for a better one, if I get lucky I can make it better myself. To call the pig and fool ignorant leaves such a weird taste in my mouth, I think his comparisons are not very well thought out and that the air around the subject is taken as almost an insult to someone who may not be able to live as Mill did, with knowledge he could attain. I think there are greater and lesser pleasures in life and that I am happy I can experience the greater ones, and I can see that some of his concepts are reflected in real life, but his attitude and the tyranny of the majority are why I don’t support his assessment.

Word Count: 678

In the excerpt of Anthropology and the Abnormal, Ruth Benedict defends ethical relativism to determine what is morally correct and what is morally wrong. She takes history into account and comes to the “conclusion that moral relativism is the correct view of moral principles.” This means that she believes that with context, we should look at situation as to how they are portrayed in life and at the time to determine how moral the situation or decision may be.

She takes a look to modern day concepts that drive us, like sex and status, and explains that our own upbringing in our society manages what we think is moral and immoral in regards to them. Benedict throughout the writing uses how we look at homosexuality to explain further that “there are well described cultures in which these abnormals function at ease and with honor, and apparently without danger or difficulty to the society.” By some, homosexuality is viewed as a negative, a sin or a weakness in men, and often sexualized in the case of women. The modern view from the ill informed is often restricted, and boiled down to negative and immoral. Homosexuality is sometimes thought of a “strain” to “any man’s vitality,” as if it killed the spirit of being a man by definition. Though there is truth that in some societies, homosexuality was very normal, and did not infringe on the society, and may even have been something that was encouraged.

With the new grounds for exploring relativism, she begins to describe homosexuality in history versus how her own modern day looked at the topic. She begins with the statement “homosexuals in many societies are not incompetent, but they may be such if the” concept is seen as harming or demeaning any of what has already been socially beat into the current culture, like the manliness and manhood held sacred to men in society. Although “wherever homosexuality has been given an honorable place in any society” homosexuals “have filled adequately the honorable roles society assigns to them.” If not viewed as a downfall in a society, a trait may be viewed as a normal, and thus treated like one. The perspective aspect makes it so that a trait viewed in one area may be terrible, but when in another part of the world, is held up as a virtue amongst the society. Has there ever been a society where being openly gay was something citizens upheld as having great moral value? Actually yes, ancient Greek society.

In Greek society, being a homosexual was not only a regular part of daily life, but was well respected as a “major [mean] to the good life.” It was normal in Greece to be able to be openly homosexual, and by looking at the Greek history, homosexuality played a bigger role. Even in Plato’s Republic, being homosexual “was generally so regarded in Greece at that time” as a part of a good life. If philosopher Plato thought of being openly homosexual was something rational and of a high standing, then why doesn’t our society view homosexuality in the same way? It all has to do with the inculcated views of homosexuality brought to us years ago, with a thought that has not yet changed with the years.

By reading Benedict’s work, we see that “normality is culturally defined” and that “the majority of mankind quite readily take any shape that is presented to them.” In regards to abortion and capital punishment with the argument from Benedict, I can say that I can defend how the moral choices between those two concepts came to be. However as a society changes as it has over time, I can say that what is relevant to us changed. I’ve only ever grown up in a democracy, so to think of a majority not choosing what is best for society is something alien to me. With the topics of abortion and capital punishment, it makes sense that societal views dictate what we think is right and wrong, and the method by which we start to think this is from the majority. Sadly, in our own society the wealthy minority plays a bigger role, I can’t all the way justify Benedict’s statement that the majority has the ability to decide when in my own society, that is not the true and pure case. I cannot defend her conclusion with the consequences being so large. I think that with both abortion and capital punishment there is a line that the majority may believe is right or wrong, even if moral relativism says a concept’s morality is inconclusive. To leave such argumentative topics in limbo is a major threat to what’s already right and wrong.

In my opinion, I believe that relativism should not get in the way of opinions about a certain subject. If the concept cannot back up it’s claims, and we are both able to reason in the same way, then you can decide whether you think something is right or wrong regardless of if it is more common in one area of the world.

Word Count: 851

1. Thinking of others is a way we can be kind.
2. Virtue is an act of compassion and selflessness that helps people.

Conclusion: Thinking of others, acting selflessly, and compassionately helps people.

I realized there was true virtue in the world when I was able to see that there was at least one person that wanted to do right because it was the right thing to do. I mostly saw it when people acted in connection with “doing the right thing.” The right thing was always something that left the virtue-haver with nothing to gain, and gave back to someone who may have been in need.

My story was about an acquaintance I had back in high school, who I won’t name. I had one class with her, and all I knew about her was that she seemed sweet. It was my Driver’s Ed class, and I needed to bring twenty dollars for a handbook. I didn’t have a job, and I obviously couldn’t drive, so I needed this book for the class. I ended up putting the money in my sweater pocket and not my wallet. That ended in chaos when I came home and had to tell my parents that I lost twenty of their dollars. The next day, this classmate of mine noticed I was distressed, and she asked me what was going on. I gave her the rundown, and she perked right up and opened her pecil bag, giving my back my twenty dollars, which was all folded up nicely. She kept it in case someone said that they had lost it, and she gave it back to me.

I realized that not only did her parents need to be proud, but that she easily could have taken that money for a new shirt, a cute meal with a friend, or even put the money into savings. She gave it back to me so happily, like she didn’t think about what twenty extra dollars would mean for herself, or what it really meant to me. That’s when I realized that I didn’t have to always assume the worst from people, and that you can have virtue whenever you want, and to do it because sometimes it makes you happy to brighten up someone’s day.

Word Count: 379