The Good Life A wise man once told me, "If you are more fortunate than others, it's better to build a longer table than a taller fence." In my life I strive to be able to travel the world and meet as many people, interesting and not as interesting as I can. I wish to learn and build relationships with people that I can get along with. I would also want to spend time with the family and friends I have in my life right now. I want to help them with whichever endeavors that come in their way. All this will make me happy and that's what I most value in the world. What I also value is being able to travel to the most interesting places in the world, from amazing beaches to world class rock climbing areas. I want to spend as much time with my parents and cousins as much as i can. I want brighten as many peoples' days as possible by putting a smile on their face. In Kant's eyes, he worked to better the world using rational thinking without any emotions involved. He observed the intent of the person. In order to know if something is rational, that moral rule must follow the categorical imperative. This categorical imperative has three steps you must follow for the rule to be rational; they are, you must identify the maxim of your actions, then apply that to all people faced with the same dilemma, and then you must ensure that the application of the maxim to everyone does not contradict itself. (Beal PPT) For example, take a rehabilitating athlete who wants to come back to the game sooner than later. As a physical therapist the athlete asks me if I can give him a banned substance to speed up the healing process. for me to make a rational decision about giving this athlete the banned substance I must follow the categorical imperative. If I follow the categorical imperative then I need to say that everyone who has an injury should take a banned substance for a faster healing process but then this will contradict itself because if everyone can take the banned substance then it shouldn't be a banned substance. So my rational would be that I can't give the athlete the substance because we can't give that substance to everyone else. Kant also had its downfalls for making rational decisions. One weakness of Kant is that rational rules may clash sometimes; rules like lying and do not kill come together and clash. One example from the reading by Rachel's is that a fisherman was hiding Jews, a Nazi German came to his house and asked if he was hiding any Jews. The fisherman had to choose between lying to the Nazi or getting the Jews killed by the German. Another weakness of Kant is to take away emotion from your decision making. This is a tough one because as a PT I may come across a patient who has no insurance and can't afford my treatment. My emotional side will empathize with this patient but in Kant's eyes my decision should be to not treat him because if I let the patient in for free then I must let every patient in for free. Utilitarianism on the other hand takes another approach towards the good life. This moral code strives for the outcome of the situation and not about the intent. The utilitarian view strives to promote happiness to as many people as possible, you must think about the greater good. (Beal PPT) Your moral obligation is to have the least amount of suffering as possible. Let's take the example of my patient who was an injured athlete who wants a banned substance to speed up their recovery process. Now to make a utilitarian decision I must make a list of who is affected if I give this athlete a banned substance. (Beal PPT) Lance Armstrong was an athlete who was caught with a banned substance (steriods) in the cycling world. Armstrong took steriods during his career as a cyclist. Who would be affected by Lance taking steriods to be a better cyclist. The people who were affected were himself, his competitors, and the entire world who looked up to Armstrong as the best cyclist in the world. Although it benefited