The Case of the Best Friend’s ‘Sexting'Immanuel Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” not only says that you should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, but that you should ask yourself if you would want what you are considering to do to become universal law (i.e., something that everyone should HAVE to do, including TO you, in the very same situation) and if it still respected the other person as someone who had the ability to make his or her own decisions in a rational way. His defense of imprisonment and capital punishment was that anyone, including you, who rationally chose to break the law and who had also rationally chosen to accept whatever punishment would result because of getting caught for the crime, would not be getting the respect they deserved if we did not punish the person for their rational choices (even if they had made the choice to act irrationally and commit the crime). So, in Kant’s view, punishment is the choice that a rational person makes and wants to see made universal and applied to himself and everyone else when they choose to break the law; not punishing the person would be a show of disrespect for his ability to be rational.And, yes, for all of you CJ majors, Kant DID accept the notion of mitigating circumstances (i.e., acts of passion that are outside the realm of pure rationality). But, in truth, they are not common and even harder to prove. For the most part, Kant assumes that most crimes are planned (even the stupid ones in which things go very wrong). And, keep in mind that Kant does not worry about whether there is a virtuous 'just right' decision between one virtuous 'mean' and an infinite number of vicious and wrong possibilities (like Aristotle did) or the results (like Mill did); his only concern is that you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and that you rationally and willingly choose to accept your punishment if you consciously choose to do the wrong thing.The scenario:You left your cell phone in your car while visiting your best friend in another city, and you just remembered that you were supposed to text your spouse to let him or her know that you arrived safely. So, your friend is in the kitchen and his or her partner is still at work; and, rather than run back out to your car to get your own phone, you pick up your friend’s phone and click on the Messages app. The phone has not been cleared, and you see really racy posts from someone besides your friend’s husband or wife. It is clear to you that there is a sexual affair of some sort going on. So, what are you going to do?You can go ahead and call your own spouse and tell them about the affair, but then you remember that Kant said that you should do only what you would want done to you in the same situation---and, you are not sure that you would want someone spreading those kinds of rumors about you if they happened to pick up your cell phone. You could confront your friend, and either cheer them on or tell them that they are acting like an idiot and about to screw up the best thing they have ever had in life; but, would you want someone to do that for you if you were in the same situation? You could do nothing; it’s a cop-out, but maybe it is what you would want your friend to do if you were the one having an affair and did not want to hear anyone telling you that the right thing to do is the right thing. What would you do, and why? If you were the person cheating on his or her spouse, what would you want your friend who found out to do to you, and why?

Mural: “Tribute to Allende” (1973) by Smiley Benavidesthesis statement based on your observation of this mural: In his mural “Tribute to Allende,” Smiley Benavides is illustrating that the military forces unleashed against the supporters of the Allende regime in Chile are a metaphor for the political oppression facing Chicanos in the United States during the early 1970s. Benavides is demonstrating that the Chicano fight for justice is comparable to the Chileans’ support for Allende’s “Popular Unity” platform of justice, equality, labor rights, quality education, etc. Furthermore, by depicting the Chilean military in dark, austere monochrome tones, Benavides makes the analogy that forces of conformity and conservatism of those opposed to Allende are equivalent to that of the Nixon Administration and its disdain toward those in support of civil rights and those opposed to the Vietnam War. one cause or consequence of an event associated with this mural: Following the ouster of the Allende government on September 11, 1973 (that’s right, Chile had its own 9-11), General Augusto Pinochet oversaw the installation of a brutal military government that lasted until 1990, when democracy returned to country. But in that 17-year dictatorship, the Pinochet regime in a brutal campaign of terror against alleged “subversives” and “radicals,” including students, social workers, doctors, artists, and musicians, such as legendary folk singer Victor Jara, who was executed by security forces at the National Stadium in Santiago. Pinochet was convinced he had to protect “la patria” from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and because Pinochet was committed to fighting Communism, he earned much praise from US presidents through the 1980s. Although Pinochet did usher in an era of economic expansion in the country in the rest of 1970s, popular agitation began to emerge during the early 1980s, and as the Cold War was winding down by the end of the decade, Pinochet was becoming more and more isolated, and after a 1988 “plebiscite” in which Chileans voted to end the regime, Pinochet finally ceded power in 1990. But the brutal legacy of Pinochet’s regime still lingers today, and it’s a reminder of just how governments, including constitutional republics, will go to great lengths to exterminate its own citizens just for the sake of preserving its power structure. one historical individual involved in this event and explain his or her significance in this event: The deceased figure in the mural represents Salvador Allende, the Chilean president who died in the violent coup against him on September 11, 1973. Nobody knows for sure if he took his own life or was murdered by military forces that stormed the presidential palace. Allende was the candidate of the Unidad Popular (“Popular Unity”) party during the 1970, defeating two other candidates in a three-way race. The UP coalition was made of various left-leaning groups, including Socialists and Communists, which angered the Nixon Administration. Nixon was so incensed that he vowed to “smash that son-of-a-bitch Allende.” But for the people who supported Allende, he represented their aspirations of overcoming the legacy of colonialism that had permeated Latin America since the days of the Spaniards. For its supporters, the UP promoted improved social security and public health, an improved and expanded housing sector, gender equality, and the extension of the right to organize unions. Therefore, Allende became a hero to many Chicano activists, who felt that their own aspirations were the mirror image of what UP supporters were fighting for. Unfortunately, Allende could not contain many of the internal struggles within the UP coalition, let alone pressures from the Chilean armed forces, conservative forces, and the Nixon Administration. And as Benavides indicates in his mural, the death of Allende is symbolic of the dashed hopes and dreams of many in the Chicano movement during the mid-1970s. But in modern times, Allende is still viewed as a martyr, as someone who fought for the interests for the common people, but paid the ultimate price for his beliefs