The fourth contemporary issue was Sexual Morality. In my opinion, sex is the most natural thing that we engage in. Sex is primal and is the basis of natural urges for pleasure. However, after more discipline was evoked, sex was labeled as being the means of creating life. So sex, therefore is the means by which humans are multiplied and that is the primary purpose of it. Goldman's argument of plain sex is very appealing. When engaging in sex, the goal is the obtain pleasure not neccessarily to produce. Sex fulfills our natural urges to touch and be pleasured by another human. Having to supress the natural urge to want to have sex is not the most natural way of doing things but I suppose that it is the most civilized. If humans did not suppress those urges, then perhaps there would be more molestation of children, rape and beastiality. That is more immoral than subjecting humans to moderation and self control.
Sex is a huge part of our lives, it is in fact the way we got here in the first place. However, everyone's views on sex are different. They are shaped by parents and peers, media and personal feelings. Regardless of the uses of sex or what is the most moral way to utilize the act, it will still happen for whatever reason. I am almost positive that most people in these last couple of generations have put the whole reproduction concept on the back burner and have engaged in sex for pleasure or simply love.
This week I have commented on http://evonsommerville.blogspot.com/ and http://catherinedba.blogspot.com/
Monday, April 30, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
Blog 6 - Death Penalty: Kill For Kill ?
How did the third contemporary issue effect your principles? What more have you found that you need to reasonably respond to these moral issues beyond a set of principles? Are their other skills or knowledge that will make you a more effective ethical being? What are they?
The third contemporary issue being the death penalty, is against my views. I believe that death is justifiable in means of war or defense. Otherwise it is unethical to kill a human being. Yes, murder is againist my views, therefore, the death penalty as punishment for murder will also be against my views. Allowing the death penalty as a punishment for murder is a double standard. The message that the government is sending is unclear and disheveled. They are loudly proclaiming, "Killing is wrong, so we'll kill you to prove that." I'm not sure where the lesson is learned or where the point is proven.
Both of the philosophers that we focused on regarding this issue, Mill and Hook found certain cases in which they approved of the death penalty. I think that you either stand fully against something or you are an avid advocate for the issue, otherwise, you have no stance and therefore no belief regarding the issue. In order to change my views, I would possibly have to be a family member of someone who was murdered in order to have a different stance. I do not know what the families have gone through or what comfort they might find in the inflicted death of the killer, but until I experience it for myself I cannot agree with the death penalty.
Experience can make me a more ethical being. I am only 19, turning 20 in a few months. I have not been alive long enough to experience most things that have an effect on the shaping of beliefs and morals. All I know is that experience is a teacher in itself, it either solidifies or changes the belief systems that we have grown up to know. Experience is knowledge and it increases the chances of being effective, moral individuals.
This week, I have commented on http://ndeahterry.blogspot.com & http://javiluq.blogspot.com .
The third contemporary issue being the death penalty, is against my views. I believe that death is justifiable in means of war or defense. Otherwise it is unethical to kill a human being. Yes, murder is againist my views, therefore, the death penalty as punishment for murder will also be against my views. Allowing the death penalty as a punishment for murder is a double standard. The message that the government is sending is unclear and disheveled. They are loudly proclaiming, "Killing is wrong, so we'll kill you to prove that." I'm not sure where the lesson is learned or where the point is proven.
Both of the philosophers that we focused on regarding this issue, Mill and Hook found certain cases in which they approved of the death penalty. I think that you either stand fully against something or you are an avid advocate for the issue, otherwise, you have no stance and therefore no belief regarding the issue. In order to change my views, I would possibly have to be a family member of someone who was murdered in order to have a different stance. I do not know what the families have gone through or what comfort they might find in the inflicted death of the killer, but until I experience it for myself I cannot agree with the death penalty.
Experience can make me a more ethical being. I am only 19, turning 20 in a few months. I have not been alive long enough to experience most things that have an effect on the shaping of beliefs and morals. All I know is that experience is a teacher in itself, it either solidifies or changes the belief systems that we have grown up to know. Experience is knowledge and it increases the chances of being effective, moral individuals.
This week, I have commented on http://ndeahterry.blogspot.com & http://javiluq.blogspot.com .
Monday, April 16, 2012
Blog 5 - Abortion
How did the second contemporary issue effect your principles? Are you better able to see areas where your principles need adjusting? What adjustments need to be made? Which philosopher's position was least consistent with your own principles and why?
My principles are deeply affected by the issue of abortion because my principles are molded by religion. Playing God will violate those principles because another human is determining whether or not another human should live or not. I understand that the most important aspect of living is pertaining to your own indvidual happiness and that the decision to keep or abort a child is a factor of how happy the parent will be with the decision. I believe that from the moment of conception that there is a human inside of the woman. The most primitive form of the human, and when aborting that human, that is murder by a doctors hands. I consider it surrogate euthanasia. I think that the mothers either believe that they are incapable of providing a decent life for a child or they just arent ready and that prompts them to opt for abortion, therefore, the child must die. This is immoral to me.
In that aspect my principles need adjusting. I need to understand that individual morals will be the best determining factor when it comes to making that kind of decisions, however, I still disagree. Also, I stated in another blog that libertarianism is the view that I deem to be acceptable when it comes to living life. However, I'm relying on religion, a third party, to base my stance on abortion off of.
The philosopher that conflicts the most with my views is Warren because although the right to our own bodies is a factor, I believe that God determines who lives and dies. I simply believe that the act of abortion is immoral.
This week I commented on http://becksbradley.blogspot.com and http://meffstonespeaksonabortion.blogspot.com/ .
Monday, April 9, 2012
Blog 4 - First Contemporary Issue
How did the first contemporary issue effect your principles? Did it challenge them? Were your principles helpful in working out your response to the issue? Which philosopher's position was most consistent with your own principles and why?
The first contemporary issue being human cloning, did challenge my priniciples. I am a Christian and dealing with a matter that would effect mating and manipulating natural conception is a problem. I feel that cloning is playing God and will eventually eliminate human relationships. In my view, God originally created sex to be for reproduction purposes. As humans continued on living, the concept became distorted and used as a means of enjoyment and sexual fulfillment. Kass used points that said that individuality will be compromised with the mass production of human beings. Genetic variablilty will be limited to a small percentage and natural conception will slowly be eliminated. I agree with Kass's argument because individuality is the fun part of life. The things that make us different are the things that make us, us. Why walk around being an 30 year younger exact replica of someone? That is a major societal fail to me.
For those who have seen GATTACA, a movie that has a basis on showing a world where children are made by computer. Genetic specialists make children that are the best possible outcome for parents. Deeming the children naturally concieved as invalid in society. The natural born children are forced to second class treatment and jobs while the genetically supreme rule society. Is that the kind of world we want? A world where the 'mistakes' will be deemed inferior to the perfect clone. Honestly, that is where I see cloning going and that is why I cannot agree with it.
This week I commented on http://becksbradley.blogspot.com/ and http://evonsommerville.blogspot.com/
The first contemporary issue being human cloning, did challenge my priniciples. I am a Christian and dealing with a matter that would effect mating and manipulating natural conception is a problem. I feel that cloning is playing God and will eventually eliminate human relationships. In my view, God originally created sex to be for reproduction purposes. As humans continued on living, the concept became distorted and used as a means of enjoyment and sexual fulfillment. Kass used points that said that individuality will be compromised with the mass production of human beings. Genetic variablilty will be limited to a small percentage and natural conception will slowly be eliminated. I agree with Kass's argument because individuality is the fun part of life. The things that make us different are the things that make us, us. Why walk around being an 30 year younger exact replica of someone? That is a major societal fail to me.
For those who have seen GATTACA, a movie that has a basis on showing a world where children are made by computer. Genetic specialists make children that are the best possible outcome for parents. Deeming the children naturally concieved as invalid in society. The natural born children are forced to second class treatment and jobs while the genetically supreme rule society. Is that the kind of world we want? A world where the 'mistakes' will be deemed inferior to the perfect clone. Honestly, that is where I see cloning going and that is why I cannot agree with it.
This week I commented on http://becksbradley.blogspot.com/ and http://evonsommerville.blogspot.com/
Monday, March 26, 2012
Blog 3 - Social Moral Principles
What Social / Moral Principles do you find compelling and why? How do these principles fit with the personal principles you identified in Blog 2? Do they conflict at all? Do you think you can live according to both? How will you go about doing so? i.e. Prioritize them? Adopt specific ones for specific contexts?
A social priniciple that I find compelling is libertarianism. I feel that complete and whole hearted libertarianism is the way for all men to be happiest. Being free to do what you please without having to be bound by laws and social boundaries, can promote the inner man's supreme happiness, something that can be considered a purpose of life.
The libertarian take on life can conflict with some of my personal priniciples spoken about in Blog 2. In Blog 2 I mentioned having a belief in God and religion. God being the supreme ruler and controller of the universe and religion being a set of rules that can either make or break a person's identity as a person of faith. As a person of faith, I would suppsoed to be used to rules and regulation that will establish me as a Christian. For example, someone cannot be a Muslim not adhering to the priniciples of Islam that create the Muslim identity. Therefore, Libertarianism cannot be correlated with my personal philosophies spoken about in Blog 2. However, also in Blog 2 I wrote about my intrigue in the Taoist belief. Allowing the natural flow, to guide life, one can live freely and without stress, something can vaguely correlate to the idea of Libertarianism. That aspect of my second blog can reflect the ideas represented in this one.
I do not belive that I can live according to both without being bias towards one idea. Religion is too concrete to be incorporated with Libertarianism. The rules on how to live life and how to make one's self acceotable unto God defy the ultimate freedom that Libertarianism entails.
This week I commented on http://dallaslrsmith.blogspot.com and http://lukedemuro.blogspot.com .
A social priniciple that I find compelling is libertarianism. I feel that complete and whole hearted libertarianism is the way for all men to be happiest. Being free to do what you please without having to be bound by laws and social boundaries, can promote the inner man's supreme happiness, something that can be considered a purpose of life.
The libertarian take on life can conflict with some of my personal priniciples spoken about in Blog 2. In Blog 2 I mentioned having a belief in God and religion. God being the supreme ruler and controller of the universe and religion being a set of rules that can either make or break a person's identity as a person of faith. As a person of faith, I would suppsoed to be used to rules and regulation that will establish me as a Christian. For example, someone cannot be a Muslim not adhering to the priniciples of Islam that create the Muslim identity. Therefore, Libertarianism cannot be correlated with my personal philosophies spoken about in Blog 2. However, also in Blog 2 I wrote about my intrigue in the Taoist belief. Allowing the natural flow, to guide life, one can live freely and without stress, something can vaguely correlate to the idea of Libertarianism. That aspect of my second blog can reflect the ideas represented in this one.
I do not belive that I can live according to both without being bias towards one idea. Religion is too concrete to be incorporated with Libertarianism. The rules on how to live life and how to make one's self acceotable unto God defy the ultimate freedom that Libertarianism entails.
This week I commented on http://dallaslrsmith.blogspot.com and http://lukedemuro.blogspot.com .
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Blog 2 - Personal Principles
What personal principles did you adhere to before entering this course and where did they come from? Were they taught to you? Did you develop them on your own? How have our readings and discussions impacted those principles? Of the principles covered which are you drawn to the most and why?
Before entering this Ethical Wellbeing course I had a general idea of what I believed in and what I stood for. When I say a general idea I mean that I had no concrete definite ideas of what I considered universally moral and universally wrong. I had a belief in God and that he controlled the things that happened in this world and that the things that shaped the thing that my life has and will become. I developed my ideas on life due to strong biblical and spiritual instruction. I acquired them on my own by listening to lecture and seeing what made sense. I developed a strong sense of faith so I believed in God even though he was not a tangible being. Even after reading all our different views and perspectives, I still retain that belief, just because of faith.
After entering the class, I've become exposed to different outlooks on life and have searched throughout different ideas to see which ideas brought around can pertain to my belief pattern, I'm drawn more to the Taoist perspective. I love the idea of letting nothing outside of the natural flow, or the Tao affect our lives. The idea of living stress and bias free is an extremely appealing idea. The natural arousals of life are what guide the Taoist and that seems to be the easiest route to go.
I commented on Rebecca Bradley's blog found at http://becksbradley.blogspot.com/ and also Evon Sommerville's at http://evonsommerville.blogspot.com/.
Before entering this Ethical Wellbeing course I had a general idea of what I believed in and what I stood for. When I say a general idea I mean that I had no concrete definite ideas of what I considered universally moral and universally wrong. I had a belief in God and that he controlled the things that happened in this world and that the things that shaped the thing that my life has and will become. I developed my ideas on life due to strong biblical and spiritual instruction. I acquired them on my own by listening to lecture and seeing what made sense. I developed a strong sense of faith so I believed in God even though he was not a tangible being. Even after reading all our different views and perspectives, I still retain that belief, just because of faith.
After entering the class, I've become exposed to different outlooks on life and have searched throughout different ideas to see which ideas brought around can pertain to my belief pattern, I'm drawn more to the Taoist perspective. I love the idea of letting nothing outside of the natural flow, or the Tao affect our lives. The idea of living stress and bias free is an extremely appealing idea. The natural arousals of life are what guide the Taoist and that seems to be the easiest route to go.
I commented on Rebecca Bradley's blog found at http://becksbradley.blogspot.com/ and also Evon Sommerville's at http://evonsommerville.blogspot.com/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)