Blog 7: Fourth Issue - Sexual Morality

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/

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 .

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/ .

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/