Blog 6

Blog 6 - 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 that we discussed was the dealth penalty.  This has always been an issue that cause me to say "but" so many times.  I don't believe that I have a set opinion on this issue.  If a person commits murder, my first thought would be that they go to jail until they die.  I don't believe that it should be a few years or anything like that.  They took a person out of society therefore, they should not be allowed back in it.  I never thought that killing them in return was a good idea.  I'm not sure why, but it seems kind of crazy to me that if you kill someone or commit a bad enough crime that you have to die too.  I don't believe that an eye for an eye is the best way to go.  Then I think, "What if they killed someone I know?" and this is where the "but" comes in.  It seems sort of selfish that my ideas change when it affects me personally, but if someone killed one of my friends or family, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that they still got to live.


This bring in the second question of "What more have you found that you need to reasonably respond to these moral issues beyond a set of principles?".  This issue has caused me to understand myself more deeply.  In order to make a set opinion on the death penalty, I would have to be more empathetic for the billions of other people in the world.  Like I've stated before,  don't believe that an eye for an eye is the right way to go about things.  But I become angry and upset and I wouldn't mind an exception if it were someone I knew.  When I put it this way, the families of the people who are murdered have feelings too. And they would want the same things that I would: justice.  This being said, I've answered my own dilemna- the death penalty is something I would support.

I commented on Alex Richard's blog http://ethicalwellbeing-richardsa.blogspot.com/

I commented on Luke Demuro's blog http://lukedemuro.blogspot.com/.

Blog 5

Blog 5 - 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?


The second comtemporary issue of abortion was one that not only effected my principles but also the way that I think about life.  The meaning of it, that is.  Before our discussion about abortion, I would always say that it didn't matter what the mother did and if she didn't want the child, no matter the circumstances, she shouldn't have to have it.  Yet when we talked about the blastocytes forming and everything that goes into actually having an abortion, my ideas about it were altered.  I know that I can't be half for abortion and half against it, but I can't see myself just completely switching gears.  Do I agree with abortion? No.  I don't think that something that has the potential of life should be cut off before it has the chance to get there.  I do, however, believe that a woman's body and future are hers to control, and if she doesn't think that a baby is best, she should get an abortion.  I don't think that she should get a free pass, but I do not think that an unwanted child should be born. 


The philospher's position that was least consistent with my principles was Warren.  Her "5 pinpoints" of human life sort of make me angry.  The fact that she even picks this as criteria for abortion pisses me off.  It's so obvious that the little balls of cells inside of pregnant bellies fit none of these criterion.  But I don't think that these points matter.  No a fetus is not a member of the community of self motivated, but it has the POTENTIAL to be.  So in that sense, I completely disagree that this "justifies" the fact that abortion is okay.  I don't disagree with aborting a child, but I don't agree that these 5 criterion are the reason why it would be okay.  I just believe that if a woman does not WANT a child, she should not be legally bound to have one. 
I commented on Luke Demuro's blog http://lukedemuro.blogspot.com/.

Blog 4- 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 of human cloning contrased slightly with my own personal principles, and mirrored slightly what I talked about in Blog 3.  In my own personal principles blog, I spoke about living your life to the fullest because we're all going to die.  And that meant that your time here on earth needed to be spent wisely.  The issue of human cloning completely shatters that idea because if you die, you can just be brought to life again.  Human cloning takes away the "zest" that life has to offer.


John Locke spoke about individual rights and equality for all.  Since I most admire Locke's way of thinking, I believe that human cloning takes away from his ideals.  Many people won't have access to money for this "cloning" and that wouldn't be equal for everyone.  We could clone a million rich people and have a world full of arrogant dictators, and then we'd be screwed.  That is not me being stereotypical, just saying if the worst were to happen.  


I favor Kass' way of thinking rather than Tooley's.  I am completely against human cloning, and so is Kass.  He speaks of it as repugnant, and I honestly think that that is what it is.  It takes away the true meaning of life, and makes it unimportant.  I'm all for second chances, but I think in life, you should only get one chance to make of it what you can.   

I commented on Denzel's blog http://bunchoblogs.blogspot.com/.

Blog 3 - 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?

                The reading on social morality was probably the most interesting one we’ve read so far.  Not because there were tons of cool ideas and information, but because the issues that arose brought truth and meaning to so many things that happen every day.  This reading basically describes society as a contract, where the people who inhabit it are “ruled” by the government.  The principles that interested me the most were the ones regarding paternalism and public morality because they seem the most prevalent in everyday society.

                The principle of paternalism struck me because I automatically thought of parenting.  Are all people being treated like children in society?  There is a paragraph about general welfare and it is followed up by the paternalism principle.  Therefore, we’re led to believe that the government can oversee what we do and monitor it so that we are living according to their standards, and what is best for the people as a whole.  In my previous blog, I wrote about how we’re all going to die one day, and that life should be lived to the fullest.  However, this idea of paternalism could hinder people’s ideas of what ‘fullest’ really is. 

                If I were to live my life to the fullest, it would not work out because of the hold the government has on our society.  If a pyromaniac gets a thrill from lighting fires and that s all they want to do for the rest of their lives, they won’t be able to live their life to the fullest.  With the limitations of laws and morals, many people’s ideas of a full life are at a disadvantage.  So it is still a question if anyone is truly living out their lives the way they want to.  The answer will forever be unknown, however, because society will always be monitored in some way, shape, or form. 


I commented on http://ashantijones.blogspot.com/ 's blog.

Principles of Life

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?

Since the day I was born, I've grown and learned how to live my life through the guidance of my family and friends and from my experiences.  The simple rules like "please & thank you" and being kind to others were all things that were taught to me by my parents.  There are a few things, however, that I had to learn on my own.  Never giving up is on principle in my life that I hold onto strongly, and it is because I've learned through things I went through in my life.  I think I realized enough times that things usually get better when you push yourself, so it has sort of become like second nature.  Another principle I live by (though sort of morbid) is to have fun and never take anything too seriously, because we all are going to die.  Everything ends, and while that is one of the most depressing truths, it is kind of "incentive" to live life like you want to.  The first reading that we did was kind of depressing, but only went on to prove my point about living and dying.  One class period we talked about happiness, and how it is what we are all working for.  Then we talked about attaining the highest amount of happiness, only to be doomed by the fact that things can only go downhill from there.  It is mind-boggling to think of all the possible reasons not to enjoy life: you're going to die, happiness will only last so long, or there's no true definition of happiness.  I choose to believe that waking up everyday is a gift, and it is easier to live life rather than wonder what will happen next. 

The most interesting reading that I believe we have had so far was the one about Taoism.  The principles and perspectives that they follow are amazing.  I feel that a world full of Taoists would just be a world full of peace because there would be no worries or reasons to get upset.  I read Tao Te Ching for my philosophy class last semester and Lao Tzu said some of the greatest quotes in that book.  There was one about a burning flame- I think it said something like if it burns brighter it only lasts half as long.  This follows up on the discussion we had about reaching your highest potential: you can only fall down farther.  While this was my favorite reading, that doesn't go to say that the others weren't interesting.  All of the perspectives that we're reading about life open my eyes to different ways of thinking about our time here on earth. 

I commented on Alisa Semetis' blog. http://alisasemetis.blogspot.com/