Euthanasia is a topic of ethical, moral, and religious debate. Many people want to reduce a loved one’s suffering by putting them out of their misery, however, should people be allowed to willingly let someone die? This is an issue that has been around for awhile. It was brought to the United States attention during the great controversy of the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Her husband wished to take away her feeding tube, while her parents wanted her to keep her feeding tube in and let her survive. This ethical issue can have many points of view. In this essay I interviewed Jonathan Kinnick. Mr. Kinnick is the Youth Pastor of Archibald Ranch Community Church of the Nazarene (ARCC) in Ontario, California. I interviewed Jonathan Kinnick for the last report that I did and I really liked the way the interview went so I decided to interview him again. I was surprised by the responses of the abortion topic and I wanted to see what his answers would be about the Euthanasia issue as well.
Jonathan Kinnick runs “The Gathering”, the youth group, at ARCC. He gives youth a chance to be around people that share the same interest in God and be able to talk and learn about God and the Gospel. He has a Master’s Degree in Economics that he received from USC.
The previous interview I had with Jonathan Kinnick was not very formal. This interview was quite similar. He was not the only person there and it turned into more of a debate and conversation. I really enjoyed the environment of the conversation because it proves how controversial these topics truly are. It also gives a big point of view.
When it comes to the subject of Euthanasia the Nazarene manual of beliefs states that, “We believe that euthanasia (intentionally ending the life of a terminally ill person, or one who has a debilitating and incurable disease that is not immediately life-threatening, for the purpose of ending suffering) is incompatible with the Christian faith.” They believe that when a person tells someone else to take their live because they are in so much pain is immoral. It is not right for someone to willingly kill someone because they are suffering. Christians should not take their own lives into their own hands. In killing themselves sovereignty is taken away from God.
The patient giving consent is not the only way that a person can have euthanasia. Allowing someone to die by not giving people artificial technology to prolong a person’s life when they are in a vegetative state is also considered euthanasia. This was the case in the controversial incident of the Terri Schiavo. She was in a vegetative state and her feeding tube was taken away. In this case the Church of the Nazarene says that, “When human death is imminent, we believe that either withdrawing or not originating artificial life-support systems is permissible within the range of Christian faith and practice.” Christians should be able to accept death and God’s will. They trust in God and in the hope of eternal life.
Jonathan believes that people must trust in God and through prayer people can find guidance. Everyone has to endure different hardships, but God is always there for them and they must trust in Him.
Before walking into this interview, I did not believe in euthanasia in any circumstance. I believe that euthanasia where the patient willingly asks for someone to take their life is no better than suicide. People commit suicide when they are trying to escape life because of some hardship they must endure. Wanting to die, even when in excruciating pain, is the exact same thing. They want to take their own life away because they want to escape their present life. Suicide in all regards is wrong. If it is not acceptable to commit suicide over emotional hardships, it should not be acceptable with physical hardships either. The people that are willing to commit the euthanasia for the patients are in the wrong just as much as the patient that wants it done.
When I heard the church’s view on euthanasia for consenting patients I realized that it was similar to my own point of view. I understand that God is the one that controls life and death. People should not interfere and take death into their own hands. Killing a person is murder. One of the commandments is “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” There are no exceptions. A person should not want to consent to being killed and a person should not abide by this consent. Both persons would be committing murder.
When it comes to “allowing someone to die” I was not quite sure what to believe was right. I understand both sides of the argument. Jonathan acknowledged that Christians should not be scared of death and they should trust in God. I agree with this in every regard. I do not know whether God wants people to do whatever it takes to keep someone alive. I’m not quite sure. I am a Christian and a Catholic. I have a strong respect for God and trust in Him. In a situation such as that I would rely on prayer for His guidance. I think that I would feel guilty if I would let someone die.
Before this I thought that Terri Schiavo’s husband made a horrible decision. I thought that since she was his wife he would want to keep her alive. She was in a vegetative state and there was no way to know if she knew what was going on in the world around her. After discussing euthanasia I now have more of an open mind. I can see where he came from and why he would choose to let her go to heaven instead of keep her tied to a body that feels nothing and does nothing on earth. When I think of it like that it seems more peaceful to me. I can also relate with her parents. She was technically alive. She was breathing. Therefore why not protect her life?
I took a lot away from this interview. I left the interview and discussion with a more open mind and a greater understanding for the topic. I understand why people would want to stop artificial life support for people in vegetative states. If you love that person, you cannot imagine what they are going through, and you trust that God will be there and they will go to Heaven. This is only acceptable if the person’s death is imminent, of course. But Heaven is a much better place for your loved one to be than stuck like a vegetable or worse.
I still hold tight to my beliefs that euthanasia is wrong. In an ethical view, a person should not be allowed to ask or consent to euthanasia. It merely makes them decide on suicide if they choose it. This however cannot be suicide, it must be assisted suicide because the consenting patient is unable to do it on their own. Therefore someone is left to commit murder.
Friday, August 3, 2007
final
a. Alyssa Schaar
b. Bubblesvb2
c. I have completed the 12 posts for the semester.
d. Paper on Euthanasia and Paper on Abortion
e. B+
f. All of the assigned reading was completed
g. I enjoyed the reading on the cloning the most. It was about current topics and it was very interesting.
I like the online sites but I think books are better.
h. I did not have the opportunity to do any extra credit assignments
Final
1. Gandhi is known for his deep commitment to pacifism. Even as a boy he acted in ways that showed that he was a stickler for morals. In school when his teacher tried to have him copy in order to succeed and make him look good in front of the supervisors, Gandhi refused and did not approve of copying or lying. Gandhi throughout his life with the principle that he was a truth seeker. As a husband he wanted his wife to experience and learn the things he learned. He wanted to force her to be a certain way. When Gandhi was a young boy he learned very quickly how he should behave. After stealing he wrote a note of his confession and apology to his father. He learned through his mistakes, just as any other person does. He also was a man that stood by his word. Gandhi found himself to believe in the vegetarianism. He approved of this mainly due to his religion.
Gandhi lived his life to the best of his abilities. He lived by his morals and prided himself in the way that he acted. He was a seeker of truth and does not like living in falsehood. He believes in equality for all mankind. With this in mind, he is an extreme pacifist. A pacifist is someone that does not believe in any form of violence or injustice towards anyone. He believes that people can achieve their goals and get their point across in ways other than violence.
Gandhi can be seen as a moral hero because he lived his life strictly to morals. He learned what he believed in and did what he could to make sure that he lived by these morals. He brought about the idea that violence was not always needed when trying to prove a point or fight for an injustice. He proved that methods of pacifism work. Any person that shows that violence is not needed is a moral hero.
Today, people are so rapped into what they want and do not pay enough attention to the good of others. Gandhi can teach the people of today a lot. He can teach them that people do not need to use violence whenever they want to solve a problem, and that people should be treated equally. If his beliefs and practices were more in use today there would be a lot less casualties at war. I know far too many young men that have lost their lives in combat. War is not always the answer. Gandhi’s ideas and morals are morals that would make the world a happier place if everyone lived according to them.
3. Nietzsche believes that people should pay more attention to others and not be so wrapped into themselves. He also believes that in order for people to have morals they must do away with their passions. Gandhi tries to do away with his passions. He denies himself the lustful desire. He even feels guilty for having lustful feelings in the past. When he looks back on it he is ashamed. Nietzsche would be impressed that Gandhi realized this at such a young age. Gandhi has learned that passions are not good to act on when he was really young. This concept is hard for most people to understand. I think Nietzsche would be impressed.
Nietzsche’s view on truth is that people do not know themselves. Gandhi was a seeker of truth. He wanted to be truthful in all that he did. Nietzsche would agree with Gandhi in the way that he lived his life. Gandhi introduced pacifism to it’s fullest.
4. Einstein believes in Gandhi’s idea that pacifism is the ideal way to conquer evil. When he found the splitting of the atoms he knew that nuclear weapons could be made, however he did not want weapons like this to be made because he was a pacifist. This view changed when Hitler began killing thousands of people and there was no end in sight. Einstein gave this information to the President in order to stop Hitler. He later regretted his decision because Germany failed at making an atomic weapon and he would rather the U.S. not have used one either.
Einstein himself constantly thought about ethical issues. He realized that scientific progression was happening too fast for mankind’s own good. People get excited about new technologies and want to do things, such as alter DNA. They do not stop to think if doing so is ethical. Einstein acknowledged this and placed questions such as “ought” they do something or not. He believed in following our “humanity”. This idea gives reason to why Einstein and his wife Elsa did not go back to Germany once Hitler gained power. He refused to live in a country where there was a lack of political liberty, toleration, and equality of its people.
Einstein is an ethical hero because he is a pacifist and chose to stick to his morals in tough situations. He was able to recognize situations that would create ethical issues and he addressed them head-on. I admire the fact that Einstein used his intelligence for good. He was a genius that not only cared about his work, but he cared about people and the way they are treated.
5. Singer is a Utilitarian and because of this he wants to reduce physical pain whenever he can in order to achieve pleasure. Singer talks about discriminations and how everyone fights to be equal and should be treated equally, but he wants to take it further and offer that same equality to outside of our species. This idea is known as speciesism. With that in mind he argues that people should take all beings’ feelings and sufferings into consideration. They should acknowledge when something is suffering and treat it equally by aiding it and keeping it from suffering more as any other human should do for another. He argues that speciests are no better than racists because they, like racists, consider their species to be better than the other species. A way that humans have this quality is by the fact that most humans only interact with other species for food. They treat them as only being a source of food and nothing more. Humans do not really need to eat meat because they can substitute other things into their diet to obtain the nutrients they need. Therefore he is saying that humans are killing and making animals suffer merely because they are speciests and consider the human species to be more valuable and important than the other species on this planet. Singer embraces the idea of vegetarianism and fights for animals to have equal rights along with humans.
I think that animals should be treated with kindness. They should not, however, have the same rights as human beings. Equal rights are for human-beings. When God made Adam and Eve He told them to take care of the earth and the animals. Therefore people should take care of animals and not let them suffer. They should be under the control of humans. They were not made equal to humans.
6. Singer wishes to get rid of pain and focus on having pleasure. Singer’s views on abortion are not very clear whether he considers himself pro-choice or pro-life. He argues that a person that is pro-choice simply feels that a fetus is not a human being until it is born because it is unable to think and perceive. He points out that, pre-mature babies are less developed than some fetuses and those fetuses are ok to be killed but the pre-mature baby is not ok to be killed. He is saying that people must agree on when a fetus becomes a human. And only then can they make laws about abortion. He talks about both sides and views of the subject. He points out that the only way people will be able to make a universal law about abortion is when the idea of when a fetus becomes a human is understood and accepted by everyone. In order for humans to have the least amount of pain, women should only be able to have abortions before the fetus turns into a human, if there is such a period of time. If there is this period where the fetus is not a human then he deems it reasonable to have an abortion in situations where the parents simply do not want the baby. In cases where the baby will have extreme deformities that will cause the baby pain throughout it’s life an abortion is allowable. In cases like this, parents will be sad and not happy parents. They will not treat the baby the same way other babies are treated.
I think that it is true that it is not fair for women in one country to be able to have an abortion and women in others not be allowed to. Laws must be made consistent in order for the ethical issue to be accepted. What makes a human a human? I believe it is when two cells join together to create a fetus. This fetus is a human from the second it is conceived. Having an abortion is creating an injustice for the fetus humans, because they are unable to talk for themselves and express their pain. No human should have a say as to when someone else is going to die. God made each person for a reason and each baby should have a fair chance at life. When it comes to babies with deformities that will have pain all of their lives, I think that they should live and touch the lives of those that they are around. People need to get rid of this idea of perfectionism in babies and treat each person equally.
7. With this same idea of Singer’s that people should stay away from pain, you can imagine what he thought of euthanasia. Euthanasia is when someone is basically “put to sleep” as you would say for an animal. When a person most likely does not have the ability to get better some people choose to “put their loved ones to rest” in order to keep them from having pain and suffering. Knowing this, of course Singer would be for euthanasia. There are more than one type of euthanasia. One is when the person tells someone that they do not want to live anymore, which is considered assisted suicide. He does not believe in this kind of euthanasia. He is for euthanasia for disabled infants. He says that parents of newborns should be happy, but parents of severely disabled babies may not be and that can be a reason to do so if no other couple is willing to adopt it. Children with spina bifida are usually in such sever pain that some doctors find it hard to perform surgery to keep the baby alive because they do not want it to suffer its entire life. In such sever cases Singer finds it acceptable to perform euthanasia because the baby is unable to be self conscious and decide whether it wants to live or die.
I do not believe in euthanasia. People should not decide when a person should die. This is the same reasoning as abortion. God does things for a reason. I do not believe that others should take a life. In the case of Terri Schiavo, I believe that Singer would not find it acceptable for euthanasia to have taken place. The fact that she was not in severe pain is evidence enough that she should not be taken off of her food tube. The hospital stopped her food tube and let her starve to death. This is leading her to suffer instead of relieving her suffering. Singer would not approve of the Terri Schiavo euthanasia.
9. Stem cell research is done on stem cells found in embryos, adults, and blood stem cells. The main amount of research is done with the embryo stem cells. These cells are taken from human embryos that are no older than 4 to 6 days old. They consist of 50 to 150 cells. The controversy is in the fact that people that believe in pro-life want the human embryos protected because they are humans. People also do not want scientists to begin cloning in order to get these cells. Many people are against cloning. Some people on the other hand want stem cell research to continue because there is hope in finding cures to leukemia and spinal cord injuries, and more. They believe that the embryos at such a young age are not considered humans and therefore should be allowed to aid in the study to help save human lives in the future.
Stem cell research can help people in the future by maybe finding a cure to a disease that many are suffering to this day. However, the moral and ethical battle surrounding the topic is whether or not embryos should die in the process? Many religious people and pro-life people do not think that human embryos should be sacrificed in order to help others later. Those lives are not given the same respect the lives of the sick are given. In all fairness the research to help others should not harm people.
I think that stem cell research should not harm the embryos because they are and should be valued human life. There should not be killings in order to aid research on cures for diseases. It is not ok to harm others. Abortion and stem cell research rely on the idea that embryos at some point are not considered humans. I do not believe this. I believe that as soon as conception the embryo is a human. With this in mind I find it unacceptable to kill embryos. Cloning would be another alternative that I do not believe in either. In the case of stem cell research, I think that people need to find a more humane way to study human embryos.
10. The reading that I think influenced my life the most was the reading of Singer’s views on animals’ rights. He believes that they should be treated completely equal to humans and that all the humans that did not believe this were speciests. This idea seemed a little far fetched. He praised vegetarianism because it saved the animals from human consumption. I am a vegetarian, and have been since I was about three years old. I became a vegetarian after I watched the Little Mermaid one night and I asked my mom what we were having for dinner, and it just so happened we were having fish sticks. I asked if they were made of fish from the ocean and she said yea. Ever since that night I have not and refuse to eat any kind of sea food or meat. My vegetarianism started because I felt bad for the animals and I did not want them to die just so I could eat them. I am a loving and caring person that does not like to see anything suffer. I am a big animal person and I love my pets to death. I now have come to the conclusion that animals can be eaten, that is the way the food chain works. If humans all stopped eating meat, there would be a surplus of animals and the ecosystem would be thrown out of wack. I currently do not eat meat because I do not like the idea of eating something that was alive at one point. The idea that animals should have rights is something that I agree with. I do not think that animals should be beaten or treated poorly. Although the idea is rather interesting that they should have the same moral rights as humans, I believe that humans should take care of the animals and when killing animals for consumption, it is done humanely.
b. Bubblesvb2
c. I have completed the 12 posts for the semester.
d. Paper on Euthanasia and Paper on Abortion
e. B+
f. All of the assigned reading was completed
g. I enjoyed the reading on the cloning the most. It was about current topics and it was very interesting.
I like the online sites but I think books are better.
h. I did not have the opportunity to do any extra credit assignments
Final
1. Gandhi is known for his deep commitment to pacifism. Even as a boy he acted in ways that showed that he was a stickler for morals. In school when his teacher tried to have him copy in order to succeed and make him look good in front of the supervisors, Gandhi refused and did not approve of copying or lying. Gandhi throughout his life with the principle that he was a truth seeker. As a husband he wanted his wife to experience and learn the things he learned. He wanted to force her to be a certain way. When Gandhi was a young boy he learned very quickly how he should behave. After stealing he wrote a note of his confession and apology to his father. He learned through his mistakes, just as any other person does. He also was a man that stood by his word. Gandhi found himself to believe in the vegetarianism. He approved of this mainly due to his religion.
Gandhi lived his life to the best of his abilities. He lived by his morals and prided himself in the way that he acted. He was a seeker of truth and does not like living in falsehood. He believes in equality for all mankind. With this in mind, he is an extreme pacifist. A pacifist is someone that does not believe in any form of violence or injustice towards anyone. He believes that people can achieve their goals and get their point across in ways other than violence.
Gandhi can be seen as a moral hero because he lived his life strictly to morals. He learned what he believed in and did what he could to make sure that he lived by these morals. He brought about the idea that violence was not always needed when trying to prove a point or fight for an injustice. He proved that methods of pacifism work. Any person that shows that violence is not needed is a moral hero.
Today, people are so rapped into what they want and do not pay enough attention to the good of others. Gandhi can teach the people of today a lot. He can teach them that people do not need to use violence whenever they want to solve a problem, and that people should be treated equally. If his beliefs and practices were more in use today there would be a lot less casualties at war. I know far too many young men that have lost their lives in combat. War is not always the answer. Gandhi’s ideas and morals are morals that would make the world a happier place if everyone lived according to them.
3. Nietzsche believes that people should pay more attention to others and not be so wrapped into themselves. He also believes that in order for people to have morals they must do away with their passions. Gandhi tries to do away with his passions. He denies himself the lustful desire. He even feels guilty for having lustful feelings in the past. When he looks back on it he is ashamed. Nietzsche would be impressed that Gandhi realized this at such a young age. Gandhi has learned that passions are not good to act on when he was really young. This concept is hard for most people to understand. I think Nietzsche would be impressed.
Nietzsche’s view on truth is that people do not know themselves. Gandhi was a seeker of truth. He wanted to be truthful in all that he did. Nietzsche would agree with Gandhi in the way that he lived his life. Gandhi introduced pacifism to it’s fullest.
4. Einstein believes in Gandhi’s idea that pacifism is the ideal way to conquer evil. When he found the splitting of the atoms he knew that nuclear weapons could be made, however he did not want weapons like this to be made because he was a pacifist. This view changed when Hitler began killing thousands of people and there was no end in sight. Einstein gave this information to the President in order to stop Hitler. He later regretted his decision because Germany failed at making an atomic weapon and he would rather the U.S. not have used one either.
Einstein himself constantly thought about ethical issues. He realized that scientific progression was happening too fast for mankind’s own good. People get excited about new technologies and want to do things, such as alter DNA. They do not stop to think if doing so is ethical. Einstein acknowledged this and placed questions such as “ought” they do something or not. He believed in following our “humanity”. This idea gives reason to why Einstein and his wife Elsa did not go back to Germany once Hitler gained power. He refused to live in a country where there was a lack of political liberty, toleration, and equality of its people.
Einstein is an ethical hero because he is a pacifist and chose to stick to his morals in tough situations. He was able to recognize situations that would create ethical issues and he addressed them head-on. I admire the fact that Einstein used his intelligence for good. He was a genius that not only cared about his work, but he cared about people and the way they are treated.
5. Singer is a Utilitarian and because of this he wants to reduce physical pain whenever he can in order to achieve pleasure. Singer talks about discriminations and how everyone fights to be equal and should be treated equally, but he wants to take it further and offer that same equality to outside of our species. This idea is known as speciesism. With that in mind he argues that people should take all beings’ feelings and sufferings into consideration. They should acknowledge when something is suffering and treat it equally by aiding it and keeping it from suffering more as any other human should do for another. He argues that speciests are no better than racists because they, like racists, consider their species to be better than the other species. A way that humans have this quality is by the fact that most humans only interact with other species for food. They treat them as only being a source of food and nothing more. Humans do not really need to eat meat because they can substitute other things into their diet to obtain the nutrients they need. Therefore he is saying that humans are killing and making animals suffer merely because they are speciests and consider the human species to be more valuable and important than the other species on this planet. Singer embraces the idea of vegetarianism and fights for animals to have equal rights along with humans.
I think that animals should be treated with kindness. They should not, however, have the same rights as human beings. Equal rights are for human-beings. When God made Adam and Eve He told them to take care of the earth and the animals. Therefore people should take care of animals and not let them suffer. They should be under the control of humans. They were not made equal to humans.
6. Singer wishes to get rid of pain and focus on having pleasure. Singer’s views on abortion are not very clear whether he considers himself pro-choice or pro-life. He argues that a person that is pro-choice simply feels that a fetus is not a human being until it is born because it is unable to think and perceive. He points out that, pre-mature babies are less developed than some fetuses and those fetuses are ok to be killed but the pre-mature baby is not ok to be killed. He is saying that people must agree on when a fetus becomes a human. And only then can they make laws about abortion. He talks about both sides and views of the subject. He points out that the only way people will be able to make a universal law about abortion is when the idea of when a fetus becomes a human is understood and accepted by everyone. In order for humans to have the least amount of pain, women should only be able to have abortions before the fetus turns into a human, if there is such a period of time. If there is this period where the fetus is not a human then he deems it reasonable to have an abortion in situations where the parents simply do not want the baby. In cases where the baby will have extreme deformities that will cause the baby pain throughout it’s life an abortion is allowable. In cases like this, parents will be sad and not happy parents. They will not treat the baby the same way other babies are treated.
I think that it is true that it is not fair for women in one country to be able to have an abortion and women in others not be allowed to. Laws must be made consistent in order for the ethical issue to be accepted. What makes a human a human? I believe it is when two cells join together to create a fetus. This fetus is a human from the second it is conceived. Having an abortion is creating an injustice for the fetus humans, because they are unable to talk for themselves and express their pain. No human should have a say as to when someone else is going to die. God made each person for a reason and each baby should have a fair chance at life. When it comes to babies with deformities that will have pain all of their lives, I think that they should live and touch the lives of those that they are around. People need to get rid of this idea of perfectionism in babies and treat each person equally.
7. With this same idea of Singer’s that people should stay away from pain, you can imagine what he thought of euthanasia. Euthanasia is when someone is basically “put to sleep” as you would say for an animal. When a person most likely does not have the ability to get better some people choose to “put their loved ones to rest” in order to keep them from having pain and suffering. Knowing this, of course Singer would be for euthanasia. There are more than one type of euthanasia. One is when the person tells someone that they do not want to live anymore, which is considered assisted suicide. He does not believe in this kind of euthanasia. He is for euthanasia for disabled infants. He says that parents of newborns should be happy, but parents of severely disabled babies may not be and that can be a reason to do so if no other couple is willing to adopt it. Children with spina bifida are usually in such sever pain that some doctors find it hard to perform surgery to keep the baby alive because they do not want it to suffer its entire life. In such sever cases Singer finds it acceptable to perform euthanasia because the baby is unable to be self conscious and decide whether it wants to live or die.
I do not believe in euthanasia. People should not decide when a person should die. This is the same reasoning as abortion. God does things for a reason. I do not believe that others should take a life. In the case of Terri Schiavo, I believe that Singer would not find it acceptable for euthanasia to have taken place. The fact that she was not in severe pain is evidence enough that she should not be taken off of her food tube. The hospital stopped her food tube and let her starve to death. This is leading her to suffer instead of relieving her suffering. Singer would not approve of the Terri Schiavo euthanasia.
9. Stem cell research is done on stem cells found in embryos, adults, and blood stem cells. The main amount of research is done with the embryo stem cells. These cells are taken from human embryos that are no older than 4 to 6 days old. They consist of 50 to 150 cells. The controversy is in the fact that people that believe in pro-life want the human embryos protected because they are humans. People also do not want scientists to begin cloning in order to get these cells. Many people are against cloning. Some people on the other hand want stem cell research to continue because there is hope in finding cures to leukemia and spinal cord injuries, and more. They believe that the embryos at such a young age are not considered humans and therefore should be allowed to aid in the study to help save human lives in the future.
Stem cell research can help people in the future by maybe finding a cure to a disease that many are suffering to this day. However, the moral and ethical battle surrounding the topic is whether or not embryos should die in the process? Many religious people and pro-life people do not think that human embryos should be sacrificed in order to help others later. Those lives are not given the same respect the lives of the sick are given. In all fairness the research to help others should not harm people.
I think that stem cell research should not harm the embryos because they are and should be valued human life. There should not be killings in order to aid research on cures for diseases. It is not ok to harm others. Abortion and stem cell research rely on the idea that embryos at some point are not considered humans. I do not believe this. I believe that as soon as conception the embryo is a human. With this in mind I find it unacceptable to kill embryos. Cloning would be another alternative that I do not believe in either. In the case of stem cell research, I think that people need to find a more humane way to study human embryos.
10. The reading that I think influenced my life the most was the reading of Singer’s views on animals’ rights. He believes that they should be treated completely equal to humans and that all the humans that did not believe this were speciests. This idea seemed a little far fetched. He praised vegetarianism because it saved the animals from human consumption. I am a vegetarian, and have been since I was about three years old. I became a vegetarian after I watched the Little Mermaid one night and I asked my mom what we were having for dinner, and it just so happened we were having fish sticks. I asked if they were made of fish from the ocean and she said yea. Ever since that night I have not and refuse to eat any kind of sea food or meat. My vegetarianism started because I felt bad for the animals and I did not want them to die just so I could eat them. I am a loving and caring person that does not like to see anything suffer. I am a big animal person and I love my pets to death. I now have come to the conclusion that animals can be eaten, that is the way the food chain works. If humans all stopped eating meat, there would be a surplus of animals and the ecosystem would be thrown out of wack. I currently do not eat meat because I do not like the idea of eating something that was alive at one point. The idea that animals should have rights is something that I agree with. I do not think that animals should be beaten or treated poorly. Although the idea is rather interesting that they should have the same moral rights as humans, I believe that humans should take care of the animals and when killing animals for consumption, it is done humanely.
post 12
Gandhi is known for his deep commitment to pacifism. Even as a boy he acted in ways that showed that he was a stickler for morals. In school when his teacher tried to have him copy in order to succeed and make him look good in front of the supervisors, Gandhi refused and did not approve of copying or lying. Gandhi throughout his life with the principle that he was a truth seeker. As a husband he wanted his wife to experience and learn the things he learned. He wanted to force her to be a certain way. When Gandhi was a young boy he learned very quickly how he should behave. After stealing he wrote a note of his confession and apology to his father. He learned through his mistakes, just as any other person does. He also was a man that stood by his word. Gandhi found himself to believe in the vegetarianism. He approved of this mainly due to his religion.
Gandhi lived his life to the best of his abilities. He lived by his morals and prided himself in the way that he acted. He was a seeker of truth and does not like living in falsehood. He believes in equality for all mankind. With this in mind, he is an extreme pacifist. I find his beliefs to be very impressive. His autobiography makes it apparent that he has always been a man that knows that he must act a certain way and he always did what he could to act that way. He learned his morals through his mistakes. This shows that he did struggle to do what was right. But he always seemed to make sure that he ended up doing what was right in the long run. He has influenced me to stick to my morals no matter what predicament I am in. He has actually taught me a lot. It’s amazing to me how he lived his life. I want to strive to live a life with such integrity.
Gandhi lived his life to the best of his abilities. He lived by his morals and prided himself in the way that he acted. He was a seeker of truth and does not like living in falsehood. He believes in equality for all mankind. With this in mind, he is an extreme pacifist. I find his beliefs to be very impressive. His autobiography makes it apparent that he has always been a man that knows that he must act a certain way and he always did what he could to act that way. He learned his morals through his mistakes. This shows that he did struggle to do what was right. But he always seemed to make sure that he ended up doing what was right in the long run. He has influenced me to stick to my morals no matter what predicament I am in. He has actually taught me a lot. It’s amazing to me how he lived his life. I want to strive to live a life with such integrity.
post 11
Evolutionary ethics is the idea that natural selection has implanted in each of us a moral sense and a reason to act good. In accepting this belief, morality would come solely from evolution and is something that happens automatically. It would not come from a divine creator or our own individual reasoning minds. This idea goes against the beliefs of many philosophers. The evolution theory says that organisms evolve in ways to help them survive and adapt. Morality would then merely be something that we adapted because it helped people to thrive and survive.
The thesis of the second web page is that humans use emotions and evolution to make ethical and moral decisions. With the case of flipping a switch to kill one person but save five people use reason and abstract thinking to figure out what the right thing to do is. They contemplate and weigh out their options. Their reason and emotions win in the end and most people will say that they will flip the switch to kill the one person and save the five. With the same idea, when people are in a situation where they can push on person in front of a train to save five people, they most likely will respond quicker and in the opposite to which they had answered earlier. They would not push the one person to save the five. They would let nature take its course and not interfere. Both scenarios have the same reasoning and arguments. The latter however is more of a situation that our ancestors would have had to face. Because of this close contact with the person and the fact that this could be a similar predicament a long time ago, people have evolved and made decisions on how to react in similar situations. People have found that they can make a quick decision. In the other case of the switch, people are not in close contact with the person that will die and that keeps them secluded and not feel attached. This along with the new technology leaves people to ponder and use reason in order to decide what to do. Impersonal decisions were easier to make on reason alone. Personal situations made it more difficult to act on reason and utilitarian ideas. They act on emotions instead. This shows that there is no clear cut way that people always act in when making moral decisions. The situation and the in depth they are with the people makes a difference. For instance would someone save 100 people but let a loved on die? Or would they saved a loved one and let the 100 die?
The thesis of the second web page is that humans use emotions and evolution to make ethical and moral decisions. With the case of flipping a switch to kill one person but save five people use reason and abstract thinking to figure out what the right thing to do is. They contemplate and weigh out their options. Their reason and emotions win in the end and most people will say that they will flip the switch to kill the one person and save the five. With the same idea, when people are in a situation where they can push on person in front of a train to save five people, they most likely will respond quicker and in the opposite to which they had answered earlier. They would not push the one person to save the five. They would let nature take its course and not interfere. Both scenarios have the same reasoning and arguments. The latter however is more of a situation that our ancestors would have had to face. Because of this close contact with the person and the fact that this could be a similar predicament a long time ago, people have evolved and made decisions on how to react in similar situations. People have found that they can make a quick decision. In the other case of the switch, people are not in close contact with the person that will die and that keeps them secluded and not feel attached. This along with the new technology leaves people to ponder and use reason in order to decide what to do. Impersonal decisions were easier to make on reason alone. Personal situations made it more difficult to act on reason and utilitarian ideas. They act on emotions instead. This shows that there is no clear cut way that people always act in when making moral decisions. The situation and the in depth they are with the people makes a difference. For instance would someone save 100 people but let a loved on die? Or would they saved a loved one and let the 100 die?
post 10
The cloning of Dolly shocked many people. Scientists, after over 30 years, have found a way to accurately clone a sheep. This gave people hope that humans can then also be cloned. The technology is here, the issue now lies within the ethics.
Dolly was cloned through using the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer. This is when a single cell is removed from the fully grown mammal and then bounded with the mammary cell. This cell then begins to turn into an embryo. This technique is not yet perfected. With the humans in consideration there is room for many complications. It is not a completely safe procedure. The cloning of animals show that there can be many advances within medicine and science, however it is unnecessary for human cloning.
Most Christians are against cloning because they believe that God is the ultimate creator and that He created each person in his image and a clone would be created by man in the image of a man already made. There is also the fear that clones would not be treated fairly and they would have psychological issues. People are also concerned about the souls of clones. They do not know if a soul could be reproduced through cloning. Jewish doctrine believes that the cloning technology is important because it opens up a new world of technology. They believe that cloning is ok as long as it is done with respect to each clone.
Ethical issues with cloning also exist. A big issue is that the technology is not perfected and not safe enough to use on humans quite yet. People also fear that the cloned child would have psychological issues and be confused as to why they are alive and have a identity crisis. People also are uncertain if each child would be loved unconditionally, like children are now. Clones also might be subjected to objectification. People might find it hard to look at clones as equals. Look at the discrimination present in the world today among equally created people. The introductions of clones would arouse many other discriminations and issues.
Dolly was cloned through using the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer. This is when a single cell is removed from the fully grown mammal and then bounded with the mammary cell. This cell then begins to turn into an embryo. This technique is not yet perfected. With the humans in consideration there is room for many complications. It is not a completely safe procedure. The cloning of animals show that there can be many advances within medicine and science, however it is unnecessary for human cloning.
Most Christians are against cloning because they believe that God is the ultimate creator and that He created each person in his image and a clone would be created by man in the image of a man already made. There is also the fear that clones would not be treated fairly and they would have psychological issues. People are also concerned about the souls of clones. They do not know if a soul could be reproduced through cloning. Jewish doctrine believes that the cloning technology is important because it opens up a new world of technology. They believe that cloning is ok as long as it is done with respect to each clone.
Ethical issues with cloning also exist. A big issue is that the technology is not perfected and not safe enough to use on humans quite yet. People also fear that the cloned child would have psychological issues and be confused as to why they are alive and have a identity crisis. People also are uncertain if each child would be loved unconditionally, like children are now. Clones also might be subjected to objectification. People might find it hard to look at clones as equals. Look at the discrimination present in the world today among equally created people. The introductions of clones would arouse many other discriminations and issues.
post 9
Singer wishes to get rid of pain and focus on having pleasure. When it comes to extreme poverty, he, himself, gives a fifth of his income to starving children. He says that Americans have the responsibility to aid the world’s poor and hungry. He argues that Americans spend most of their income on useless things that are not needed to secure a safe and healthy life. They indulge on vacations, nice clothes, expensive electronics, and other gadgets they don’t really need for survival. If these people would send that money to charitable organizations many lives would be saved. Singer wants people to be more thoughtful and aid others in need. He wants people to think about those that are suffering and help them instead of wasting their money on useless things. In doing so people would do away with a lot of people’s pain and more people would be able to have pleasure. I agree with him because people’s lives, even people that you’ve never met before, are more important than material things. Do I follow these ideas to the best of my ability? No, I know that I am more selfish than I would like to be. I think that if everyone gave money to charity everyone would be better off.
With this same idea of Singer’s that people should stay away from pain, you can imagine what he thought of euthanasia. Euthanasia is when someone is basically “put to sleep” as you would say for an animal. When a person most likely does not have the ability to get better some people choose to “put their loved ones to rest” in order to keep them from having pain and suffering. Knowing this, of course Singer would be for euthanasia. There are more than one type of euthanasia. One where the person tells someone that they do not want to live anymore, which is considered assisted suicide. He is for euthanasia for disabled infants. He says that parents of newborns should be happy, but parents of severely disabled babies may not be and that can be a reason to do so if no other couple is willing to adopt it. Children with spina bifida are usually in such sever pain that some doctors find it hard to perform surgery to keep the baby alive because they do not want it to suffer it’s entire life. In such sever cases Singer finds it acceptable to perform euthanasia because the baby is unable to be self conscious and decide whether it wants to live or die.
Singer’s views on abortion are not very clear whether he considers himself pro-choice or pro-life. He argues that a person that is pro-choice simply feels that a fetus is not a human being until it is born because it is unable to think and perceive. He points out that pre-mature babies are less developed than some fetuses and those fetuses are ok to be killed but the pre-mature baby is not ok to be killed. He is saying that people must agree on when a fetus becomes a human. And only then can they make laws about abortion.
With this same idea of Singer’s that people should stay away from pain, you can imagine what he thought of euthanasia. Euthanasia is when someone is basically “put to sleep” as you would say for an animal. When a person most likely does not have the ability to get better some people choose to “put their loved ones to rest” in order to keep them from having pain and suffering. Knowing this, of course Singer would be for euthanasia. There are more than one type of euthanasia. One where the person tells someone that they do not want to live anymore, which is considered assisted suicide. He is for euthanasia for disabled infants. He says that parents of newborns should be happy, but parents of severely disabled babies may not be and that can be a reason to do so if no other couple is willing to adopt it. Children with spina bifida are usually in such sever pain that some doctors find it hard to perform surgery to keep the baby alive because they do not want it to suffer it’s entire life. In such sever cases Singer finds it acceptable to perform euthanasia because the baby is unable to be self conscious and decide whether it wants to live or die.
Singer’s views on abortion are not very clear whether he considers himself pro-choice or pro-life. He argues that a person that is pro-choice simply feels that a fetus is not a human being until it is born because it is unable to think and perceive. He points out that pre-mature babies are less developed than some fetuses and those fetuses are ok to be killed but the pre-mature baby is not ok to be killed. He is saying that people must agree on when a fetus becomes a human. And only then can they make laws about abortion.
post 8
Singer is a Utilitarian and because of this he wants to reduce physical pain whenever he can in order to achieve pleasure. Singer talks about discriminations and how everyone fights to be equal and should be treated equally, but he wants to take it further and offer that same equality to outside of our species. This idea is known as speciesism. With that in mind he argues that people should take all beings’ feelings and sufferings into consideration. They should acknowledge when something is suffering and treat it equally by aiding it and keeping it from suffering more as any other human should do for another. He argues that speciests are no better than racists because they, like racists, consider their species to be better than the other species. A way that humans have this quality is by the fact that most humans only interact with other species for food. They treat them as only being a source of food and nothing more. Humans do not really need to eat meat because they can substitute other things into their diet to obtain the nutrients they need. Therefore he is saying that humans are killing and making animals suffer merely because they are speciests and consider the human species to be more valuable and important than the other species on this planet. Singer embraces the idea of vegetarianism and fights for animals to have equal rights along with humans.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)