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.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Midterm
1. Alyssa Schaar
2. bubblesvb2
3. bubblesvb2@yahoo.com
4. 7 posts each post was finished and turned in on the night that it was due.
5. I did not have the chance to go to the museum because I am on vacation in Montana for the summer. I did however do a report on abortion.
6. I was able to get all of the assigned reading done thus far.
7. I have not done any extra credit material thus far.
Midterm
1. Nietzsche believes that people should live life in “a new way”. They should not follow the gospels of the Christian beliefs because God is no longer present in the hearts of the people. People need to put their faith in earth. Earth will have no doubts. It is obvious to everyone that the earth is present. And with this in mind people should stay true to the nature and the people. He opposes Christian morality because some people doubt that God exists and people do not all live with Him in their lives. He also believes that Paul had altered the Gospels and recreated a reason for Jesus’s death. He is arguing that people live by the Gospels to guide their lives. His idea of transvaluation is the idea that people should no longer follow the Christian values but instead turn their values and morals to something else.
Nietzsche loves Jesus because He lived his life purely and holy. He denounced the Jewish faith and lived His own life in a way that people would look up to and try to follow. He made the morals of God more evident. Paul, however, is not on Nietzsche’s good side. He does not believe in what Paul writes and says. He thinks that Paul recreated the reason of Jesus’s death. He says that Jesus died on the cross for the people and their sins. He died to save everyone. They are able to be forgiven for their sins. Nietzsche believes that Paul altered the Gospels and in doing so changed the way people reacted to them. People are now convinced that they are saved and will be able to go to heaven even if they do not really behave in a manner that would let them go to heaven. It gives them the peace of mind to live their lives. He talks about the gospels only being a way of living your life. Nietzsche is offended at the ideas of Christianity because he does not believe in the gospels and the gospels are the whole idea of the Christian values and lives. He believes that these ideas are giving people reasons to ruin people’s lives. They are getting confused and do not know what to do when people are no longer living with God in their hearts and have them not follow the morals of their faith. He believes that people should follow the values of the earth rather than ones found in the gospels, in which he does not agree with and believe to be true.
2. Epicurus says, “For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear.” This means that in order for humans to be happy we must keep our bodies and souls pain and worry free. Epicurus believes that there is no gray area when it comes to pleasure and pain. If one is not in pain, then they currently have pleasure. He argues this with the idea that there are two forms of pleasure. Moving pleasure is when you are currently satisfying your desire, and static pleasure is the feeling after the desire has been satisfied. Due to the lack of desire there is the greatest form of pleasure in static pleasure. Epicurus does not believe that everyone should be going around doing everything they desire. He instead believes that people should eliminate desire. When people only have natural and necessary desires it is easier to satisfy your desires and therefore it is easier to have pleasure. In dealing with the future worries Epicurus tries to tell people that death should not be something that is feared. If people are living in fear of dying they are living with pain. He argues that due to the fact that once you die you no longer exist; death does not affect the living or the dead. By not fearing the future people are able to have pleasure.
Spinoza’s philosophy is one that relies on a basis of reason. Reason brings about adequate ideas that help set the mind at ease. These ideas allow the mind to believe that the outcome of a situation was inevitable. Realizing things will happen no matter what allows the mind to relax because it knows that nothing could have been done to change it. In no way is that person at fault for it happening. Passions, on the other hand, can sway the life of a person to evil rather than good. Spinoza argues that people act in ways to persevere and in doing so, act in ways that stabilize society. If people lived according to reason alone, there would be no need for laws. The passion enveloping people’s brains ends up conflicting with one another, which causes arguments and the society it be unbalanced. Spinoza also believes that knowing that God exists is the greatest good a person can have. This knowledge of God allows for the understanding of everything that is from God. Spinoza’s pantheistic philosophy lies in this idea. God is where everything comes from. Knowing that there is a God and that this is where we come from allows the mind to understand more fully everything around it. In knowing God people can have an intellectual love for Him and all His wonders. It is easier to see all of His perfections. Spinoza admits that it is difficult to have adequate ideas and keep passions out of our minds. It is as if one is trying to deny their instincts. He does not believe it to be impossible. This form of ethics is placing morals in reason and with reason one can know God and act accordingly to keep society at peace.
Stoicism is the moral philosophy that aims in the guidance of people’s lives by helping them live a life of virtue to achieve happiness. The contradictory belief would be that by finding pleasure to create one’s happiness. Spinoza focuses on the idea that people should live according to God’s morals and live with the knowledge of Him. In doing so, and living by virtues society will be peaceful. Epicurus believes that people should live by keeping themselves away from pain and worry. In this sense people should live according to morals because overall their minds will be at ease. Knowing that you are doing what you should be doing will make a person happy. Due to this, Epicurus and Spinoza share the idea that people should be living lives to create happiness. Happiness is the main goal a person should have. The path they choose to get there may be different, but in the end it all deals with happiness.
3. Marx was a strong believer in communism. He believed that people should not be separated into different classes. Capitalism is the exact idea that Marx did not believe in. Capitalism is communism’s opposite. In the “Communist Manifesto”, Marx describes the working conditions and the way that people of the working class are being de-humanized. He argues this by showing that due to the technology and the works that they must do make them nothing more than labor. They are not looked at as humans, but rather, machines. This is an ethical issue that is present in the capitalist society. Marx believed that capitalism grew made advancements in technology well before they were ready to make laws on regulations for this new technology. By creating new technology without laws, the society is hurt. Marx believes that a society should run on communist beliefs. He bases this on the idea people should not be divided into a working class and an upper class because the labor force becomes purely that; labor. Marx’s ideal society would be one that involves communism and equalizing everyone, rather than the capitalist way of running a society.
Communism would get rid of all class discrimination because everyone would be in the same class. No one person would have more property or money than anyone else. In Marx’s time people were in different classes and the labor class had no land property while the rich had plenty. Marx wants people to have no individual property because in order for some people to have their own property others do not have any. I think that Marx’s idea of society would not work because people are too concerned about living their lives in order for them to get ahead and survive, as well as prosper. There are too many people in the world that are not willing to give up the idea of having lavish things, even if it does mean that there must be poor people in the world.
4. Epicurus and Epictetus have contradictory views of what morals an ethical person should live by. They share the idea that happiness is the highest good. Epicurus, however, has ideas that break away from the stoicism view on ethics. Epictetus stays true to the stoic values. Stoicism is the moral philosophy that aims in the guidance of people’s lives by helping them live a life of virtue to achieve happiness. The contradictory belief would be that by finding pleasure to create one’s happiness. This was the ideas of Epicurus.
Epicurus says, “For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear.” This means that in order for humans to be happy we must keep our bodies and souls pain and worry free. Epicurus believes that there is no gray area when it comes to pleasure and pain. If one is not in pain then they currently have pleasure. He argues this with the idea that there are two forms of pleasure. Moving pleasure is when you are currently satisfying your desire, and static pleasure is the feeling after the desire has been satisfied. Due to the lack of desire there is the greatest form of pleasure in static pleasure. Epicurus does not believe that everyone should be going around doing everything they desire. He instead believes that people should eliminate desire. When people only have natural and necessary desires it is easier to satisfy your desires and therefore it is easier to have pleasure. In dealing with the future worries Epicurus tries to tell people that death should not be something that is feared. If people are living in fear of dying they are living with pain. He argues that due to the fact that once you die you no longer exist; death does not affect the living or the dead. By not fearing the future people are able to have pleasure.
Epictetus believes strongly in the virtues. He believed that living a life of virtue and excellence will bring you happiness. Man must live peacefully with the surrounding world. They must stay true to their morals and they must control what is controllable by man. He believes that humans have the ability to control their desire, just as Epicurus believes. Epictetus teaches that people must have the right mindset when approaching their activities. People should be understanding and not judgmental of people’s actions. His ideas of happiness come from the peace found within when people act out of kindness and according to virtues. He also believed that health, wealth, and pleasure are not of the highest good because they do not always benefit the person. Virtues are the only thing that benefits people in any circumstance.
Aristotle believes that, "Our chief end is the perfect development of our true nature." This is saying that with using our reason and understanding or virtues, morals, and ourselves, we can find our true personality and live accordingly. Aristotle speaks about the importance of friendships. Friends are present and influential in all aspects ofpeople's lives. With this in mind people should strive to have friends that will live by their virtues and morals in order to show them and influence others to live in a similar manner. Politics, according to Aristotle, is "a genuine moral organization foradvancing the development of humans." He believed that governments should help teach its people morals and the laws should reflect such morals.
Epictetus’s ideas of happiness and the path in achieving it are full of the good of all and the society as a whole. The virtuous life in the long run benefits the lives of others. Epicurus’s idea of hedonism associates happiness with one’s self-pleasures. These two, rather different views of happiness give an outlook on different possibilities of what makes people happy, and what morals should consist of.
5. Sartre states that people who revoke the commandments of God and the eternal lives. Without God in their lives people can run muck and do as they please. This introduces the problem that everyone will do what they want and will look down on others because they are doing other things that are what they want to do. Existentialists all believe that existence precedes essence. This is the idea that subjectivity comes before everything. There are two forms of existentialists; Christian existentialists and French existentialists. Christian existentialists believe that because God created them; then each person is a reflection of what God wanted to make. Atheist existentialists believe that God does not exist. First people exist and are present, then they can define themselves through the things they do and the work they do. Sartre categorizes himself under this group of people. He believes that people are nothing until they make themselves into something.
Sartre’s ethics lie in the idea that the choices people make effect the lives of other people because their decisions affect others and become to be ok for other people to do as well. With this idea in mind Sartre does think that people do not have to be Christian to live a life of morals. People do things morally because what they do reflects what they believe others can do and no one will do anything that they do not want others to have.
6. Kant believes that the only good without qualification is good will. He would say that people should do things only because they acknowledge the duty they have to help others when they have the means to do so. Kant bases his theory on good will because he believes that good will is the only thing that is good in any circumstance. The act itself is purely good. Kant would not want me thinking about what the outcome of the situation would be, or what kind of consequences they would have. He believes that people should not rely on their inclinations. They should ignore any inclination they have to do something. Kant would recommend that people follow the principle of categorical imperative. This idea is one that expresses that good morale is found behind the reason and the choice that the person makes based off of duty alone. Duty is not doing something because it will make you feel good or because you think it will bring you bad consequences. A duty is following a universal law. A law that everyone can follow and it will help the good of the people and the world. Lying, for instance, would not be a good universal law. Acting in reverence to the laws that aid the common good of the world, and aiding those in need when you have the means to do so are the morals Kant would try to teach me. Kant would reason that people should do their duty as a human being and follow the laws as well as the universal laws. Doing things solely due to duty would be a hard task to manage. Trying to keep all outside feelings, emotions, urges, and influences out of a decision would be difficult. Kant’s beliefs of morality make it hard to categorize anyone’s choices as being morale.
Existentialism is the idea that existence comes before essence. An object is first thought up and has its purpose lined up for it before it is produced. Existentialists believe that the way each person chooses to live is in reality guiding the general people to live. Each person has the responsibility to make decisions that form the basis of what everyone else deems as being suitable or acceptable. They become social norms. The social norms are then what people live by. Kierkegaard is the “father of existentialism”. He believes that there is a higher power than the social norms themselves. Kierkegaard acknowledges that God is the one that ultimately decides what is right or wrong. The Christian beliefs are based around the idea that God is the holiest being and has divine power as well as purity to know what is right or wrong. This knowledge is passed on to people through the Bible’s parables and Jesus himself. The churches aim to stick to the moral beliefs shown to humanity through the Bible and Jesus. Kierkegaard believes that God’s ideas of what is right and wrong out way the ideas of the social norms. He also believes that a person with Christian faith has the ability to become who they really are through their faith and the choices they make. He thinks that a person must understand morality before they can choose to be faithful. Kierkegaard based his ethics on the fact that God is the ultimate judge of values. Christians live in a similar way. They also believe that God is the judge of what is right and wrong. Existentialism is an idea that people create the social norms for others by making their personal choices. Kierkegaard's input to this was that God is present and the morals from God out way the social norms in society.
Kierkegaard’s idea of the way people should live is purely on following God. His beliefs strongly reflect the Christian religion. In knowing God and understanding His morals people should be able to live a life of virtue and knowing right from wrong. Kant believes that people should do good will, which is also acknowledged in the Christian religion. Kant also believes, however, that people should do things solely because it is their duty to do so. Kierkegaard’s beliefs rely more on the idea that people should do things the way God wants them to. God would rather people be sacrificing and not do things only if it is their duty to do so. They should do things to be nice and loving to others. Even though both philosophers share the Christian religion, Kierkegaard’s beliefs are more direct from Christian’s views. Kant does believe people should do good will and be kind to others; however, he wants them to do so because they have the duty of doing it. The duty and responsibility takes away from the love in which the person should be doing the good will.
7. Mill would want people to do what makes them happy. His ideal principle is the greatest happiness principle. He believes that the most important thing a person can do is promote happiness and stray from pain. Mill sees happiness as being a lack of pain and the presence of pleasure. His utilitarian beliefs are quite different from my own. I prefer to do God’s will and do things for others. He could argue that those things make me happy and give me pleasure. His utilitarian theory is that pleasure and happiness bring about goodness in people’s lives. It is the greatest good, in fact. He would tell me to do whatever it is that makes me happy. However, in the case that there is a situation that there are two pleasures and they must choose between the two he believes that the greater pleasure should be chosen. The pleasure that the majority prefer is the greater pleasure. People should promote the happiness of the general people as well as themselves. In doing what the general people want, by making them happy, that person to make them happy in turn becomes happy themselves. There is pleasure from making others happy. People feel good about themselves when they do something to make other people happy. The more pleasure people spread to others, the more pleasure they have with themselves as well. Mill would tell people that they are on the right track by doing things to make others happy; however they need to also do things for their own pleasure as well.
Epicurus says, “For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear.” This means that in order for humans to be happy we must keep our bodies and souls pain and worry free. Epicurus believes that there is no gray area when it comes to pleasure and pain. If one is not in pain then they currently have pleasure. He argues this with the idea that there are two forms of pleasure. Moving pleasure is when you are currently satisfying your desire, and static pleasure is the feeling after the desire has been satisfied. Due to the lack of desire there is the greatest form of pleasure in static pleasure. Epicurus does not believe that everyone should be going around doing everything they desire. He instead believes that people should eliminate desire. When people only have natural and necessary desires it is easier to satisfy your desires and therefore it is easier to have pleasure. In dealing with the future worries Epicurus tries to tell people that death should not be something that is feared. If people are living in fear of dying they are living with pain. He argues that due to the fact that once you die you no longer exist; death does not affect the living or the dead. By not fearing the future people are able to have pleasure.
8. Thus far, my favorite philosopher is Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard’s beliefs reflect the Christian ideas. I, myself, am a Christian and believe that people should follow God’s will and the Bible. People should do good will towards others and be more selfless. They should treat others with love and kindness. In doing so people would live moral lives and live a life full of virtue. Kierkegaard believes that in knowing God and understanding His morals people should be able to live a life of virtue and knowing right from wrong. I try to live my life with this idea. I learn my morals through God and the Bible. Kierkegaard’s belief is that a person with Christian faith has the ability to become who they really are through their faith and the choices they make. In knowing God a person is able to use morals and a good life.
2. bubblesvb2
3. bubblesvb2@yahoo.com
4. 7 posts each post was finished and turned in on the night that it was due.
5. I did not have the chance to go to the museum because I am on vacation in Montana for the summer. I did however do a report on abortion.
6. I was able to get all of the assigned reading done thus far.
7. I have not done any extra credit material thus far.
Midterm
1. Nietzsche believes that people should live life in “a new way”. They should not follow the gospels of the Christian beliefs because God is no longer present in the hearts of the people. People need to put their faith in earth. Earth will have no doubts. It is obvious to everyone that the earth is present. And with this in mind people should stay true to the nature and the people. He opposes Christian morality because some people doubt that God exists and people do not all live with Him in their lives. He also believes that Paul had altered the Gospels and recreated a reason for Jesus’s death. He is arguing that people live by the Gospels to guide their lives. His idea of transvaluation is the idea that people should no longer follow the Christian values but instead turn their values and morals to something else.
Nietzsche loves Jesus because He lived his life purely and holy. He denounced the Jewish faith and lived His own life in a way that people would look up to and try to follow. He made the morals of God more evident. Paul, however, is not on Nietzsche’s good side. He does not believe in what Paul writes and says. He thinks that Paul recreated the reason of Jesus’s death. He says that Jesus died on the cross for the people and their sins. He died to save everyone. They are able to be forgiven for their sins. Nietzsche believes that Paul altered the Gospels and in doing so changed the way people reacted to them. People are now convinced that they are saved and will be able to go to heaven even if they do not really behave in a manner that would let them go to heaven. It gives them the peace of mind to live their lives. He talks about the gospels only being a way of living your life. Nietzsche is offended at the ideas of Christianity because he does not believe in the gospels and the gospels are the whole idea of the Christian values and lives. He believes that these ideas are giving people reasons to ruin people’s lives. They are getting confused and do not know what to do when people are no longer living with God in their hearts and have them not follow the morals of their faith. He believes that people should follow the values of the earth rather than ones found in the gospels, in which he does not agree with and believe to be true.
2. Epicurus says, “For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear.” This means that in order for humans to be happy we must keep our bodies and souls pain and worry free. Epicurus believes that there is no gray area when it comes to pleasure and pain. If one is not in pain, then they currently have pleasure. He argues this with the idea that there are two forms of pleasure. Moving pleasure is when you are currently satisfying your desire, and static pleasure is the feeling after the desire has been satisfied. Due to the lack of desire there is the greatest form of pleasure in static pleasure. Epicurus does not believe that everyone should be going around doing everything they desire. He instead believes that people should eliminate desire. When people only have natural and necessary desires it is easier to satisfy your desires and therefore it is easier to have pleasure. In dealing with the future worries Epicurus tries to tell people that death should not be something that is feared. If people are living in fear of dying they are living with pain. He argues that due to the fact that once you die you no longer exist; death does not affect the living or the dead. By not fearing the future people are able to have pleasure.
Spinoza’s philosophy is one that relies on a basis of reason. Reason brings about adequate ideas that help set the mind at ease. These ideas allow the mind to believe that the outcome of a situation was inevitable. Realizing things will happen no matter what allows the mind to relax because it knows that nothing could have been done to change it. In no way is that person at fault for it happening. Passions, on the other hand, can sway the life of a person to evil rather than good. Spinoza argues that people act in ways to persevere and in doing so, act in ways that stabilize society. If people lived according to reason alone, there would be no need for laws. The passion enveloping people’s brains ends up conflicting with one another, which causes arguments and the society it be unbalanced. Spinoza also believes that knowing that God exists is the greatest good a person can have. This knowledge of God allows for the understanding of everything that is from God. Spinoza’s pantheistic philosophy lies in this idea. God is where everything comes from. Knowing that there is a God and that this is where we come from allows the mind to understand more fully everything around it. In knowing God people can have an intellectual love for Him and all His wonders. It is easier to see all of His perfections. Spinoza admits that it is difficult to have adequate ideas and keep passions out of our minds. It is as if one is trying to deny their instincts. He does not believe it to be impossible. This form of ethics is placing morals in reason and with reason one can know God and act accordingly to keep society at peace.
Stoicism is the moral philosophy that aims in the guidance of people’s lives by helping them live a life of virtue to achieve happiness. The contradictory belief would be that by finding pleasure to create one’s happiness. Spinoza focuses on the idea that people should live according to God’s morals and live with the knowledge of Him. In doing so, and living by virtues society will be peaceful. Epicurus believes that people should live by keeping themselves away from pain and worry. In this sense people should live according to morals because overall their minds will be at ease. Knowing that you are doing what you should be doing will make a person happy. Due to this, Epicurus and Spinoza share the idea that people should be living lives to create happiness. Happiness is the main goal a person should have. The path they choose to get there may be different, but in the end it all deals with happiness.
3. Marx was a strong believer in communism. He believed that people should not be separated into different classes. Capitalism is the exact idea that Marx did not believe in. Capitalism is communism’s opposite. In the “Communist Manifesto”, Marx describes the working conditions and the way that people of the working class are being de-humanized. He argues this by showing that due to the technology and the works that they must do make them nothing more than labor. They are not looked at as humans, but rather, machines. This is an ethical issue that is present in the capitalist society. Marx believed that capitalism grew made advancements in technology well before they were ready to make laws on regulations for this new technology. By creating new technology without laws, the society is hurt. Marx believes that a society should run on communist beliefs. He bases this on the idea people should not be divided into a working class and an upper class because the labor force becomes purely that; labor. Marx’s ideal society would be one that involves communism and equalizing everyone, rather than the capitalist way of running a society.
Communism would get rid of all class discrimination because everyone would be in the same class. No one person would have more property or money than anyone else. In Marx’s time people were in different classes and the labor class had no land property while the rich had plenty. Marx wants people to have no individual property because in order for some people to have their own property others do not have any. I think that Marx’s idea of society would not work because people are too concerned about living their lives in order for them to get ahead and survive, as well as prosper. There are too many people in the world that are not willing to give up the idea of having lavish things, even if it does mean that there must be poor people in the world.
4. Epicurus and Epictetus have contradictory views of what morals an ethical person should live by. They share the idea that happiness is the highest good. Epicurus, however, has ideas that break away from the stoicism view on ethics. Epictetus stays true to the stoic values. Stoicism is the moral philosophy that aims in the guidance of people’s lives by helping them live a life of virtue to achieve happiness. The contradictory belief would be that by finding pleasure to create one’s happiness. This was the ideas of Epicurus.
Epicurus says, “For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear.” This means that in order for humans to be happy we must keep our bodies and souls pain and worry free. Epicurus believes that there is no gray area when it comes to pleasure and pain. If one is not in pain then they currently have pleasure. He argues this with the idea that there are two forms of pleasure. Moving pleasure is when you are currently satisfying your desire, and static pleasure is the feeling after the desire has been satisfied. Due to the lack of desire there is the greatest form of pleasure in static pleasure. Epicurus does not believe that everyone should be going around doing everything they desire. He instead believes that people should eliminate desire. When people only have natural and necessary desires it is easier to satisfy your desires and therefore it is easier to have pleasure. In dealing with the future worries Epicurus tries to tell people that death should not be something that is feared. If people are living in fear of dying they are living with pain. He argues that due to the fact that once you die you no longer exist; death does not affect the living or the dead. By not fearing the future people are able to have pleasure.
Epictetus believes strongly in the virtues. He believed that living a life of virtue and excellence will bring you happiness. Man must live peacefully with the surrounding world. They must stay true to their morals and they must control what is controllable by man. He believes that humans have the ability to control their desire, just as Epicurus believes. Epictetus teaches that people must have the right mindset when approaching their activities. People should be understanding and not judgmental of people’s actions. His ideas of happiness come from the peace found within when people act out of kindness and according to virtues. He also believed that health, wealth, and pleasure are not of the highest good because they do not always benefit the person. Virtues are the only thing that benefits people in any circumstance.
Aristotle believes that, "Our chief end is the perfect development of our true nature." This is saying that with using our reason and understanding or virtues, morals, and ourselves, we can find our true personality and live accordingly. Aristotle speaks about the importance of friendships. Friends are present and influential in all aspects ofpeople's lives. With this in mind people should strive to have friends that will live by their virtues and morals in order to show them and influence others to live in a similar manner. Politics, according to Aristotle, is "a genuine moral organization foradvancing the development of humans." He believed that governments should help teach its people morals and the laws should reflect such morals.
Epictetus’s ideas of happiness and the path in achieving it are full of the good of all and the society as a whole. The virtuous life in the long run benefits the lives of others. Epicurus’s idea of hedonism associates happiness with one’s self-pleasures. These two, rather different views of happiness give an outlook on different possibilities of what makes people happy, and what morals should consist of.
5. Sartre states that people who revoke the commandments of God and the eternal lives. Without God in their lives people can run muck and do as they please. This introduces the problem that everyone will do what they want and will look down on others because they are doing other things that are what they want to do. Existentialists all believe that existence precedes essence. This is the idea that subjectivity comes before everything. There are two forms of existentialists; Christian existentialists and French existentialists. Christian existentialists believe that because God created them; then each person is a reflection of what God wanted to make. Atheist existentialists believe that God does not exist. First people exist and are present, then they can define themselves through the things they do and the work they do. Sartre categorizes himself under this group of people. He believes that people are nothing until they make themselves into something.
Sartre’s ethics lie in the idea that the choices people make effect the lives of other people because their decisions affect others and become to be ok for other people to do as well. With this idea in mind Sartre does think that people do not have to be Christian to live a life of morals. People do things morally because what they do reflects what they believe others can do and no one will do anything that they do not want others to have.
6. Kant believes that the only good without qualification is good will. He would say that people should do things only because they acknowledge the duty they have to help others when they have the means to do so. Kant bases his theory on good will because he believes that good will is the only thing that is good in any circumstance. The act itself is purely good. Kant would not want me thinking about what the outcome of the situation would be, or what kind of consequences they would have. He believes that people should not rely on their inclinations. They should ignore any inclination they have to do something. Kant would recommend that people follow the principle of categorical imperative. This idea is one that expresses that good morale is found behind the reason and the choice that the person makes based off of duty alone. Duty is not doing something because it will make you feel good or because you think it will bring you bad consequences. A duty is following a universal law. A law that everyone can follow and it will help the good of the people and the world. Lying, for instance, would not be a good universal law. Acting in reverence to the laws that aid the common good of the world, and aiding those in need when you have the means to do so are the morals Kant would try to teach me. Kant would reason that people should do their duty as a human being and follow the laws as well as the universal laws. Doing things solely due to duty would be a hard task to manage. Trying to keep all outside feelings, emotions, urges, and influences out of a decision would be difficult. Kant’s beliefs of morality make it hard to categorize anyone’s choices as being morale.
Existentialism is the idea that existence comes before essence. An object is first thought up and has its purpose lined up for it before it is produced. Existentialists believe that the way each person chooses to live is in reality guiding the general people to live. Each person has the responsibility to make decisions that form the basis of what everyone else deems as being suitable or acceptable. They become social norms. The social norms are then what people live by. Kierkegaard is the “father of existentialism”. He believes that there is a higher power than the social norms themselves. Kierkegaard acknowledges that God is the one that ultimately decides what is right or wrong. The Christian beliefs are based around the idea that God is the holiest being and has divine power as well as purity to know what is right or wrong. This knowledge is passed on to people through the Bible’s parables and Jesus himself. The churches aim to stick to the moral beliefs shown to humanity through the Bible and Jesus. Kierkegaard believes that God’s ideas of what is right and wrong out way the ideas of the social norms. He also believes that a person with Christian faith has the ability to become who they really are through their faith and the choices they make. He thinks that a person must understand morality before they can choose to be faithful. Kierkegaard based his ethics on the fact that God is the ultimate judge of values. Christians live in a similar way. They also believe that God is the judge of what is right and wrong. Existentialism is an idea that people create the social norms for others by making their personal choices. Kierkegaard's input to this was that God is present and the morals from God out way the social norms in society.
Kierkegaard’s idea of the way people should live is purely on following God. His beliefs strongly reflect the Christian religion. In knowing God and understanding His morals people should be able to live a life of virtue and knowing right from wrong. Kant believes that people should do good will, which is also acknowledged in the Christian religion. Kant also believes, however, that people should do things solely because it is their duty to do so. Kierkegaard’s beliefs rely more on the idea that people should do things the way God wants them to. God would rather people be sacrificing and not do things only if it is their duty to do so. They should do things to be nice and loving to others. Even though both philosophers share the Christian religion, Kierkegaard’s beliefs are more direct from Christian’s views. Kant does believe people should do good will and be kind to others; however, he wants them to do so because they have the duty of doing it. The duty and responsibility takes away from the love in which the person should be doing the good will.
7. Mill would want people to do what makes them happy. His ideal principle is the greatest happiness principle. He believes that the most important thing a person can do is promote happiness and stray from pain. Mill sees happiness as being a lack of pain and the presence of pleasure. His utilitarian beliefs are quite different from my own. I prefer to do God’s will and do things for others. He could argue that those things make me happy and give me pleasure. His utilitarian theory is that pleasure and happiness bring about goodness in people’s lives. It is the greatest good, in fact. He would tell me to do whatever it is that makes me happy. However, in the case that there is a situation that there are two pleasures and they must choose between the two he believes that the greater pleasure should be chosen. The pleasure that the majority prefer is the greater pleasure. People should promote the happiness of the general people as well as themselves. In doing what the general people want, by making them happy, that person to make them happy in turn becomes happy themselves. There is pleasure from making others happy. People feel good about themselves when they do something to make other people happy. The more pleasure people spread to others, the more pleasure they have with themselves as well. Mill would tell people that they are on the right track by doing things to make others happy; however they need to also do things for their own pleasure as well.
Epicurus says, “For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear.” This means that in order for humans to be happy we must keep our bodies and souls pain and worry free. Epicurus believes that there is no gray area when it comes to pleasure and pain. If one is not in pain then they currently have pleasure. He argues this with the idea that there are two forms of pleasure. Moving pleasure is when you are currently satisfying your desire, and static pleasure is the feeling after the desire has been satisfied. Due to the lack of desire there is the greatest form of pleasure in static pleasure. Epicurus does not believe that everyone should be going around doing everything they desire. He instead believes that people should eliminate desire. When people only have natural and necessary desires it is easier to satisfy your desires and therefore it is easier to have pleasure. In dealing with the future worries Epicurus tries to tell people that death should not be something that is feared. If people are living in fear of dying they are living with pain. He argues that due to the fact that once you die you no longer exist; death does not affect the living or the dead. By not fearing the future people are able to have pleasure.
8. Thus far, my favorite philosopher is Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard’s beliefs reflect the Christian ideas. I, myself, am a Christian and believe that people should follow God’s will and the Bible. People should do good will towards others and be more selfless. They should treat others with love and kindness. In doing so people would live moral lives and live a life full of virtue. Kierkegaard believes that in knowing God and understanding His morals people should be able to live a life of virtue and knowing right from wrong. I try to live my life with this idea. I learn my morals through God and the Bible. Kierkegaard’s belief is that a person with Christian faith has the ability to become who they really are through their faith and the choices they make. In knowing God a person is able to use morals and a good life.
Post 1
What makes me happy? The simple things in life make me happy. I loveto be around my family, friends, and boyfriend. I also love my petsand all animals. The thing that makes me the most happy is seeingother people happy. When I have the ability to do something to makesomeone, especially those that I love, happy I will do it, even whenthat means not doing something that I would rather do. I know thatdoesn't sound like it would make me happy, but it truly does.Knowing that I made someone else happy makes me feel like I am beingthe person I strive to be. I want to be able to be a successfulperson in everything I do. Achieving my goals of graduating fromUCSD in the near future as well as going to a graduate school andbecoming a pharmacist will make me happy. I know that having ahusband and children of my own will make me very happy. When Ipicture my future, I cannot picture myself without a family.However, if life brings me other things I know that it will not takeaway my happiness. I guess for me, happiness comes from therelationships I have with people and the idea of my future beingopen to God's will and not my own.Aristotle views happiness as being the "chief end or highest good"in our lives. He believes that ethics is merely what people use totry to find their happiness. Happiness can be different to manypeople. Each person believes that different things will make themachieve happiness. Because of this, Aristotle defines what happinessis. Aristotle believes that happiness can not be something abstractand it must be from something only humans can have, do, orexperience. Aristotle's main argument is that living a life abidingto moral virtues will bring a person happiness. Abiding by virtuesis not as simple as it seems. The virtue of "courage" is used in thereading as an example of virtues lying on this balanced medium. Fora person to be viewed as courageous they must not be "rash" orcowardly. Humans have the ability to use reason and logic tounderstand where the boundary between courage and rashness orcourage and cowardliness lie. Aristotle argues that human happinesscannot be felt through animals. This means that it is not in thematerial things, or in our immediate emotions. It must be from howwell we live according to our morals and virtues. Aristotle believesthat, "Our chief end is the perfect development of our true nature."This is saying that with using our reason and understanding orvirtues, morals, and ourselves, we can find our true personality andlive accordingly. Aristotle speaks about the importance offriendships. Friends are present and influential in all aspects ofpeople's lives. With this in mind people should strive to havefriends that will live by their virtues and morals in order to showthem and influence others to live in a similar manner. Politics,according to Aristotle, is "a genuine moral organization foradvancing the development of humans." He believed that governmentsshould help teach its people morals and the laws should reflect suchmorals.After reading about Aristotle's views on happiness, I find that myown idea of happiness falls partially under his ideas. Living avirtuous life full of morals will ultimatley make me happy. I findthat most people would not instinctively say that living a virtuouslife would make them happy. Our consumer society has strayed fromthis idea and has put the idea that material things and money makepeople happy. When in reality, I agree with Aristotle, people usingtheir reason to find morals and live by them will be happy.
Post 2
Epicurus and Epictetus have contradictory views of what morals an ethical person should live by. They share the idea that happiness is the highest good. Epicurus, however, has ideas that break away from the stoicism view on ethics. Epictetus stays true to the stoic values. Stoicism is the moral philosophy that aims in the guidance of people’s lives by helping them live a life of virtue to achieve happiness. The contradictory belief would be that by finding pleasure to create one’s happiness. This was the ideas of Epicurus.
Epicurus says, "For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear." This means that in order for humans to be happy we must keep our bodies and souls pain and worry free. Epicurus believes that there is no gray area when it comes to pleasure and pain. If one is not in pain then they currently have pleasure. He argues this with the idea that there are two forms of pleasure. Moving pleasure is when you are currently satisfying your desire, and static pleasure is the feeling after the desire has been satisfied. Due to the lack of desire there is the greatest form of pleasure in static pleasure. Epicurus does not believe that everyone should be going around doing everything they desire. He instead believes that people should eliminate desire. When people only have natural and necessary desires it is easier to satisfy your desires and therefore it is easier to have pleasure. In dealing with the future worries Epicurus tries to tell people that death should not be something that is feared. If people are living in fear of dying they are living with pain. He argues that due to the fact that once you die you no longer exist; death does not affect the living or the dead. By not fearing the future people are able to have pleasure.
Epictetus believes strongly in the virtues. He believed that living a life of virtue and excellence will bring you happiness. Man must live peacefully with the surrounding world. They must stay true to their morals and they must control what is controllable by man. He believes that humans have the ability to control their desire, just as Epicurus believes. Epictetus teaches that people must have the right mindset when approaching their activities. People should be understanding and not judgmental of people’s actions. His ideas of happiness come from the peace found within when people act out of kindness and according to virtues. He also believed that health, wealth, and pleasure are not of the highest good because they do not always benefit the person. Virtues are the only thing that benefit people in any circumstance.
Epictetus’s ideas of happiness and the path in achieving it are full of the good of all and the society as a whole. The virtuous life in the long run benefits the lives of others. Epicurus’s idea of hedonism associates happiness with one’s self-pleasures. These two, rather different views of happiness give an outlook on different possibilities of what makes people happy, and what morals should consist of.
Epicurus says, "For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear." This means that in order for humans to be happy we must keep our bodies and souls pain and worry free. Epicurus believes that there is no gray area when it comes to pleasure and pain. If one is not in pain then they currently have pleasure. He argues this with the idea that there are two forms of pleasure. Moving pleasure is when you are currently satisfying your desire, and static pleasure is the feeling after the desire has been satisfied. Due to the lack of desire there is the greatest form of pleasure in static pleasure. Epicurus does not believe that everyone should be going around doing everything they desire. He instead believes that people should eliminate desire. When people only have natural and necessary desires it is easier to satisfy your desires and therefore it is easier to have pleasure. In dealing with the future worries Epicurus tries to tell people that death should not be something that is feared. If people are living in fear of dying they are living with pain. He argues that due to the fact that once you die you no longer exist; death does not affect the living or the dead. By not fearing the future people are able to have pleasure.
Epictetus believes strongly in the virtues. He believed that living a life of virtue and excellence will bring you happiness. Man must live peacefully with the surrounding world. They must stay true to their morals and they must control what is controllable by man. He believes that humans have the ability to control their desire, just as Epicurus believes. Epictetus teaches that people must have the right mindset when approaching their activities. People should be understanding and not judgmental of people’s actions. His ideas of happiness come from the peace found within when people act out of kindness and according to virtues. He also believed that health, wealth, and pleasure are not of the highest good because they do not always benefit the person. Virtues are the only thing that benefit people in any circumstance.
Epictetus’s ideas of happiness and the path in achieving it are full of the good of all and the society as a whole. The virtuous life in the long run benefits the lives of others. Epicurus’s idea of hedonism associates happiness with one’s self-pleasures. These two, rather different views of happiness give an outlook on different possibilities of what makes people happy, and what morals should consist of.
Post 3
Spinoza’s philosophy is on that has a basis of reason. Reason brings about adequate ideas help set the mind at ease. These ideas allow the mind to believe that the outcome of a situation was inevitable. Realizing that something is inevitable allows the mind to relax because they know that nothing could have been done to change it. Passions, on the other hand, can sway the life of a person to evil rather than good. Spinoza argues that people act in ways to persevere and by doing so act in ways that stabilize society. If people lived by reason alone, there would be no need for laws, but the passion enveloping people’s brains end up conflicting with one another. Spinoza also believes that knowing that God exists is the greatest good a person can have. This knowledge of God allows for the understanding of everything that is from God. Spinoza’s pantheistic philosophy lies in this idea. God is where everything comes from. Knowing that there is a God and that this is where we come from allows the mind to understand more fully everything around it. In knowing God people can have an intellectual love for Him and all His wonders. It is easier to see all of His perfections. Spinoza admits that it is difficult to have adequate ideas and keep passions out of our minds. It is like fighting off instincts. He does not believe it to be impossible. This form of ethics is placing morals in reason and with reason one can know God and act accordingly to keep society in peace.
Post 4
My moral system is based off what the Bible teaches is right and wrong. I try my best to do what is best for others as well as myself. I try to live my life to how God would want me to live. I believe that people should be treated fairly and respectfully. I have learned the morals I have from my family, friends, and church. Jesus gives many examples in the Bible of what is right and wrong. I do my best to do God’s will. When I don’t know what to do in a situation I think about what God would want me to do, then I think about what I want to do, then I think about the consequences of each choice would bring. To figure out what is the right answer I know that I should do what God would want me to do.
Kant believes that the only good without qualification is good will. He would say that I should do things only because I acknowledge the duty I have to help others when I have the means to do so. Kant bases his theory on good will because he believes that good will is the only thing that is good in any circumstance. The act itself is purely good. Kant would not want me thinking about what the outcome of the situation would be, or what kind of consequences I would have. He believes that people should not rely on inclinations. They should ignore any inclinations they have to do something. Kant would recommend that I follow the principle of categorical imperative. This idea is that good morale is found behind the reason and the choice that the person makes based off of duty alone. Duty is not doing something because it will make you feel good or because you think it will bring you bad consequences. A duty is following a universal law. A law that everyone can follow and it will help the good of the people and the world. Lying, for instance, would not be a good universal law. Acting in reverence to the laws that aid the common good of the world, and aiding those in need when you have the means to do so are the morals Kant would try to teach me. I believe that Kant would reason that I should do my duty as a human being and follow the laws and the universal laws. Doing things solely due to duty would be a hard task to manage. Trying to keep all outside feelings, emotions, urges, and influences out of a decision would be difficult. I think Kant’s beliefs of morality make it hard to categorize anyone’s choices as being morale.
Mill, on the other hand, would want me to do what makes me happy. His ideal principle is the greatest happiness principle. He believes that the most important thing a person can do is promote happiness and stray from pain. Mill sees happiness as being a lack of pain and the presence of pleasure. His utilitarian beliefs are quite different from my own. I prefer to do God’s will and do things for others. He could argue that those things make me happy and give me pleasure. His utilitarian theory is that pleasure and happiness bring about goodness in people’s lives. It is the greatest good, in fact. He would tell me to do whatever it is that makes me happy. However, in the case that there is a situation that there are two pleasures and I must choose between the two he believes that the greater pleasure should be chosen. The pleasure that the majority prefer is the greater pleasure. People should promote the happiness of the general people as well as themselves. In doing what the general people want, by making them happy, that person to make them happy in turn becomes happy themselves. There is pleasure from making others happy. People feel good about themselves when they do something to make other people happy. The more pleasure people spread to others, the more pleasure they have with themselves as well. Mill would tell me that I’m on the right track by doing things to make others happy, however I need to also do things for my pleasure as well.
Kant believes that the only good without qualification is good will. He would say that I should do things only because I acknowledge the duty I have to help others when I have the means to do so. Kant bases his theory on good will because he believes that good will is the only thing that is good in any circumstance. The act itself is purely good. Kant would not want me thinking about what the outcome of the situation would be, or what kind of consequences I would have. He believes that people should not rely on inclinations. They should ignore any inclinations they have to do something. Kant would recommend that I follow the principle of categorical imperative. This idea is that good morale is found behind the reason and the choice that the person makes based off of duty alone. Duty is not doing something because it will make you feel good or because you think it will bring you bad consequences. A duty is following a universal law. A law that everyone can follow and it will help the good of the people and the world. Lying, for instance, would not be a good universal law. Acting in reverence to the laws that aid the common good of the world, and aiding those in need when you have the means to do so are the morals Kant would try to teach me. I believe that Kant would reason that I should do my duty as a human being and follow the laws and the universal laws. Doing things solely due to duty would be a hard task to manage. Trying to keep all outside feelings, emotions, urges, and influences out of a decision would be difficult. I think Kant’s beliefs of morality make it hard to categorize anyone’s choices as being morale.
Mill, on the other hand, would want me to do what makes me happy. His ideal principle is the greatest happiness principle. He believes that the most important thing a person can do is promote happiness and stray from pain. Mill sees happiness as being a lack of pain and the presence of pleasure. His utilitarian beliefs are quite different from my own. I prefer to do God’s will and do things for others. He could argue that those things make me happy and give me pleasure. His utilitarian theory is that pleasure and happiness bring about goodness in people’s lives. It is the greatest good, in fact. He would tell me to do whatever it is that makes me happy. However, in the case that there is a situation that there are two pleasures and I must choose between the two he believes that the greater pleasure should be chosen. The pleasure that the majority prefer is the greater pleasure. People should promote the happiness of the general people as well as themselves. In doing what the general people want, by making them happy, that person to make them happy in turn becomes happy themselves. There is pleasure from making others happy. People feel good about themselves when they do something to make other people happy. The more pleasure people spread to others, the more pleasure they have with themselves as well. Mill would tell me that I’m on the right track by doing things to make others happy, however I need to also do things for my pleasure as well.
Post 5
Existentialism is the idea that existence comes before essence. An object is first thought up and has its purpose lined up for it before it is produced. Existentialists believe that the way each person chooses to live is in reality guiding the general people to live. Each person has the responsibility to make decisions that form the basis of what everyone else deems as being suitable or acceptable. They become social norms. The social norms are then what people live by. Kierkegaard is the "father of existentialism". He believes that there is a higher power than the social norms themselves. Kierkegaard acknowledges that God is the one that ultimately decides what is right or wrong. The Christian beliefs are based around the idea that God is the holiest being and has divine power as well as purity to know what is right or wrong. This knowledge is passed on to people through the Bible’s parables and Jesus himself. The churches aim to stick to the moral beliefs shown to humanity through the Bible and Jesus. Kierkegaard believes that God’s ideas of what is right and wrong out way the ideas of the social norms. He also believes that a person with Christian faith has the ability to become who they really are through their faith and the choices they make. He thinks that a person must understand morality before they can choose to be faithful. Kierkegaard based his ehtics on the fact that God is the ultimate judge of values. Christians live in a similar way. They also believe that God is the judge of what is right and wrong. Existenitalism is an idea that people create the social norms for others by making their personal choices. Kierkegaard's input to this was that God is present and the morals from God outweigh the social norms in society.
Post 6
Marx was a strong believer in communism. He believed that people should not be separated into different classes. Capitalism is the exact idea that Marx did not believe in. Capitalism is communism’s opposite. In the "Communist Manifesto", Marx describes the working conditions and the way that people of the working class are being de-humanized. He argues this by showing that due to the technology and the works that they must do make them nothing more than labor. They are not looked at as humans, but rather, machines. This is an ethical issue that is present in the capitalist society. Marx believed that capitalism grew made advancements in technology well before they were ready to make laws on regulations for this new technology. By creating new technology without laws, the society is hurt. Marx believes that a society should run on communist beliefs. He bases this on the idea people should not be divided into a working class and an upper class because the labor force becomes purely that; labor. Marx’s ideal society would be one that involves communism and equalizing everyone, rather than the capitalist way of running a society.
Post 7
Death of God:
Nietzsche is saying that God is dead in the people’s hearts. They no longer look to what God wants. Instead they rationalize and look to science in order to get the reassurance that they can do whatever they want instead to God’s will. He also says that because God is no longer in anyone’s hearts, people no longer have any morality or purpose. With that in mind he argues that people should be faithful to the earth because everyone can see the earth and know that it exists.
Truth:
Nietzsche is stating that people are so immersed in their own self and intellect; they believe that they are the ones that know everything. People, in reality, know nothing about themselves. They do not understand many things about themselves or their bodies. They are trapped in a state of deception about themselves.
Morality as Anti-Nature:
Nietzsche acknowledges the fact that in order to have morals and follow any faith people must do away with their passions and natural instincts. For instance, people cannot kill someone if they make them mad. Someone may feel angry but they cannot act on it. They cannot lust over something either. In order to live a life of virtue people must deny their passions.
Jesus:
In order for a person to live by the Christian values, he must not sin or put anything between himself and God or God’s will. Jesus says that the Jewish faith is not right. Nietzsche believes that the Gospel is the only way to live the way God wants. Yet he believes that the gospel only gives people the feeling that they are living good and having eternal life even when they are not living with such morality. The gospel is only a way of life and not a faith.
Paul:
Nietzsche believes that Paul changed the meaning of Jesus’ death. And without this meaning people would not feel the same about the gospels. Paul stated that the death of Jesus was a sacrifice for people’s sins. By Jesus dying on the cross, people were able to be forgiven for their wrong-doings. Nietzsche also believes that Paul altered the gospels. Basically Nietzsche does not believe in the Christian beliefs and the gospels.
Myth of Eternal Recurrence:
The idea that everything that was done during life will come again after death is an idea that many people believe in. The only way people can not have this idea is if they are free from morality. They must not believe that what they are doing is wrong. People must also not believe in pain. Without pain they do not need to worry about what will recur later on.
Free Spirit:
The idea that God is dead in everyone’s hearts leads people to be lost in life. They have no way to know how to act morally or what their purpose is. People are unable to adjust to this idea right away because it is hard for them to understand. People do not see the consequences right away because they are in denial of the fact. Then people will eventually understand and adjust to the world and find a new way to live.
Nietzsche is saying that God is dead in the people’s hearts. They no longer look to what God wants. Instead they rationalize and look to science in order to get the reassurance that they can do whatever they want instead to God’s will. He also says that because God is no longer in anyone’s hearts, people no longer have any morality or purpose. With that in mind he argues that people should be faithful to the earth because everyone can see the earth and know that it exists.
Truth:
Nietzsche is stating that people are so immersed in their own self and intellect; they believe that they are the ones that know everything. People, in reality, know nothing about themselves. They do not understand many things about themselves or their bodies. They are trapped in a state of deception about themselves.
Morality as Anti-Nature:
Nietzsche acknowledges the fact that in order to have morals and follow any faith people must do away with their passions and natural instincts. For instance, people cannot kill someone if they make them mad. Someone may feel angry but they cannot act on it. They cannot lust over something either. In order to live a life of virtue people must deny their passions.
Jesus:
In order for a person to live by the Christian values, he must not sin or put anything between himself and God or God’s will. Jesus says that the Jewish faith is not right. Nietzsche believes that the Gospel is the only way to live the way God wants. Yet he believes that the gospel only gives people the feeling that they are living good and having eternal life even when they are not living with such morality. The gospel is only a way of life and not a faith.
Paul:
Nietzsche believes that Paul changed the meaning of Jesus’ death. And without this meaning people would not feel the same about the gospels. Paul stated that the death of Jesus was a sacrifice for people’s sins. By Jesus dying on the cross, people were able to be forgiven for their wrong-doings. Nietzsche also believes that Paul altered the gospels. Basically Nietzsche does not believe in the Christian beliefs and the gospels.
Myth of Eternal Recurrence:
The idea that everything that was done during life will come again after death is an idea that many people believe in. The only way people can not have this idea is if they are free from morality. They must not believe that what they are doing is wrong. People must also not believe in pain. Without pain they do not need to worry about what will recur later on.
Free Spirit:
The idea that God is dead in everyone’s hearts leads people to be lost in life. They have no way to know how to act morally or what their purpose is. People are unable to adjust to this idea right away because it is hard for them to understand. People do not see the consequences right away because they are in denial of the fact. Then people will eventually understand and adjust to the world and find a new way to live.
Report 1
The ethical issue that I will be analyzing and discussing is abortion. For furtherance of my knowledge and understanding of abortion, I interviewed my boyfriend's brother, Jonathan Kinnick. He is the Youth Pastor at Archibald Ranch Community Church of the Nazerene (ARCC) in Ontario. The Senior Pastor at ARCC is Bob Babcock, who received his Bachelor's Degree in Religious Studies and Master's Degree in Theology from Azusa Pacific Univeristy. Jonathan headlines the youth ministry there known as The Gathering, which exists to reach teenage students, develop meaningful friendships, prepare each other for the journey ahead, express their love for God, and challenge one another to discover gifts through ministry. He received his Master's Degree in Economics from USC.
I started the interview by asking Jonathan about the views of the Nazarene Church regarding abortion. In response to this, he replied by quoting the Church of the Nazarene Manual: "The Church of the Nazarene affirms the sanctity of human life as established by God the Creator and believes that such sanctity extends to the child not yet born. Therefore, we oppose induced abortion (surgically or chemically), when used for either personal convenience or population control. We oppose laws that allow abortion. Realizing that there are rare but real medical conditions wherein the mother or the unborn child, or both, could not survive the pregnancy, termination of the pregnancy should only be made after sound medical and Christian counseling." Next, I asked Jonathan what his views on abortion are. He proceeded to explain that his views were fairly aligned with those of the Nazarene doctrine. He believes that generally, all forms of induced abortion are immoral and directly conflict with what the bible says, quoting such verses as "Thou shall not murder" (Ex. 20:13), "For you formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb" (Ps. 139:13), and "My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them" (Ps. 139:15-16). He feels that all of these verses, and more, convey how all of us were intricately created by God while we were still in our mother's womb. These verses, he posits, prove that even fetuses are human beings, and should be treated with the same dignity and respect that all other born humans are. For a mother to feel that she can rightfully take away her child's life just because it is unborn, according to Jonathan, is immoral. Not many people could (or would even try to) argue the validity and morality of a mother taking her child's life just because she didn't feel like having it. He feels that life does not start when a child is born, but when the child is conceived. However, as adequately stated in the Nazarene manual, there are circumstances that arise which open up the possibility for the life of the mother and/or child to be compromised by going through with the birth. Under these very rare circumstances, he feels that extensive prayer is required to determine where God stands in regards to your hardships, as well as counseling from learned members of the church. After these steps have been taken, he feels that God's will shall be revealed, and only then can further action be taken. He feels that, if possible, abortion should be completely avoided. Situations where the life of the mother and/or child is endangered are extremely rare, and so abortion need not be a possibility. Jonathan doesn't think that this is an issue of preserving women's rights, as many other pro-choicers do. He feels that it is an issue of preserving life, the only thing that we have in this world. He urges those who are pro-choice to think long and hard about the issue, and decide whether or not they would have wanted their parents to be advocates of abortion.
Before talking with Jonathan, I thought that I knew exactly the way I felt about abortion. While I interviewed Jonathan, his brothers got into a discussion about abortion and everyone’s point of view was very interesting. I believed that no matter what abortions are not acceptable. Everything happens for a reason, and just because having a baby is not in your plan at that point in your life, doesn’t mean that that specific baby was not meant to be born. No one should have a say in who should live or die. Only God has the ability to know when someone is going to die.
During the interview I realized that some people, such as Jonathan’s mother, believe in the same thing. Then Jonathan was asking us should someone have an abortion if they were going to die for sure if they had the baby? In that case I think that people should not because their lives are in God’s hands. Then he asked, "what if a person is sick? Should they go to the doctor then? Or should they just stay home and say that God will save them or that God will do what is supposed to happen." In a case like that I believe that a person should go to the doctor if they are sick. I remember a few years ago at my church the priest, Father Bob from Our Lady of Lourdes Roman Catholic Church, told the congregation this story that deals with asking God for help and not following his signs.
"There was a huge flood and a man was trapped on his roof so he began to pray for God’s help. In mid-prayer a man on a row boat comes by and asks the man if he needs help but the man refused and said God will save him. Then he prays some more and a helicopter comes to airlift him out but the man refuses and says that God will save him. The man ends up drowning. When the man gets to Heaven he asks God why he didn’t help him and God answered by saying I sent you a boat and a helicopter and you refused my help so I thought you wanted to come with me in Heaven."
This made me realize that maybe getting a warning should be taken as a way of God helping you. God works in mysterious ways and humans will never fully grasp onto the reasons why God does the things he does. Then another point that was made was that maybe an abortion could be considered self defense because in the case of a baby being the cause of a woman to die, would killing it be self-defense? Personally, I don’t believe that it would.
I strongly believe that a woman should not have an abortion purely because they are too young, too poor, or not ready to have a child. Those reasons are copouts. There are so many alternatives that a woman can do besides killing a living being. They could leave the baby at a hospital or fire department within the first few days after birth without any charges being filed. A woman also has the choice of adoption. Even in situations where a woman is raped and ends up getting pregnant, I believe that God made that baby for a reason and the woman should have it.
I have realized through my discussion with Jonathan that there are some situations that are hard to judge on what you should do about abortion. This is only in the cases of the mother’s health being at risk. I think that people should not resort to abortions when they can trust in God. Personally, I would like to believe that if I am ever faced with making a decision whether to die and have my baby or kill my baby and live I would choose to have the baby. God has a plan for everyone and each person’s life is a part of God’s plan.
Through this interview I have learned that abortion is extremely controversial, even between people who believe that abortions should not occur. People have different interpretations of what is moral and ok. In the case of abortion, people can argue and argue about the things they believe. Overall, I learned that this subject is not extremely a black and white subject. Coming away from this experience I still believe that abortion is wrong in any circumstance but I can see how people would be able to see that they need to have one in circumstances where they would die if they did not have one.
I started the interview by asking Jonathan about the views of the Nazarene Church regarding abortion. In response to this, he replied by quoting the Church of the Nazarene Manual: "The Church of the Nazarene affirms the sanctity of human life as established by God the Creator and believes that such sanctity extends to the child not yet born. Therefore, we oppose induced abortion (surgically or chemically), when used for either personal convenience or population control. We oppose laws that allow abortion. Realizing that there are rare but real medical conditions wherein the mother or the unborn child, or both, could not survive the pregnancy, termination of the pregnancy should only be made after sound medical and Christian counseling." Next, I asked Jonathan what his views on abortion are. He proceeded to explain that his views were fairly aligned with those of the Nazarene doctrine. He believes that generally, all forms of induced abortion are immoral and directly conflict with what the bible says, quoting such verses as "Thou shall not murder" (Ex. 20:13), "For you formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb" (Ps. 139:13), and "My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them" (Ps. 139:15-16). He feels that all of these verses, and more, convey how all of us were intricately created by God while we were still in our mother's womb. These verses, he posits, prove that even fetuses are human beings, and should be treated with the same dignity and respect that all other born humans are. For a mother to feel that she can rightfully take away her child's life just because it is unborn, according to Jonathan, is immoral. Not many people could (or would even try to) argue the validity and morality of a mother taking her child's life just because she didn't feel like having it. He feels that life does not start when a child is born, but when the child is conceived. However, as adequately stated in the Nazarene manual, there are circumstances that arise which open up the possibility for the life of the mother and/or child to be compromised by going through with the birth. Under these very rare circumstances, he feels that extensive prayer is required to determine where God stands in regards to your hardships, as well as counseling from learned members of the church. After these steps have been taken, he feels that God's will shall be revealed, and only then can further action be taken. He feels that, if possible, abortion should be completely avoided. Situations where the life of the mother and/or child is endangered are extremely rare, and so abortion need not be a possibility. Jonathan doesn't think that this is an issue of preserving women's rights, as many other pro-choicers do. He feels that it is an issue of preserving life, the only thing that we have in this world. He urges those who are pro-choice to think long and hard about the issue, and decide whether or not they would have wanted their parents to be advocates of abortion.
Before talking with Jonathan, I thought that I knew exactly the way I felt about abortion. While I interviewed Jonathan, his brothers got into a discussion about abortion and everyone’s point of view was very interesting. I believed that no matter what abortions are not acceptable. Everything happens for a reason, and just because having a baby is not in your plan at that point in your life, doesn’t mean that that specific baby was not meant to be born. No one should have a say in who should live or die. Only God has the ability to know when someone is going to die.
During the interview I realized that some people, such as Jonathan’s mother, believe in the same thing. Then Jonathan was asking us should someone have an abortion if they were going to die for sure if they had the baby? In that case I think that people should not because their lives are in God’s hands. Then he asked, "what if a person is sick? Should they go to the doctor then? Or should they just stay home and say that God will save them or that God will do what is supposed to happen." In a case like that I believe that a person should go to the doctor if they are sick. I remember a few years ago at my church the priest, Father Bob from Our Lady of Lourdes Roman Catholic Church, told the congregation this story that deals with asking God for help and not following his signs.
"There was a huge flood and a man was trapped on his roof so he began to pray for God’s help. In mid-prayer a man on a row boat comes by and asks the man if he needs help but the man refused and said God will save him. Then he prays some more and a helicopter comes to airlift him out but the man refuses and says that God will save him. The man ends up drowning. When the man gets to Heaven he asks God why he didn’t help him and God answered by saying I sent you a boat and a helicopter and you refused my help so I thought you wanted to come with me in Heaven."
This made me realize that maybe getting a warning should be taken as a way of God helping you. God works in mysterious ways and humans will never fully grasp onto the reasons why God does the things he does. Then another point that was made was that maybe an abortion could be considered self defense because in the case of a baby being the cause of a woman to die, would killing it be self-defense? Personally, I don’t believe that it would.
I strongly believe that a woman should not have an abortion purely because they are too young, too poor, or not ready to have a child. Those reasons are copouts. There are so many alternatives that a woman can do besides killing a living being. They could leave the baby at a hospital or fire department within the first few days after birth without any charges being filed. A woman also has the choice of adoption. Even in situations where a woman is raped and ends up getting pregnant, I believe that God made that baby for a reason and the woman should have it.
I have realized through my discussion with Jonathan that there are some situations that are hard to judge on what you should do about abortion. This is only in the cases of the mother’s health being at risk. I think that people should not resort to abortions when they can trust in God. Personally, I would like to believe that if I am ever faced with making a decision whether to die and have my baby or kill my baby and live I would choose to have the baby. God has a plan for everyone and each person’s life is a part of God’s plan.
Through this interview I have learned that abortion is extremely controversial, even between people who believe that abortions should not occur. People have different interpretations of what is moral and ok. In the case of abortion, people can argue and argue about the things they believe. Overall, I learned that this subject is not extremely a black and white subject. Coming away from this experience I still believe that abortion is wrong in any circumstance but I can see how people would be able to see that they need to have one in circumstances where they would die if they did not have one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)