Ethics Final

a. NAME: Jessie Genieb.
USERNAME: Jessie_genie74c.

How many posts did you complete for the whole semester:
I posted all twelve of the assigned post, in addition to the post designated for the field trip /research project.

Give me the dates:
Post #1: Aristotle (17 March)
Post #2: Epicurus and Epictetus (18 March)
Post #3: Spinoza (18 March)
Post #4: Kant and Mill (19 March)
Post #5: Kierkegaard (19 March)
Post #6: Marx (20 March)
Post #7: Nietzsche (21 March)
Post #8: Seven Religions (30 March)
Post #9: Singer (12 April)
Post #10: Singer 2 (12 April)
Post #11: Cloning (14 April)
Post #12: Evolutionary Ethics (15 April)
Field Trip/Research Project (13 April)

d. List the research project you did.
For the research project I went to the Museum of Tolerance on Easter Sunday.

e. Which online videos and audio lectures did you watch/listen to since midterm? Do you have a favorite one?
Short film on Existentialism, 2 short films on Nietzsche, Paul Kurtz POI, Singer video, Singer POI vegetarianism, PETA video, Singer POI Darwin, Cloning video, Stem Cell video, Parody video, Ghandi video, 3 short clips on Einstein

Did you have a favorite one?
I do not have a favorite video or audio-lecture, although, I did find the George Bush parody to be quite funny.


f. Please list what “grade you received on the midterm time.
You sent me an email stating that I was doing great. I never did receive a letter grade.

Were you asked to makeup any work on the midterm and did you?
I was not asked to makeup any work.

g. What reading did you complete thus far in the course?
Aristotle’s Ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, Epicurus (c. 341-271BCE), Letter to Menoeceus, Epictetus (c. 55-135 BCE), The Enchiridion, Baruch Spinoza, Spinoza’s Ethics, Ethics Demonstrated in Geometric Order (Portions of Parts 1-5), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Metaphysics, The Metaphysics of Morals First Section, John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, Existentialism, Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Friedrich Nietzsche, Friedrich Nietzsche God is Dead Quote, Nietzsche On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense, Morality as Anti-Nature, Jesus, Paul, Eternal Recurrence, Free Spirit, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980): Existentialism, A selection from Existentialism and Human Emotions, Religions and Ethics from BBC links, Singer: A Philosophical Self-Portrait, Singer: All Animals Are Equal, Beyond Vegetarianism, Why I Don’t Eat Faces, Singer: Abortion, the dividing lines, The Singer Solution to World Poverty, Singer: Taking Life: Humans, Cloning (4sections), Stem Cell from Wikipedia, Dawkins: Collateral Damage, Evolutionary Ethics, Whose Life Would You Save, Einstein’s “Remember Your Humanity, Gandhi’s Experiments with Truth

Is there reading material that you did not read?
No, I have completed all the assigned readings.

Did you read the philosophers' actual writings?
I read all of the philosopher’s actual writings.

h. Out of all the reading that you were assigned, what reading would you recommend for future ethics classes? Be specific.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Springer’s article on poverty. That one article moved me to the core.

Is there a reading that you would not recommend? Why?
I would not use the Wikipedia’s page on Stem Cell Research. The article was unclear and scattered.

Specifically, should I go back to using books or did you enjoy a totally online course?
I would return to books only if you have books available that are just as informative or better, otherwise, the online articles were more than sufficient.

i. Did you complete any extra credit so far?
I have not completed any extra credit so far.

1. Give a specific outline of the ETHICS of Gandhi as presented in his “autobiography” assigned. Unlike a biography that only outlines his life, the “autobiography” allows you to go into head and experience his world view. Focus on his world view. Articulate his ethics as “he sees them.” Give examples. Detail his ethical position. (Hint: Read the text)

Gandhi’s ethics were based on truth. He claimed to be “a worshipper of truth” and knew “the passion for truth was innate” in him from birth. Every action was considered an experiment with truth. He learned the importance of truth by his mother’s example, the play, “Harishchandra,” and his father’s forgiveness. In fact, Gandhi recollects that the “ordeals Harishchandra went through” inspired him greatly. He believed that “the conviction of morality is the basis of things, and that truth is the substance of morality is the substance of all morality.” Gandhi was devoted to his parents. He believed that “all happiness and pleasure should be sacrificed in devoted service” to one’s parents. Gandhi believed that all things are possible with “pure love” and that “God ultimately saves him whose motive is pure.” Gandhi believed that a “man of truth must also be a man of care” and “extra cautious.” He learned early on that “a reformer cannot afford to have a close intimacy with him whom he seeks to reform” and “he who would be friends with God must remain alone, or make the whole world his friend.” Gandhi learned through his experiments that “there are some actions from which an escape is a godsend both for the man who escapes and for those about him.” Gandhi also learned that that a “wife is not the husband’s bondslave, but his companion and his helpmate, and an equal partner in all his joys and sorrows.” Gandhi understood the true meaning of ahimsa. Gandhi was tolerant of other beliefs system. Gandhi “returned good for evil.” He believed in the sanctity of a vow and that “it cannot be broken.” Gandhi was against speciesism. He learned that his weakness was his strength in that he was a man of few words. Gandhi knew God was always present.

Answer what does he mean by “experiments with truth?”
What Gandhi meant by his “experiments with truth” is that every choice, decision, and action he made, he made with truth in mind. They became experiments in that he never knew what the results or reactions of those he was dealing with would be.

What are his “specific” personal ethical struggles and life challenges?
Gandhi specifically struggled with lust, dietary concerns, and keeping his vow to his mother.

What personal problems does he face and how does he solve them?
Gandhi face problems concerning jealousy, lust, theft, and quality of life. He confronted jealousy when his wife wanted to leave him, lust when his father died without him being by his side, theft by giving his father a clean confession, and quality of life by remaining true to himself and his family.

And, finally, why do you think Gandhi is considered by many to be a moral hero?
I think Gandhi is considered to many a moral hero because he lived a life predicated on personal truth, which translated into universal truth. His steadfastness to what he believed has transcended time. His example when confronting adversity has influenced generations.


Do you think that Gandhi’s life can serve as an inspiration for us today? Apply Gandhi’s ethics to your individual life AND to the world at large.
Yes, do believe Gandhi’s life serves as an inspiration for us today. To this day, Gandhi has been one of my heroes. I recall watching the movie with Ben Kingsley when I was a child. I thought to myself, “this man must be Jesus.” Anytime you have an individual who walks with God, it will be evident. Gandhi was such a man. His example reminds me that my aspirations are possible, all I have to do is persevere and be strong in my convictions.

2. You were assigned to listen to Paul Kurtz’s audio lecture on religion and ethics. Specifically, he discusses ethics for the non-religious. Outline (in essay form) his lecture and main points in detail.
Paul Kurtz is a “public moralist.” He posits that in the United States, the populace thinks one needs God to guide ones life. He says that there is a difference between secular ethics and religious ethics. One is based on fairness and the other on righteousness. Although both draw from the same well of experience, the position of secular ethics is rooted in whom we are as human beings. Ethics is the natural basis of evolution. Kurtz continues that the human animal is cognitive, uses reason daily, experiences the world, and is constantly making moral choices. Man does so because humankind would not be able to exist without morality. The human animal learned to do good things for what it gets him. This is the beginning of the Golden Rule. In other words, man is caring, empathic, and altruistic because it is rooted in who we are. Man constantly makes sacrifices, although it is contrary to his self-interest. Man interacts in a world consisting of choices, decisions, obligations, and responsibilities. Kurtz claims the all human beings have a MQ, or moral quotient. He continues that all human beings are potentially moral beings and have the capacity to act decently with others and that the MQ helps man see what he wants to do and why he wants to do it. Kurtz’s continues that morality is natural because its roots are in our evolution as a species. During man’s evolution, individuals depended on the group to survive. As rules of life changed, those who understood the rules survived, whereas, those who did not understand the rule did not survive. This promoted the tendency for moral behavior. Morality started within the small group and extended to when the small group met other groups. Kurtz continues that the MQ develops as potentiality is realized. Kurtz claims that moral knowledge is discoverable. There are moral truths which are tested by experience. God’s irrelevancy has nothing to do with our morality. Our ability to live and work with others is proof that moral principles work. Kurtz claims that there are 3 stages of development: infantile (reactionary), authoritarian (obedient), and empathy via humanity. Kurtz continues that human beings are moral animals whether or not they are religious and there are moral standards in which humanity has come to live by and recognize. Kurtz espouses the ethics of the individual. This ultimately translates into common moral decencies which are transcultural. This has led to a moral revolution, which is the willingness to change moral principles in reaction to the new demands that are placed upon us. Kurtz posits the rule of ethical rationality which is to reduce suffering and sorrow and increase human good and happiness. This in turn promotes equal dignity and value to all human beings. Ultimately, man will work from the principle of good will. He will understand his obligation to himself and to others. Such actions demonstrate moral empathy.

What do you think about his ideas?
I recall growing up asking the “why” questions and never being fully satisfied with the “because it’s God’s will” answer. When I became a teenager I decided not to believe in the notion of God and turned my back on my religious upbringing. As I interacted with the world and asked questions of myself, I would continuously come to conclusions that had nothing to do with my upbringing. It was as if whatever I concluded was innate, as if it had always been there. Of course, these conclusions came easier once I eliminated the notion of God and original sin from my psyche. So in regards to Kurtz, I am inclined to agree with his ideas of morality. Again, I am secular and yet, I often find myself on the morality more often than those that I know to be religious and God fearing. Where I choose to live my morality, others choose to quote religious text as a justification for why they live they way they do.

3. Discuss the ethical contribution of Einstein as presented in the web link on the course website.
Einstein was noted to be amongst the “courageous individuals resisting authority to secure human rights.” He was a “dedicated pacifist” who went against his beliefs to oppose “an enemy who pursues the destruction of life as an end in itself,” and yet, later regretted his decision. He believed that answers “must come from another source.” Einstein relied more on his character than his intellect. He spoke out against “justice and human dignity.” He was not concerned “whether his views were popular or not,” and most often they were not popular since his views were considered “non-establishment views.” Einstein “advocated civil disobedience.” He wrote political manifestos against injustices. He either joined or engaged in activists engagements. He was loyal to his friends and colleagues. He thought not so much in the present as much in the future. “Einstein ridiculed all forms of strutting authority.” He preferred peace with the Arabs more than having a “Jewish state.” He lambasted the United States for its racist tendencies. Most importantly, he remembered his humanity and forgot everything else.

As you did with Gandhi, explain why do you think Einstein is considered by many to be a moral hero?
Einstein is considered a moral hero by many because he walked it like he talked it. That is a rarity in Western culture. He had an opinion on everything and was not afraid to share it. He noted his heroes and followed their lead when confronted with similar issues.

What do you most admire about him?
I admired the fact that he always seemed to be enjoying himself. And that smile, it was as if he knew something the rest of us didn’t.

Do you think that Einstein’s life can serve as an inspiration for us today? Apply Einstein’s ethics to you individual life AND to the world at large.
Yes, I think Einstein’s life can serve as an inspiration for us today. In fact, I think we need someone of Einstein’s stature to shed light on what is really important in life. To have someone speak out against the injustices and not worry about political backlash is unheard of. In that sense, I relate in that I am often lambasted for my views because they go against the grain and thought unattainable.

4. What is the “utilitarian argument for animal rights” (define) as presented by Singer? When discussing Singer outline his argument for animal rights drawing specifically from the assigned reading. (Hint: Speciesism)
Singer defines ethics as one that allows an individual to react to his reality from a moral standpoint in which said reaction least affects the other directly/indirectly. Said differently, Singer’s ethical viewpoint states that “the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being.” With Singer being a utilitarian, the best possible solution for all parties involved would entail that the solution satisfy “the most preferences, weighted on accordance with the strength of the preferences.”

In regards to animal rights and the movement against speciesism, Springer equates the movement against speciesism to that of any other movement of the oppressed, such as racism and sexism, except speciesism involves “experimenting on animals, and eating their flesh.” Springer’s ethical viewpoint places humans and animals on equal footing in regards to consideration, one which states that “we should not give their interests any less consideration that we give to the similar interests of members of our own species.” Springer thinks we should get rid of the idea that we are special because we were created by God because it is this line of thinking that positions us to elevate ourselves above animals. In other words, speciesism is the leftovers of religions and due of this acknowledgement, we should move to eliminate speciesism because such a move would end our treating a “whole class of beings as something to use” and put an end to the unnecessary pain and suffering of another species. Ultimately, if one is to accept Springer’s position on ethics and how it relates to animals, one would alter his lifestyle completely in that he would change every aspect of his human/animal relations to include “diet, our economy, and our relations with the natural environment.” Springer’s case against speciesism is predicated on the question, “Can they suffer?” rather than “Can they reason? nor, Can they talk?” Springer states that “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration” and from his ethical viewpoint of “the principle of equality,” an animal’s suffering is to be placed in proper consideration with that “of any other being.” Thereby, Springer is declaring the end of speciesism and the practice of vegetarianism as ethical acts.

Now compare Singer with Lane. What is Lane’s argument and how does it compare or differ from Singer’s?
In comparison to Singer’s argument against speciesism, David Lane’s argument for vegetarianism is similar. Like Singer, Lane’s argument is predicated on the on the question, do they feel pain and if so, how do they feel pain? His argument is such that if, as humans, we feel pain, this prevents us from eating other humans. In other words, “as humans we have no overriding tendency to eat other human beings, primarily, I would think, because we can empathize with their pain.” Also, he mentions that, as humans, we steer from eating certain animals because “they show higher brain functions.” Therefore, “we don’t eat humans because we know what it is like to be human. We don’t eat apes or dolphins because we ‘think’ or ‘feel’ that they are more akin to us via their intelligence.” In other words, it isn’t “necessary to eat things with a central nervous system.” Lane continues that in eating certain animals, “we are not being genuinely honest to our own sense of pain and the like when we simply ignore the evolutionary complexity which underlies animals…and say that we can eat anything since it is morally acceptable.” Lane, thereby, concludes that that when choice presents itself, “vegetarianism becomes a moral issue” and, in regards to the food we eat, “we most certainly have a choice.”

5. How does Peter Singer view abortion? Describe his reasoning process. Make sure to incorporate specifics from the audio-lecture he offers on the topic.
Singer thinks that it is a woman's right to choose whether or not she carries a child. He says "to force anyone to endure an avoidable hardship of that kind is contrary to our general belief in promoting individual choice and freedom." Singer thinks that as long as an abortion is carried out within the first "20 weeks of gestation," no murder is committed. Any time after 20 weeks of gestation, “the fetus first becomes a being of moral significance.” Said differently, Singer does not deny that the early embryo is human or alive. Singer claims that just because an embryo is human should not be the determiner as to whether or not it is wrong to kill it. What determines whether or not it is wrong to kill an embryo are the capacities, characteristics of the embryo. Can it feel pain? Is it self-aware? In essence, what he is denying is whether or not it can be considered a person in that it experiences pain and suffering and is aware of its own existence. Singer claims that since an early embryo does not have a central nervous system, it is unable to experience such capacities and is not developed enough to conceptualize awareness. Therefore, killing an early embryo is no more different or, said differently, is the equivalent to killing "the animals that we routinely kill and eat for dinner." Singer continues that until a being is sentient, until it can feel pain and suffering and is aware of its own existence, we have no moral duties to that life. Singer does grant that because the human life is on a continuum of development, there are points in that development that make killing a serious matter, but in regards to the early embryo, such a point does not exist.

More importantly, do you agree with his position?
I am pro-choice and pro-life. I am pro-choice in that I think I have the right to choose, irregardless of circumstance. Once choice is removed in any instance, then my right to choose becomes limited and determined for me. I am pro-life in that there are other instances of life other than the early embryo. I do not believe in capital punishment. Any such act is nothing more than state sanctioned murder. I do my best to not kill bugs and insects because it is the taking of a life. I try to help those less fortunate than I as much as I can because not to do so is to forsake another life. As far as abortion is concerned, I am pro-abortion. In no way do I think murder is being committed. All I see are cells. Although they may be human cells and, therefore, regarded as human life, those cells are not a person. They are not someone I am having dinner with, someone I am sharing a life with. Unless the human life is in front of me, living and breathing and occupying space, only then can I consider it to be a human of personhood in which killing it would be regarded as murder.

6. How does Peter Singer view euthanasia? Describe his reasoning process. Make sure to include specific material from the audio –lecture he gives on the topic.
As defined by www.dictionary.com, euthanasia is "Also called mercy killing. The act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition," or, as Singer adds, that it is also "used to refer to the killing of those who are incurably ill and in great pain or distress, for the sake of those killed, and in order to spare them further suffering or distress." According to Singer, the whole of euthanasia is whether one values human life. If so, then valuing human life would entail the right to decide for oneself whether life is worth living. This includes during times of extreme circumstances such a one being terminally ill or having cancer or aids. Singer adds that while one does have the right to choose for oneself whether or not they want to live, one must make that decision when one is able to think competently and calmly. Nonetheless, it is up to the individual to put value on his own life because only he can make that determination. Singer claims that this discussion is achievable because secularism has freed man from God and, in turn, has replaced God’s will to human will in regards to how one’s life shall end. Thus, concluding that with no God, there is no such thing as the sanctity of life, since that is purely a religious notion. Singer concludes that not all life has quality or value and that quality of life is far more important than quantity of life.

Singer claims that there are three types of euthanasia: "voluntary euthanasia," "involuntary euthanasia," and "non-voluntary euthanasia." First, "voluntary euthanasia" is the one form of euthanasia that is carried out at behest of the patient. Sometimes it is referred to as "assisted suicide." The request for "voluntary euthanasia" can also be "voluntary even if a person is unable…to indicate the wish to die." That is, if the person is unable to consent to euthanasia due to being incapacitated by illness or accident or is unfit mentally, at the moment assistance is needed most, a written request, written prior to said affliction while said person was of sound mind, can and will be honored. In cases such as these, Springer points out that "euthanasia involves the killing of a person, a rational and self-conscious being" and this is a much more serious matter than any other form of euthanasia because "they can know that they exist over time and will, unless they die, continue to exist" but "when the foreseeable continued existence is dreaded rather than desired however, the desire to die may take the place of the normal desire to live, reversing the reasons against killing based on the desire to live." Next, "non-voluntary euthanasia" is defined as "If a human being is not capable of under-standing the choice between life and death" and "when the subject is now but once was capable of making the crucial choice, and did not then express any preference relevant to her present condition." This would usually "include incurably ill or severely disable infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved, without having previously requested or rejected euthanasia in these circumstances." In cases such as these, Springer equates the recipient of "non-voluntary euthanasia" to that of "disabled infants," in that, although conscious, "they are not self-conscious, rational, or autonomous." Therefore, any claims that are made on their behalf for the "right to life or autonomy" are not warranted. In short, up until the point that "non-voluntary euthanasia" is considered, "their lives have no intrinsic value," insomuch that they have not been living a life to begin with. In this instance, "death is a benefit for the one killed." Finally, "involuntary euthanasia" is "involuntary when the person killed is capable of consenting to her own death, but does not do so, either because she is not asked, or because she is asked and chooses to go on living." Springer points out that there is a "difference between killing someone who chooses to go on living and killing some-one who has not consented to being killed, but if asked, would have consented." This would entail killing someone for their own sake in that they were killed only "to prevent unbearable suffering on the part of the person killed." “Involuntary euthanasia” is "very rare." In cases such as these, Springer points out that "euthanasia is only justifiable if those killed either…lack the ability to consent to death" or "have the capacity to choose between their own continued life and death and to make an informed, voluntary, and settled decision to die." Of the three types of euthanasia, only two can be argued as justifiable, voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. “Involuntary euthanasia” is the only type of euthanasia that cannot be argued because it involves making a decision on behalf of another person on the quality of that person’s life.

What remains is how euthanasia is carried out. Euthanasia is carried out either actively or passively, “killing or allowing to die.” When done so actively, it is usually physician assisted in that the physician can pull the plug on a patient who is living by means of a machine or administer a lethal dose of medication to a patient who is in extreme pain. If done so passively, it usually manifests itself by means of not administering necessary medication to a patient who needs said medicine combat infections or not performing a life saving surgery.

Do you agree?
I am not sure where I stand on this position. I know that if I had a choice, I would choose active euthanasia, but in regards to others, I am not so sure. My dilemma stems from my working with the extremely disabled. I understand Springer’s position on the quality of life because I see that not all life has quality on a daily basis. Yet, I wouldn’t think that I am capable of ending such a life. Maybe if it were my child, then yes, I would agree with Singer. But to make such a claim for others is beyond my scope of understanding. I, too, am secular but I’m also aware that others are not, and for that reason alone, I am inclined to respect their viewpoint on the situation at hand because it is theirs to have.

7. Outline the article on Cloning, discussing what it is, how it works, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the ethical (and political and religious) issues involved.

The Process
Cloning became an issue that the world would have to debate with the introduction of “Dolly,’ the first fully grown mammal to be cloned.” “Dolly” became the agent in which human cloning would be thought possible. “Her birth shocked the scientific community and spurred discussion about the possibility of human clones.” On one side of the debate scientists were excited about the possibility of cloning humans. They are optimistic about cloning because human cloning “would enable doctors to determine the cause of spontaneous abortions, give oncologists an understanding of the rapid cell growth of cancer, allow the use of stem cells to regenerate tissues, and advance work on aging, genetics, and medicines.” On the other side of the debate scientists were adamant against the possibility of cloning. They are fearful about human cloning because it “would result in a high number of miscarriages and deaths among newborns” and a successful human clone “could change family dynamics in profound and unpredictable ways.” Also, scientists were worried that there would be “a black market for embryos” and “infertile couples” would turn to these black markets for help.

“Dolly” was cloned using “the cloning technique somatic cell nuclear transfer.” This would be the technique used if scientists were to clone a human. The technique would entail that “a cell is taken from a donor woman” and “an unfertilized egg is taken from a second woman.” Next, scientists would then remove the “DNA from the cell” of the donor woman and transfer it to the egg to the second woman. Then “the egg is implanted into a surrogate mother.” Finally, the surrogate mother would give birth to a baby that “is genetically identical to the original donor.” The clone would actually be “a time-delayed identical twin” of the original donor that is much younger than the original donor. General concerns about such a procedure are that if “it took more than 227 attempts before ‘Dolly’ was created as a health viable lamb,” the fear is that it would take much more attempts to clone a human.

The Religious Debate
Roman Catholic:
The Church believes that all of humankind was created in the image of God and that humanity was given dominion over the world by God. Human cloning is contrary to the “creation story,” thereby, making human cloning “intrinsically evil’ and could never be justified.” The Church believes that human cloning violates the “sanctity of life.” They view human cloning as “immoral means” to unjustifiable “just ends.”
Judaism:
Due to the genetic predisposition Jews have towards Tay Sachs, Judaism thinks “cloning humans could conceivably be justified in some circumstances, however few they may be.” Although Judaism “emphasizes that man is in partnership with God,” they “do not believe that potential violations of human dignity are reason enough to prohibit human cloning.” To the Jews, there are more pros than cons in human cloning. Their main concern is that cloning “might harm the family by changing the roles and relationships between family members.”
Protestantism:
Protestants view themselves as “co-creators who have a responsibility to ‘participate with God in shaping a better future,” therefore, “man should not allow human cloning because it violates God’s intentions by allow man to reproduce with a sexual partner.
Islam:
Islam is split into two camps, those who think human cloning should be allowed because “there should be ‘no limits on research because knowledge is bestowed on us by God” and those who think human cloning should not be allowed because it “could affect kinship, which is the key concept of Islamic law.” This would, in turn, create “children who lack either a mother or a father. This would be inimical to Islamic society.”

The Ethical Debate
“Possibility of Physical Harm to the Embryo”:
Those opposed to human cloning say that the technology currently available is not considered to be safe for human cloning. Those for human cloning say that with a considerable amount of experimentation on mammals, room for error can be reduced to the equivalency of “miscarriage or infant death.”
“Possible Psychological Harms to the Child”:
Those opposed to human cloning say that a cloned human child would “suffer from a diminished sense of individuality and personal autonomy” and be fearful of his future because of “the life path of their gene donor.” Those for human cloning say that the cloned human child will benefit from knowing their strengths and weaknesses.
“Possible Degradation of the Quality of Parenting and Family Life”:
Those opposed to human cloning say that “cloning encourages parents to value their children according to how well they meet expectations instead of loving them for their own sake.” Those for human cloning say that cloning will benefit infertile couples who are unable to have children naturally and that said children will be “loved unconditionally” by their parents.
“Possible Objectification of Children”:
Those opposed to human cloning say that make children objects of possession rather than a gift from God. Those for human cloning say that the law would prevent any such action.
“Possible Social Harms”:
Those opposed to human cloning say that this will be the beginning of designer babies. Those for human cloning say that the “potential benefits to society of cloning people such as scientists and intellectuals would outweigh potential harms.”
“The Use of Scarce Resources”:
Those opposed to human cloning say that the cells of humans are to be considered “scarce resources.” Those for human cloning say that the “research into cloning might provide medical insight that could benefit larger society.”

Next, discuss the 25 minute video on this topic.
The Bush Administration opted to ban cloning because in seeking “to improve human life, we must always preserve human dignity.” President Bush’s rationale was one that believed that scientist wanted to perform reproductive cloning. His intentions were to stop cloning even before it started. More than anything, President Bush was motivated by his religious beliefs in that he believed life to be a creation, not a commodity. He continued by stating that children are gifts, not products which can be designed or manufactured. He concluded that cloning would open the doors for spare body parts and designer babies.

The scientific community wants therapeutic cloning to be available for research, not reproductive cloning. The cloning intended has nothing to do with making a new human being. What is intended is a deeper understanding of the maladies the afflict humankind. The clone process that is pursued is that of nuclear transplant, where you have a nucleus transferred into a new vehicle and it redesigns the program. In other words, the nucleus is made to perform other functions in which it was originally intended. There is nothing unethical about this kind of procedure. It has nothing to do with the commoditization of the human species. There is no patenting of humans. There is no harvesting of women for their eggs. All the scientific community wants is to perform research on a cluster of cells.

Having been well informed about cloning now, what is your ethical position here?
I do not have an issue with cloning. First of all, I was not appalled by “Dolly.” On the contrary, I was amazed at how far man and science has come. Secondly, I tend to agree with the scientific community in that was the research is being conducted on does not constitute a person or human being. All it is is a clump of cells that are of human origin. I am not concerned with potentiality; I am concerned with what is. Finally, if such research can produce more good for humanity’s sake, then I agree with it on all counts.

8. Do the same for STEM CELL RESEARCH. Utilizing the online article and video, discuss what it is, how it works, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the ethical (and political and religious) issues involved.
“Stem cells are found in most, if not all, multicellular organisms.” They have the capacity for regeneration and potency. There are two types of stem cells common to mammals, “embryonic stem cells that are isolated from the inner cell mass of blastocysts, and adult stem cells that are found in adult tissues.” Embryonic stem cells research is the preferable method because they go to the very essence of us as beings. “They can develop into each of the more than 200 cell types of the adult body when given sufficient and necessary stimulation for a specific cell type.” This specialized research is important because the possibilities are “potentially huge.” “Stem cells can now be grown and transformed into specialized cells with characteristics consistent with cells of various tissues such as muscles or nerves through cell culture.” In regards to potency, there are four types of potency. The first is “totipotent,” which is when “stem cells can differentiate into embryonic and extraembryonic cell types.” Such that the “cells can construct a complete, viable, organism.” Second is “pluripotent,” which are the “descendants of totipotent cells and can differentiate into nearly all cells.” Third is “multipotent,” which is when “stem cells can differentiate into a number of cells.” Finally, there is “unipotent,” which is when “cells can produce only one cell type, their own, but have the property of self-renewal which distinguishes them from non-stem cells.”

Make sure to discuss the 29 minute video in your essay.
Sen. Orin Hatch thinks pro-life is more than caring for the unborn; it is also about caring for the living. He thinks that research on embryonic stem cells may lead to treatments and cures for the diseased and may be the financial savior of the health care system. He cited that there is over 70% support in favor of embryonic stem cell research. He agrees with the scientific community in that embryonic stem cell research may provide answers to human health problems. Sen. Hatch claims that if embryonic stem cell research is legalized, NIH will set the moral and ethical standards. Sen. Hatch takes issue with President Bush allowing 7000 of 20,000 embryos live embryos going to hospital waste rather than research and is rather open about religious opinions influencing political decisions. He admits that the very pro-life sections of America are offended by the research methods. Sen. Hatch claims that adult stem cells have limitations and there is nothing wrong with wanting to help the living

Dr. George Daly thinks embryonic stem cell research is incredibly important. He says this form of research is one the fundamentally enabling tools of research. It allows scientists to organize biology. He continues that although adult stem cells are important, they can’t do what embryonic stem cells do. Adult stem cells allow scientists to think of maintenance and tissue repair, but embryonic stem cells go deeper, they go to the very essence of us as beings. Embryonic stem cells create all the tissues of the organism. Dr. Daly thinks embryonic stem cell research needs to be federally funded.

David Carmel, President of Stemcyte, thinks embryonic stem cell research can help spinal cord injuries, diabetes, and cancer. He believes that there is a sense of urgency when it comes to embryonic stem cell research.

Eric Cohen agrees that all parties involved in wanting to see cures for disease, he understands that we all are potential patients, he know that all of us has seen a family member suffer, and he acknowledges that we all want to see science help the living. Where he disagrees is with the process. He doesn’t think it is necessary to be destroying embryos, which he considers nascent human lives, in order to further scientific inquiry. He argues that we were all a lump of cells in our existence and should not be interfering with life in the process. He points out that there is science available that allows for the same benefits of embryonic stem cell research except you no longer have the need for the embryo.

Having been well informed about stem cell research, what is your ethical position here?
I do not have a problem with embryonic stem cell research. I am, in no way, torn between clumps of cells being human. It is not. I think anything that benefits humanity as a whole in not wrong. As Sen. Hatch stated, I am concerned for the living. Although, it is only speculative as to the true benefits of embryonic stem cell research, I am inclined to proceed further in the research to embrace a conclusive answer as to whether or not it is truly beneficial.

9. Out of everything you studied this term, from the ten ethical theorists, to the moral case topics, to the life of Gandhi and Einstein, to evolutionary psychology, what or who had the most impact on your thinking and may have actually impacted your life in some way? Explain in detail…apply to you life and world.

Peter Singer is the one thinker that has had the greatest impact on me. Not since I’ve read No Ordinary Moments by Dan Millman have I felt so compelled to act. Singer’s arguments force me to view issues from all angles, including those which I would think abhorrent Yet, his arguments make complete sense. After reading his take on poverty, I could not help but think that I was not doing enough. I felt silly for expecting my boyfriend to buy me such expensive gifts. Here I was, wanting a $400 purse when I could be sending that $400 to an organization to help someone survive overseas. I could not help but feel so selfish. I’ve also been forced to reconsider my view on vegetarianism. For the last ten years I have flirted with the idea of vegetarianism but now I have to seriously consider it. As for his view on abortion, cloning, and stem cell research, I was more inclined to agree with him since I am liberally inclined.

Post #12: Evolutionary Ethics

Using the first article, explain what is evolutionary psychology and how does it apply to the field of ethics?
Evolutionary ethics is the argument that “natural selection has instilled human beings with a moral sense, a disposition to be good.” That is to say that humankind’s morality is not a product of God or reason. If anything at all, our morality is the byproduct of evolution and human beings ability to adapt.

Charles Darwin posited that man and apes have common ancestry. Because of this, Darwin argued that man’s morality “lies in the social instincts.” According to Darwin, man’s propensity to be a social creature harkens back to the earliest days of our “evolutionary history,” stemming from birds. This sociability helped “distinguish between ‘them’ and ‘us’ and aim aggression towards individuals that did not belong to one’s group.” Also, man became reflective, in turn, surmised the golden rule. Darwin’s position was that of “hedonistic utilitarianism” in that he accepted the “greatest-happiness principle as a standard of right and wrong.”

Herbert Spencer posited that man should gain pleasure by avoiding pain. In doing so, man is gratifying his impulses. Therefore, if all man acted to satisfy his impulses, man will be forced to cooperate with other human beings if he wants to continue feeling this way and at the same time, meet others like him. This helps man become cooperative and altruistic. Thus, those who were able to prolong satisfaction moved on in life and those who could not or did not, fell by the wayside. Spencer’s position was that of “hedonistic utilitarianism.”

Next, explain in depth the thesis of the second article and the support offered for it.
Philosopher/Neuroscience Joshua Greene uses an MRI to scan and measure how we come to making our moral judgments. Greene has concluded that “the crux of the matter…lay not in the logic of moral judgments but in the role our emotions play in forming them.” He thinks that “evolutionary origins of morality are easy to imagine in a social species.” In turn, human beings are special in that only “humans turn out to have special neural networks that give them what many cognitive neuroscientists call ‘social intelligence.” The entire study pointed out that their “personal moral decisions tended to simulate certain parts of the brain more than impersonal moral decisions.”

Finally, offer your response to what you read.
I’ve always considered the biography of God, in that, as man evolved, so did God. As man was barely learning to walk on two feet and use tools he depended on the Gods but as he learned to rationalize, he depended on God. The same can be said of ethics. As man evolved, so did his ethical viewpoints.

Post #11: Cloning

Discuss the science of cloning, its uses, and the ethical and religious considerations of it as presented in the articles assigned.

The Process
Cloning became an issue that the world would have to debate with the introduction of “Dolly,’ the first fully grown mammal to be cloned.” “Dolly” became the agent in which human cloning would be thought possible. “Her birth shocked the scientific community and spurred discussion about the possibility of human clones.” On one side of the debate scientists were excited about the possibility of cloning humans. They are optimistic about cloning because human cloning “would enable doctors to determine the cause of spontaneous abortions, give oncologists an understanding of the rapid cell growth of cancer, allow the use of stem cells to regenerate tissues, and advance work on aging, genetics, and medicines.” On the other side of the debate scientists were adamant against the possibility of cloning. They are fearful about human cloning because it “would result in a high number of miscarriages and deaths among newborns” and a successful human clone “could change family dynamics in profound and unpredictable ways.” Also, scientists were worried that there would be “a black market for embryos” and “infertile couples” would turn to these black markets for help.

“Dolly” was cloned using “the cloning technique somatic cell nuclear transfer.” This would be the technique used if scientists were to clone a human. The technique would entail that “a cell is taken from a donor woman” and “an unfertilized egg is taken from a second woman.” Next, scientists would then remove the “DNA from the cell” of the donor woman and transfer it to the egg to the second woman. Then “the egg is implanted into a surrogate mother.” Finally, the surrogate mother would give birth to a baby that “is genetically identical to the original donor.” The clone would actually be “a time-delayed identical twin” of the original donor that is much younger than the original donor. General concerns about such a procedure are that if “it took more than 227 attempts before ‘Dolly’ was created as a health viable lamb,” the fear is that it would take much more attempts to clone a human.

The Religious Debate
Roman Catholic: The Church believes that all of humankind was created in the image of God and that humanity was given dominion over the world by God. Human cloning is contrary to the “creation story,” thereby, making human cloning “intrinsically evil’ and could never be justified.” The Church believes that human cloning violates the “sanctity of life.” They view human cloning as “immoral means” to unjustifiable “just ends.”

Judaism:
Due to the genetic predisposition Jews have towards Tay Sachs, Judaism thinks “cloning humans could conceivably be justified in some circumstances, however few they may be.” Although Judaism “emphasizes that man is in partnership with God,” they “do not believe that potential violations of human dignity are reason enough to prohibit human cloning.” To the Jews, there are more pros than cons in human cloning. Their main concern is that cloning “might harm the family by changing the roles and relationships between family members.”

Protestantism: Protestants view themselves as “co-creators who have a responsibility to ‘participate with God in shaping a better future,” therefore, “man should not allow human cloning because it violates God’s intentions by allow man to reproduce with a sexual partner.

Islam: Islam is split into two camps, those who think human cloning should be allowed because “there should be ‘no limits on research because knowledge is bestowed on us by God” and those who think human cloning should not be allowed because it “could affect kinship, which is the key concept of Islamic law.” This would, in turn, create “children who lack either a mother or a father. This would be inimical to Islamic society.”

The Ethical Debate
“Possibility of Physical Harm to the Embryo”: Those opposed to human cloning say that the technology currently available is not considered to be safe for human cloning. Those for human cloning say that with a considerable amount of experimentation on mammals, room for error can be reduced to the equivalency of “miscarriage or infant death.”

“Possible Psychological Harms to the Child”: Those opposed to human cloning say that a cloned human child would “suffer from a diminished sense of individuality and personal autonomy” and be fearful of his future because of “the life path of their gene donor.” Those for human cloning say that the cloned human child will benefit from knowing their strengths and weaknesses.

“Possible Degradation of the Quality of Parenting and Family Life”: Those opposed to human cloning say that “cloning encourages parents to value their children according to how well they meet expectations instead of loving them for their own sake.” Those for human cloning say that cloning will benefit infertile couples who are unable to have children naturally and that said children will be “loved unconditionally” by their parents.

“Possible Objectification of Children”: Those opposed to human cloning say that make children objects of possession rather than a gift from God. Those for human cloning say that the law would prevent any such action.

“Possible Social Harms”: Those opposed to human cloning say that this will be the beginning of designer babies. Those for human cloning say that the “potential benefits to society of cloning people such as scientists and intellectuals would outweigh potential harms.”

“The Use of Scarce Resources”: Those opposed to human cloning say that the cells of humans are to be considered “scarce resources.” Those for human cloning say that the “research into cloning might provide medical insight that could benefit larger society.”

Field Trip to Museum of Tolerance

The Simon Wiesenthal’s Museum of Tolerance opened in Los Angeles in 1993. It is the only museum of its kind in the world and is “dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust and to fostering tolerance through educational outreach, community involvement and social action.” “In December 2004, the Museum won the Global Peace and Tolerance Award.”

I visited MOT on Easter Sunday 2009; my reservation was for 12:30pm. I visited MOT with my boyfriend, Miko, and Billy, the teenage boy he works with every weekend. This was our first visit to MOT. We left MOT at 2:30pm.

When we arrived, we were escorted to the bottom floor by Lidia. Once on the bottom floor, we passed an iron sculpture of an upside-down crucifixion on the Star of David. Lidia explained to the group what each floor contained and what we should expect. She then directed the group towards the multimedia room, Tolerance Center, with dealt with issues of our contemporary world. In this room there were nine screens stacked on top of one another, with the image of a man speaking to us, the audience, but using many stereotypes of various cultures while talking to us. We were then informed to turn around. Behind us stood two doors, one labeled “prejudice” and the other “unprejudiced.” Lidia then asked if we understood the definition of “prejudice.” I answered, “To prejudge.” She then notified us that the doors of “unprejudiced” was locked and are always locked. She then asked if we knew why they were always locked. I answered, “Because we all have prejudice or have been guilty of prejudice at some point in our life.” She then opened the “prejudice” doors. Inside there was a wall with “The Power of Words” written on it and a screen showing examples of the power of words in our life. The examples were speeches from John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King to speeches from KKK sympathizers and leaders of terrorist groups. The message was powerful in that through the power of words one can instill hope or espouse hate. Next, there was a wall that had “Confronting Hate in America” written on it. This wall had eight screens titled, “Digital Terrorism and Hate over the Internet,” that displayed websites that one can find on the internet. Behind this was the Point of View Diner. On the wall of the diner was a menu, on the menu was think; assume responsibility; ask questions; speak up; lead, don’t follow; your opinion counts. Inside the diner were three screens playing a video, the video centered around a radio talk show host, Billy Bostic, who spread his brand of intolerance over the radio. In the video, listeners of Bostic would engage in confrontation with their wives, friends, and strangers over his brand of free speech. The video ended with the death of woman by the hands of a Bostic listener and a security guard of a restaurant. The issue at hand was the right to say things vs. the responsibility to say them. Outside of the diner were fifteen screens which took up an entire hallway. Each screen rotated in an up and down fashion to display various events which may have happened during that screens particular time period. What, ultimately, was chronicled was American history from the time of 1465 to present time. On the adjacent wall in the center of the hallway were numerous smaller screens making up one large screen chronicling the Civil Rights Movement. At the end of the hallway, we were able to watch a short video titled, “In Our Time.” The videos focus was on the history of genocide.

From there we entered the Holocaust Center, which chronicled Germany following WWI in 1920 to the rise of the Nazi Party to the liberation of Holocaust Survivors in1945. Upon entering the Holocaust Center, my boyfriend and I were given passports of children from the Holocaust. My child was a young boy named Jean-Claude Benguigui from Algeria. I was given three opportunities to learn about Jean-Claude and his family. On my last opportunity I was given a print out that informed me of Jean-Claude’s fate. Unfortunately, “Jean-Claude was one of the 1.5 million Jewish children murdered by the Germans and their collaborators during the Holocaust.” At the start of the Holocaust Center, we watched a short video titled, “The Jewish World That Was.”

On the second floor of MOT, I sat in briefly on a lecture given by Dr. Henry Oster, a Holocaust Survivor, because I arrived at the end of it. I did get to look at paintings by students depicting African-American Literature. There were also drawings on display by the children of Darfur depicting the atrocities they witness on a daily basis. Also on display were letters by Anne Frank and her sister, Margot. These were letters written to American pen-pals.

My visit impacted me greatly. This visit, coupled with Springer’s readings, left me feeling that I am not doing enough to make the world a better place. There were several instances in which I was moved to tears. The movie, “In Our Time,” reminded me that hatred is alive and well in this day and age. But it did lead me to question, if the Holocaust is suppose to be a reminder that genocide is a cruel act against humanity, where was Israel, as a nation, during the conflicts in the Balkans and were are they now during the crisis in Darfur? As for my walk through, the Holocaust Center, I was much to caught up with the exhibit to even keep notes. I kept asking myself, How could anyone allow themselves to be caught up in such a frenzy of hate? How could one rationalize these atrocities happening to any human being? Needless to say, I walked away speechless as every part of the exhibit was set up so that one can imagine themselves in the very same position.

Post #10: Springer Pt.2

What is Singer’s stance on abortion, euthanasia, and the issue of poverty?

Abortion
In regards to abortion, Singer thinks that it is a woman’s right to choose whether or not she carries a child. He says “to force anyone to endure an avoidable hardship of that kind is contrary to our general belief in promoting individual choice and freedom.” Singer thinks that as long as an abortion is carried out within the firs “20 weeks of gestation,” no murder is committed. Although he does not deny that an embryo is human and alive, he does deny whether or not it can be considered a person in that it experiences pain and suffering and is aware of its existence. Therefore, killing a fetus that is less than 20 weeks developed is no more different and/or the equivalent to killing “the animals that we routinely kill and eat for dinner.” It isn’t until after the 20th week that “the fetus first becomes a being of moral significance when it develops the capacity to feel pain.”

Poverty
Singer’s position on poverty is considered unethical because it tends to go against traditional morality. For starters, he thinks the issue of poverty to be an issue of pro-life and that pro-life advocates should stop focusing on the viability of the fetus and starting focusing on the lives that already exist here on Earth and are in need of genuine help. His position, ultimately, is considered too demanding for most.

In the article, Singer focuses on America’s role in the fight against poverty. He points out that Americans spend a third of their income on things that can be considered unnecessary. To illustrate his point, he comments on how money spent on unnecessary things is money that “could mean the difference between life and death for children in need.” Springer thinks it to be unconscionable that Americans spend so frivolously. Springer suggests that Americans can afford the paltry $200 he thinks anyone and everyone should donate but goes further by suggesting that Americans need no more than $30,000 to live and anything more than that should be donated.

Euthanasia
As defined by www.dictionary.com, euthanasia is “Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition,” or as Singer adds that it is also “used to refer to the killing of those who are incurably ill and in great pain or distress, for the sake of those killed, and in order to spare them further suffering or distress.” Singer points out that there are three types of euthanasia: “voluntary euthanasia,” “involuntary euthanasia,” and “non-voluntary euthanasia.”

“Voluntary euthanasia” is the one form of euthanasia that is carried out at behest of the patient. Sometimes it is referred to as “assisted suicide.” The request for “voluntary euthanasia” can also be “voluntary even if a person is unable…to indicate the wish to die.” That is, if the person is unable to consent to euthanasia due to being incapacitated by illness or accident or is unfit mentally, at the moment assistance is needed most, a written request, written prior to said affliction while said person was of sound mind, can and will be honored. In cases such as these, Springer points out that “euthanasia involves the killing of a person, a rational and self-conscious being” and this is a much more serious matter than any other form of euthanasia because “they can know that they exist over time and will, unless they die, continue to exist” but “when the foreseeable continued existence is dreaded rather than desired however, the desire to die may take the place of the normal desire to live, reversing the reasons against killing based on the desire to live.”

“Involuntary euthanasia” is “involuntary when the person killed is capable of consenting to her own death, but does not do so, either because she is not asked, or because she is asked and chooses to go on living.” Springer points out that there is a “difference between killing someone who chooses to go on living and killing someone who has not consented to being killed, but if asked, would have consented.” This would entail killing someone for their own sake in that they were killed only “to prevent unbearable suffering on the part of the person killed.” This form of euthanasia is “very rare.” In cases such as these, Springer points out that “euthanasia is only justifiable if those killed either…lack the ability to consent to death” or “have the capacity to choose between their own continued life or death and to make an informed, voluntary, and settled decision to die.”

“Non-voluntary euthanasia” is defined as “If a human being is not capable of understanding the choice between life and death” and “ when the subject is now but once was capable of making the crucial choice, and did not then express any preference relevant to her present condition.” This would usually “include incurably ill or severely disable infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved, without having previously requested or rejected euthanasia in these circumstances.” In cases such as these, Springer equates the recipient of “non-voluntary euthanasia” to that of “disabled infants,” in that, although conscious, “they are not self-conscious, rational, or autonomous.” Therefore, any claims that are made on their behalf for the “right to life or autonomy” are not warranted. In short, up until the point that “non-voluntary euthanasia” is considered, “their lives have no intrinsic value,” insomuch that they have not been living a life to begin with. In this instance, “death is a benefit for the one killed.”

Post #9: Springer

How does Singer define ethics and how does he apply this definition to the area of animal rights? Make sure to discuss key ideas such as utilitarianism, speciesism, etc. Articulate his main points.

Singer defines ethics as one that allows an individual to react to his reality from a moral standpoint in which said reaction least affects the other directly/indirectly. Said differently, Singer’s ethical viewpoint states that “the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being.” With Singer being a utilitarian, the best possible solution for all parties involved would entail that the solution satisfy “the most preferences, weighted on accordance with the strength of the preferences.”

In regards to animal rights and the movement against speciesism, Springer equates the movement to that of any other movement of the oppressed, such as racism and sexism. Springer’s ethical viewpoint would place humans and animals on equal footing in regards to consideration, one which states that “we should not give their interests any less consideration that we give to the similar interests of members of our own species.” In other words, we should move to eliminate speciesism because such a move would end our treating a “whole class of beings as something to use” and put an end to the unnecessary pain and suffering of another species. Ultimately, if one is to accept Springer’s position on ethics and how it relates to animals, one would alter his lifestyle completely in that he would change every aspect of his human/animal relations to include “diet, our economy, and our relations with the natural environment.”

Post #8: Seven Religions

Briefly outline the ethics of the above seven religions.

Taoism
Taoism is a philosophical thought originating to an ancient Chinese philosopher by the name of Lao Tzu. Lao Tzu believed that all of humankind was genuinely good. Taoism’s values are that it is reflective in nature and thus self-empowering for the practitioner. In regards to Philosophical Taoism, its main philosophical ideas pertain to matters of knowledge. Philosophical Taoism believes knowledge is power. They believe that when one has knowledge or wisdom, one will be better prepared to live a conservative life. A life that is not rife with drama or conflict. No drama in one’s personal life and no conflict with one’s reality. Philosophical Taoism prescribes wu wei as the way to live one’s life. This, in essence, is to live peacefully.

Taoism focuses more on the “becoming” than the “doing.” It espouses “harmony with all things and people.” If action is required and one is forced to disturb the “natural order of things,” one should “do what is required by the events and their context,” but never go beyond the call of duty. The reason for such a limited display of impulsivity “is that such intervention is destructive to all involved.” In other words, Taoist refrain from acting on impulse, irregardless of intent, because the consequences have an impact on our reality beyond our knowledge. That is why Taoist “wait for events to make action necessary.” In general, Taoism does not approve of “killing, stealing, lying and promiscuity, and promotes altruistic, helpful and kindly behaviour.” In all, Taoism promotes a better world by bettering you.

Buddhism
Buddha taught that the way to enlightenment first starts with knowing The Four Noble Truths. First there is dukkha. Dukkha is the belief that suffering is the cause of all life’s troubles. The cause of suffering is our need for attachment, an attachment to life, health, youth, love, and material possessions. Next, there is tanha. Tanha is the seeking of pleasure for one’s own self. Simply stated, Tanha is selfishness. Tanha is, therefore, responsible for dukkha because it is our selfishness that causes our suffering. The third Noble Truth posits that once we understand our role in our suffering, i.e. selfishness, we will be relieved of the suffering our selfishness creates. Finally, the Fourth Noble Truth is The Eightfold Path. Buddhism prescribes The Eightfold Path as Noble Truth Four as a guide to end suffering. The Eightfold Path begins with right knowledge. This step begins where The Four Noble Truths end. Right knowledge is the fourth noble truth. Next is right aspiration. Right aspiration is simply what we truly want from this life. It’s a decision that needs to be made by the one seeking enlightenment as to whether or not they want to pursue this for all the right reasons. Then there is right speech. Simply, be mindful of your words. Be careful of the things you say because they may come true. Once conscious of our words, then concentrate on speaking truthfully. Next is right behavior. Right behavior is also known as the Five Precepts of Buddhism. The Five Precepts are do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not be unchaste, and do not partake in drugs and alcohol. In Buddhism, the aforementioned are the equivalent to the Ten Commandments. Next, is right livelihood. Right livelihood is either being a monk or finding work that contributes to all of society. Next is right effort. Right effort is exactly what is implies, doing what is morally right. Then there is right mindfulness. Right mindfulness is to be aware of one’s thoughts and one’s actions, to understand that our emotions and moods are not real and have no real baring on our reality. Right mindfulness implies that one is in tune with all there is, starting with one’s own self and how that self interacts with its reality. Finally, there is right absorption. Right absorption is how one contemplates on the aforementioned on a daily basis. It is the reminder as to why one has chosen to travel down this path.

Abortion: Buddhists are divided on the issue of abortion. Traditional thinking “rejects abortion because it involves destroying a life” and interferes with the karma of the unborn fetus by depriving the fetus “of the opportunities than earthly existence would have been given to earn good karma.” Although Buddhists unconditionally agree that life begins at the moment of conception, modern Buddhists remain divided on the issue.

For an act such as abortion to be considered an act of murder, Buddha afforded that there be five conditions: “the thing killed must be a living being; you, the killer, must know or be aware that it is a living being; you must have the intention to kill it; there must be an effort to kill; the being must be killed as the result.” If all of Buddha’s conditions are present during the act of abortion, then a violation of Right Behavior, or “First Precept of Buddhism,” has occurred.

Animals: Buddhists try to always exhibit little to no harm towards animals, act in “loving-kindness,” adhere to the teaching of Right Livelihood, follow the “doctrine of Karma,” and treat all living beings with “equal respect.” For this reason, Buddhists think it to be “wrong to hurt or kill animals.” On the contrary, Buddhists think that because of the doctrine of Karma, Buddhists think that animals are inhabited by the souls of those who had conducted “misdeeds” in their prior life.

Capital Punishment: Due to the various schools of thought in regards to Buddhism, “there is no unified Buddhist policy on capital punishment.” Due to the Buddhist belief that murder violates the “First Precept of Buddhism,” would not agree with Buddhist tenets. Also, capital punishment will have dire consequences “on the souls of both offender and the punisher in future incarnations.”

Contraception: The Buddhists believe that the only acceptable contraception is that which “prevents contraception” but unacceptable if it prevents an egg from developing. An example of such contraception would be the “IUD.” The “IUD” acts “by killing the fertilized egg and preventing implantation” and thus harms “the consciousness which has already become embodied.”

Euthanasia/Suicide: There is no clear position on euthanasia in Buddhism. The Buddhists stress the importance of one’s state of mind. If one’s mind is considered to be in a negative state, then it is assumed that this is the reason one would wish for a voluntary death. Also, anyone who assists in euthanasia will experience the residue effects of the one who has chosen voluntary death. This, in turn, has an impact on the person’s karma in that it “interferes with the working out of karma, and alters the karmic balance resulting from the shortened life.”

Organ Donation: Buddhists main tenet is to end all suffering. In regards to organ donation, such an act may be considered “an act of charity.” Ultimately, organ donation is an individual choice. Also, due to the importance stressed on the “death process,” the “consciousness of the dead person” should be taken into consideration in that whatever the dead person was feeling, thinking, experiencing might transfer into the recipient’s consciousness.

War: Buddhists do not believe in violence. Although self-defense is permitted, Buddhists are forbidden from committing an act of murder irregardless of circumstances.

Hinduism
Hindus view the universe as that which functions according to law of karma. Although the introduction of the soul is unknown, its function is to integrate itself back into God’s presence. This is done through the process of reincarnation. As a soul works its way up the spiritual evolutionary ladder it draws itself closer to God. Each new lifetime is different from the previous because of the accomplishments or failures of the previous lifetime. Therefore, life in the universe is strictly that of personal responsibility. In the karmic cycle, or life in the universe, there are no victims. Moksha is the only way to escape the karmic cycle. The Hindus view of life is determined by karma.

Abortion: Hindus adhere to the principles of Ahimsa, or “non-violence.” Ahimsa transfer over to Abortion in that Hindus “choose the action that will do least harm to all involved: the mother and father, the foetus and society.” When taken into context, Hindus do not advocate the practice of abortion, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. Also, an act of abortion is considered contrary to Hindu traditions. According to Hindu traditions, it is considered a “duty to produce children in order to continue the family and produce new members of society.”

Animal Ethics: “The doctrine of ahimsa leads Hindus to treat animals well,” although it does not prevent “animal sacrifice.”

Capital Punishment: The practice of ahimsa prevents Hindus from exacting retribution stemmed from “killing, violence and revenge.” More than likely, Hinduism will mirror the Buddhists perspective on capital punishment.

Contraception: Since the Hindus consider it a duty to have a “family and produce new members of society,” contraception, although permitted, is more than likely not to be common practice.

Euthanasia/Suicide: Because the Hindus focus “on the consequences of our actions” rather than ideas, Hindus have a variety of things to consider such as karma, the principle of ahimsa, or whether such an act can be merited as dharma, or a “good deed,” when contemplating euthanasia/suicide. In regards to euthanasia/suicide, both are considered to be equivalent to murder. The act of intentionally ending a life interferes with a “soul’s progress towards liberation.” Concerning euthanasia, the Hindus have two positions: you are either fulfilling dharma or you are interrupting “the timing of the cycle of death and rebirth.” Concerning the act of suicide, Hindus believe that the act of “Prayopavesa, or fasting to death,” to be the only acceptable means of suicide.

Organ Donation: There is nothing of note in Hindu tradition that prevents Hindus “from donating their organs and tissues.” Hindus consider the body and all it encompasses to be nothing more than a vessel that houses the soul, thereby, given no real importance.

War: Hinduism both promotes and condemns the act of war. The principles of ahimsa and karma condemn any act of violence and the teachings of “Kshatriyas” promote violence. Hindus do advocate war and violence as a “use of force in self-defence” and as a moral obligation.

Sikhism
The religion of Sikhism was founded by Guru Nanak, a philosopher grounded in the Sant tradition, during the 16th century. Guru Nanak was the first of Ten Sikh Gurus prior to the splintering of the religion due to the disapproval of individuals who were appointed as Gurus and the various turns to militancy in attempts to stave off oppression. The first ten Gurus are acknowledged by traditional Sikhs. The Sikhs believe in one God. They practice meditation as a form or prayer and repeat God’s name during meditation. They believe in the concept of reincarnation and that one must work towards moksha to escape the cycle of life and death. The Sikhs do not believe in any form of stratification, thus, rebuking a caste system and gender roles. Orthodox Sikhs adhere to the Khalsa.

Abortion: Although there is no “code of conduct” that deal with abortion specifically, Sikhism does not allow abortions because “it interferes in the creative work of God – who created everything and is present in every being.”

Contraception: “Sikhs have no objection to birth control.”

Euthanasia/Suicide: Life, according to Sikhism, is the “creative work of God” and is considered a “gift from God.” Euthanasia is not condoned because the “timing of birth and death should be left in God’s hands” and suicide is frowned upon because it is considered an “interference in God’s plan.” Sikhs believe that “we have a duty to use life in a responsible way,” therefore, any premature end to life by the hands of man is not an option.

Organ Donation: Sikhism does not put forth any objections concerning the donating and/or receiving of organs. Although it isn’t clear whether organ donation is condoned during life, it is acceptable after death.

Dharam Yudh – Just War: Sikhism believes in the concept of the Just War, or “Dharma Yudh.” Sikhs believe in the Just War when fought in “defence of righteousness.” The rules of such a war are as followed: “the war must be the last resort,” “the motive must not be revenge or enmity,” “ the army must not include mercenaries,” “the army must be disciplined,” “ only the minimum force needed for success should be used,” “civilians must not be harmed,” “there must be no looting, territory must not be annexed, property taken must be returned,” and “it should be undertaken even if it cannot be won.” The last condition is a reflection of Sikh history, as they have became more and more militant as a result of “oppression and attempts to suppress the faith.”

Judaism
Judaism is a religion that sought meaning and whilst on that search they ultimately found meaning in God, creation, human existence, history, morality, justice, and suffering. Judaism found meaning in God in that the Hebrews understood God to be the "Supreme Being." Judaism found meaning in creation in that where others thought life to be a curse, the Jews believed it to be a blessing. The Jews accepted all of life’s obstacles, all of life’s trials and tribulations because they believed it to be part of God’s will and if God willed it, then it couldn’t be bad. Judaism found meaning in human existence in that they never lost sight of man’s capabilities. They were well aware of the eternal struggle man would endure. The potential for moral weakness and transgression was always there but the potential for moral strength and affirmation was always there, as well. Judaism found meaning in history in that it gave meaning to their life as people. They saw the importance of taking meaning from one’s life. Judaism found meaning in morality in that it determined how one should interact with others. Considering that man is a social animal in that he needs others to be human, he also acts out like an animal while around others. Morality bridges this divide. Judaism found meaning in justice in that their prophets understood that responsibility was not just on the individual but more so on society and that society will be judged "on the justice of its social order." Judaism found meaning in suffering in that they came to understand their predicament as God having high expectations of them. This required a high degree of belief. They never stopped believing in their God, they never stopped believing that everything happened for a reason, and most importantly, they never stopped believing that they were God’s chosen people. This allowed for them to never give up in the face of crisis and to continuously move forward in spite of overwhelming odds. Whatever they had to endure, God intended it to be. Each lesson learned in the face of trial and tribulation was an experience to later be of value to the world.

Abortion: Judaism does not ban the practice of abortion but it also does not promote it, either. In practice, “abortion is only permitted for serious reasons.” Unless the pregnancy directly puts the mother’s life in danger, abortion would be permitted within the “first forty days of pregnancy” of the fetus’ life cycle because the fetus is considered to be “mere fluid.”

Animals: Judaism advocates the treating of animals with respect because “God himself makes a covenant with the animals, just as he does with humanity.” It is only permitted to bring harm to an animal if it is “an essential human need” such as, food and clothing.

Capital Punishment: Judaism does not practice or condone capital punishment.

Circumcision: Circumcision is a tradition that has lasted for over 3000 years. The rite of circumcision is adhered to because it is considered to be part of the covenant with God as commanded by God. Failure to be circumcised could be grounds for expulsion from the “community of God.” Granted, there is opposition to circumcision.

Contraception: Birth control is permitted in Judaism, as long as it does “not damage the sperm or stop it getting to its intended destination.”

Euthanasia/Suicide: Judaism forbids “active euthanasia” and suicide because “The Jewish tradition regards the preservation of human life as one of its supreme moral values and forbids doing anything that might shorten life.” On the other hand, a doctor may remove an “impediment to the natural process of death.”

Genetic Engineering: On the surface, one would think that Judaism would frown upon genetic engineering but because their population is prone to the genetic disorder, Tay Sachs, genetic screening and genetic manipulation is practiced. Otherwise, there is no doctrine that explicitly rules out genetic engineering.

Organ Donation: Organ donation is encouraged if it is to save a life or lives, otherwise, it would depend on circumstance. If needed immediately, it is encouraged and considered a honor, but if it were meant for an organ bank, it would “be looked on less favourably.”

War: Judaism permits war, only if there is an attempt for peace or war was avoided at all costs. Judaism believed there to be three kinds of war: “obligatory” or those commanded by God, “defensive” or those in self-defense, and “optional” or those considered Just.

Islam
The religion and word Islam have two meanings. The first meaning is that of "peace" and the second meaning is that of "surrender." It is the religion that brings peace to the practitioner’s life once he has surrendered it over to God. Islam is a religion that continues with the revelations of Moses and Jesus but ends with Muhammad, The Prophet. The main philosophical teachings of Islam focus on four things: "God, Creation, the Human Self, and the Day of Judgement." Concerning God, Islam stresses God’s awesome power. Concerning Creation, Islam stresses that God created the world and humankind deliberately. Concerning the Human Self, Islam stresses that humanity is innately good. If anything, humanity is guilty of forgetting its "divine origin. Finally, concerning the Day of the Judgement, Islam stresses a soul is either destined for "the Heavens or the Hells." The main practices of Islam are best captured in the Five Pillars of Islam. The Five Pillars teaches a Muslim to "walk the straight path." The first Pillar is the shahadah. The shahadah simply is a confession of faith in which a Muslim proclaims, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet." The second Pillars is the canonical prayer. Muslims are expected to pray 5x’s a day. The prayer is intended to put perspective back into everyday life and to express gratitude for that life. The third Pillar is the practice of charity. Those who are comfortable in life and well-off are expected to share the wealth with those that are in need. The fourth Pillar is that every Muslim is expected to observe the holy month of Ramadan. Ramadan is the month in which Muhammad started to receive his revelations from God and when he went on the hijra. During Ramadan, every Muslim is expected to fast from sun-up to sun-down. The fast is intended to teach "self-discipline. It reminds one of one’s frailty and dependence. And if fosters compassion, for only the hungry know what hunger means." Finally, the fifth Pillar is the pilgrimage to Mecca. At least once in their lifetime every Muslim is expected to visit Mecca. The pilgrimage is intended to "heighten the pilgrim’s commitment to God" and to remind the Muslim that all of humanity is a brotherhood. In regards to the social practices of Islam, Muslims refer to the Qu’ran, which discusses four areas of life: economics, the status of women, race relations, and the use of force. Concerning economics, the Qu’ran stresses against classism and injustices against those without means to defend themselves. Capitalism is encouraged so long as compassion overrides greed and Muslims do not forget the third Pillar of faith. Concerning the status of women, the Qu’ran "improved woman’s status incalculably. They forbade infanticide. They required that daughters be included in inheritance." Also, the Qu’ran "leaves open the possibility of woman’s full equality with man, an equality this is being approximated as the customs of Muslim nations become modernized." Most importantly, it was the idea of marriage that the Qu’ran contributed to the status of women. First, marriage is a done deal once the couple has intercourse. Second, women had a say as to whether or not they wanted to marry. Thirdly, the Qu’ran allows for divorce only as a last resort and they are allowed to keep the money provided to them by their husband before the marriage. Concerning race relations, Islam does not accept any racial injustice or bigotry whatsoever. Racial equality is a fundamental practice in Islam. Finally, concerning the use of force, Islam allows for the use of force if need be. "It must be either defensive or to right an horrendous wrong," yet, stresses that forgiveness is better.

Abortion: Islam considers abortion to be forbidden, although it is allowed in some instances. Islam will allow an abortion in order to save the mother’s life or to prevent the fetus from suffering as a child. If an abortion is permitted, it must be done within the first “120 days” of the life of the fetus.

Animals: Muslims believe that all animals “must be treated with kindness and compassion.” Although they believe that animals were placed on Earth for the “benefit of human beings,” animals killed must be killed according to “Sharia law.”

Capital Punishment: Although “forgiveness is preferable,” Islam “accepts capital punishment.”

Contraception: Islam does not promote contraception because it is “strongly pro-family and regards children as a gift from God.”

Euthanasia/Suicide: Euthanasia and suicide are not permitted in Islam as “all human life is sacred because it is given by Allah, and that Allah chooses how long each person will live.”

Circumcision: Islam promotes circumcision as a means of “purification” and as an “introduction to the Islamic faith and a sign of belonging.”

Stem Cell Research: Islam is split on stem cell research. Some Muslims think it is ethical to conduct stem cell research because “the embryo does not have a soul,” while other Muslims think it to be “immoral to destroy embryos at any stage to harvest stem cells.”

War: Islam permits the act of war and set out “clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and clear guidelines as to how such a war should be conducted.” War is allowed on when in “self-defence,” “when other nations have attacked an Islamic state,” and “if another state is oppressing its own Muslims.”

Jihad: Jihad literal translation is “struggle or effort,” for Islam, there are three kinds of Jihad: the struggle within to be a good Muslim, the effort of creating a “good Muslim society,” and “Holy War.”

Christianity
Christianity has 3 factions, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism. All three have a central focus, Jesus Christ. For the Roman Catholics, Christianity is based on the concepts of "Teaching Authority and Sacramental Agent." Teaching Authority to the Roman Catholics is the belief that Jesus was God incarnate and he came to earth to give life lessons that better prepare us for the afterlife. This, in turn, leads to the idea that the Pope is God’s voice on earth and because he is speaking on behalf of God concerning matters of the human soul, he is free of error. In regards to the Sacramental Agent, the Roman Catholic Church piggybacks Teaching Authority in that it acts as the Agent that helps us do what the Pope tells us is best for our soul and salvation. The Roman Catholic Church promotes the seven sacraments of life which are Baptism, Confirmed (confirmation), Holy Matrimony (marriage), Holy Orders, Sacrament of the Sick, Reconciliation (confession), and Mass. Also, the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Holy "Trinity dwells in every Christian soul" and only through prayer and confession can one possibly experience God’s grace. For Eastern Orthodoxy, although it shares quite a bit with Roman Catholicism, such as the Sacraments and "intent regarding the Teaching Authority", it differs in regards to interpreting scripture and how those interpretations come about. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the "developments’ of doctrine" conducted by the Roman Catholic Church are viewed as "additions" which are a necessity of faith. Also, since Eastern Orthodoxy does not have a Pope to lead their church, any decisions made, anything resembling a final word concerning the human soul, faith, and salvation is left to "the conscience of the Church" or the people of the church. The people are the conscience of the Church because, as Christians, they are a part of the God and Christ and, as a result, are a part of each other. Within Eastern Orthodoxy, salvation is a team effort; the Church and it parishioners are bound by faith. This extends beyond the pews into pulpit. The bound is so great within Eastern Orthodoxy that the parishioners elect church officials and have a voice in the dogmas it practices. Also, Eastern Orthodoxy encourages the active pursuit of God’s grace. For Protestantism, Christianity is based on the concepts of "Justification by Faith and the Protestant Principle." Justification by Faith is the believing with your entire being. It’s believing with your body, heart, and mind. The Protestants believe that nothing the church has to offer matters unless it moves you to the core. Unless one is touched body, heart, and mind by what is being preached, the teachings amount to "mere mouthings." Why must they be touched body, heart, and mind? Believing body, heart, and mind convinces one that they are experiencing "God’s love" and when one experiences "God’s love" they are compelled to act from the good with genuine volition.

Abortion: The Roman Catholic Church view abortion as a sin and “a grave moral wrong” which is equivalent to murder.

Animal Rights: Traditionally, animals were considered inferior to man and thus, had no rights, but today, “Modern Christians generally take a much more pro-animal line.” The Roman Catholic view recognizes “that animals have both an intrinsic value and a place in God’s kingdom” and would “avoid anything that brings unnecessary suffering or death to animals.”

Capital Punishment: There is some divisiveness in regards to the death penalty, yet, “For much of history, the Christian Churches accepted that capital punishment was a necessary part of the mechanisms of society.”

Circumcision: In Christianity, the only thing needed for circumcision is to be “circumcised of the heart.”

Contraception: Roman Catholics frown upon birth control. On the other hand, “Christian acceptance of contraception is relatively new.”

Euthanasia: Christians think euthanasia is wrong, while Roman Catholics view it as morally wrong.

Organ Donation: Organ donation is applauded in Christianity.

Same-Sex Marriage: Anglicans, Quakers, and Methodists “bless same-sex couples” or “same-sex unions.”

War: “The main Christian view of war ethics is contained in the doctrine of the Just War.” For the most part, “Christians have a long history of refusing to take part in war.”

Are their ethics different than your own religious view?
Since I do not partake of any organized religion, my views will vary from issue to issue.

Ethics Midterm

1. NAME: Jessie Genie
2. USERNAME: Jessie_genie74
3. EMAIL ADDRESS: jgenie@lausd.net

4. Offer number of posts completed and "exact dates" for each one:
Post #1: Aristotle (17 March)
Post #2: Epicurus and Epictetus (18 March)
Post #3: Spinoza (18 March)
Post #4: Kant and Mill (19 March)
Post #5: Kierkegaard (19 March)
Post #6: Marx (20 March)
Post #7: Nietzsche (21 March)

5. What reading did you complete thus far in the course?
Aristotle’s Ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, Epicurus (c. 341-271BCE), Letter to Menoeceus, Epictetus (c. 55-135 BCE), The Enchiridion, Baruch Spinoza, Spinoza’s Ethics, Ethics Demonstrated in Geometric Order (Portions of Parts 1-5), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Metaphysics, The Metaphysics of Morals First Section, John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, Existentialism, Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Friedrich Nietzsche, Friedrich Nietzsche God is Dead Quote, Nietzsche On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense, Morality as Anti-Nature, Jesus, Paul, Eternal Recurrence, Free Spirit, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980): Existentialism, A selection from Existentialism and Human Emotions

Is there reading material that you did not read?
No, I have read all of the assigned readings.

Did you read the philosophers' actual writings?
I have all of the philosopher’s actual writings.

6. Did you complete any extra credit so far?
I have not completed any extra credit so far.

7. What project are you thinking of completing during week four?
I was thinking of completing the field trip to the Museum of Tolerance as a project. I chose this particular project because I have never been to the Museum and I have always wanted to go.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Offer a detailed description of Nietzsche’s ethical views. When giving his “overall ethical stance,” make sure that you explain what is his opposition to Christian morality. He refers to a “transvaluation of values” (flipping morals upside down)…what do you think he means by this? Next, utilizing the websites on Nietzsche that I provided, specifically explain why he loves Jesus but hates Paul? Why does Christian morality offend him? What does he envision for the height of humanity?

Nietzsche ethical view were based in “primordial creativity, joy in existence and ultimate truth.” He advocated for “the principle of ‘life.” He thought that the “feeling of power” was important in understanding the human condition and “moral’ behavior.” He believed that people were born with an “inherent freedom.” He does not believe that there is a “universal morality.” Most importantly, Nietzsche believed in the “will to power” or the “pouring-out of expansive energy that, quite naturally, can entail danger, pain, lies, deception and masks.”

Nietzsche loves Jesus because Jesus did away with the old morality. In Jesus, there is no "guilt and punishment," no "sin," and no "reward." In Jesus, "God and man" have united. The promise of eternal bliss was now a reality. Nietzsche thought Jesus was different because he lived differently. Jesus did not fight, he was accepting of others, he would not anger, he was incapable of hate, he wasn't litigious yet he practiced civil disobedience, and he would never abandon a loved one. Nietzsche respected how he lived and respected how he died. Jesus was closer to God by doing away with the formula of the other faith. According to Nietzsche, Jesus taught us what salvation was by living it. Jesus was "A new way of life, not a new faith." "Glass tidings," indeed. Nietzsche respected how Jesus lived not to save but to teach. Jesus’ life was a lesson bestowed unto man. Not once did his demeanor change, not even in the face of adversity. Jesus did not struggle against life, he invited it. He was compassionate, humble, and loving. This was Jesus’ gift to the world.

Paul, on the other hand, was Jesus’ opposite, according to Nietzsche. Paul is responsible for the Jesus of faith. According to Nietzsche, the Jesus of faith was a lie invented to destroy the historical life of Jesus. What Jesus had done away with his “glass tidings,” Paul has resurrected. The unity of God and man exhibited and exampled by Jesus no longer exists under Paul’s watch. His living example was corrupted by Paul’s blasphemy. Paul sacrificed a life with God in the present for an afterlife with God after death. Immortality is now the reward, rather than unity with God. Paul is responsible for spreading the word, according to his vision of Jesus’ example. Only now can one see what died when Jesus was put to death. The example of Jesus was real. Look no further than to Paul for the turn. Nietzsche thinks Jesus was a man of love, Paul is man of hate. Nietzsche points out that Paul needed the death to distort the life of Jesus. Paul corruptedhistory. Paul traded the life of Jesus for the death of Jesus. Paul used Jesus' death for his own means and ends. He traded the life of Jesus for power. This was Paul's gift to the world.

Nietzsche thinks that “Christian morality are products of self-deception.” He thinks that “Christianity is a religion for weak and unhealthy people” and contrary to man’s nature. The war on man’s nature is directly linked to Christianity. The church is incapable of intelligently ridding the world of passion because it does not adhere to intelligence. The church has attempted to make human nature appear and ugly so that it could weed it out of our lives. It wants all of humanity to follow the lead of a small group of men who turned to God to help them control their natural instincts. According to Christianity, human nature will always be the devil if you are too weak to control it.


Explain the ethical system of Epictetus and then of Spinoza. Next, compare and contrast their ethical theories. (Hint: Stoicism)

Epictetus
As a Stoic, Epictetus understood that the majority of humankind lives in a state of unhappiness. The trials and tribulations of daily life, the obstacles of everyday life compromise one’s happiness on a daily basis and confound the majority on what is truly important in life. Epictetus suggests that if one chooses to do so, he can change his fortune and live a life of eudaimonia, or happiness. To do so would entail that one understand “the true nature of one’s being and keeping one’s prohairesis (moral character) in the right condition.” He implies that whether our life is well spent or unfruitful is “entirely up to us.” Epictetus suggests that life can either be lived virtuously or decadently. What determines whether one is living a life of virtue or a life filled with vice is the utilization of what Epictetus calls “indifferent” things. “Indifferent” things can either be “preferred” or “dispreferred.” Those things that are considered “preferred” are things that contribute to living well, such as “health and wealth, friends and family.” Those things that are considered “dispreferred” are things that do not contribute to living well, such as “sickness and poverty, social exclusion.” Epictetus thinks “virtuous use” of “preferred indifferent” things is good. What Epictetus is advocating is an understanding of the power one possesses over self, or the “authority over ourselves.” What this amounts to is the “capacity to judge what is good and what is evil” and not get carried away with the “impression” of the situation. If one is unable to remain objective and carefully review what is happening, they will pursue things that have no true value and in no way contribute to living well and, in turn, become a victim of circumstance. Epictetus thoroughly believed that the life one chooses to live was totally dependent upon that one person and no one else. He states, quite clearly, that there are things within our control and things that are not in our control. Regardless of circumstance, Epictetus states “that there solutions that can remedy this sorry state of affairs.” Epictetus continues that one must learn to adapt to and overcome any circumstance that may arise via right judgement. Also, he stresses that it is important to recognize that “dispreferred” things do not have enough sway in one’s life to motivate action. The power of desire, action, and assent of any one thing as a motivating factor in one’s life is truly subjective in that it is up to the individual to decide whether to act virtuous or be “motivated by vice.” Epictetus claims that one must understand “God, the universe, and themselves in the right way” in order to not blame life for their circumstances. In other words, live according to the natural order of things. Epictetus continues that reason is gift bestowed to us by God. This gift from God is power that is in us, this is the “authority over ourselves.” Once that is understood, one can live “in accord with nature.” In essence, one must not fight life and always be engaged in a never ending act of mindfulness.

Spinoza
Spinoza’s philosophy is grounded in reason. Spinoza begins by explaining his concept of God. He presents his argument through fourteen propositions. According to Spinoza, God existed prior to creation and existence. God was not created by something other than itself. Anything that exists does so because of God or else, it is a part of God. God acts out of necessity. In other words, Spinoza thinks that God is “infinite, necessary and uncaused, indivisible,” and most importantly, everything. Thus, if God is everything, anything that follows everything does so via “divine nature.” According to Spinoza, this “divine nature” is twofold. There is a “naturing Nature” and there is the “natured Nature” Simply put, there is God and there is everything else created and sustained by God. Spinoza’s concept of God is not meant for reverence but more for understanding. Approached this way, one is able to “reveal Nature’s most important truths and shows how everything depends essentially and existentially on higher natural causes.” Spinoza posits that knowledge is to be derived “from random experience,” “intuition,” and “Reason.” Knowledge acquired “from random experience” is knowledge that is “determined by causes.” It is the knowledge that one acquires via the senses; chance encounters and very little thought process. Knowledge acquired by “Reason” requires a deeper understanding. It’s the knowledge that “shows not just that is, but how and why it is.” Finally, knowledge acquired by “intuition,” is no more than the utilization of “Reason” at any given moment. Spinoza thinks an understanding of how knowledge derived from God, or Nature, will help man conceptualize his role in the very same Nature. Spinoza claims man lives either through an affect of action or an affect of passion. An affect of action is any change that stems within self. An affect of passion is any change that is brought forth by an outside source. An understanding of such knowledge will allow man to persevere in the world and pursue those things that will add to his life and avoid those that are a detriment. Spinoza illustrates the importance of the application of “Reason” and the folly of falling victim to passion. Spinoza continues that man will reason that the only way to live is living virtuously and that entails an understanding of “things through the third kind of knowledge.” That is, one should look at things “situated in their relationship to God and his attributes.” This view allows man to see the necessity of his existence and his relation to all things. This, in turn, frees man from his attachments to the world and his fears of the unknown.

Comparison
Spinoza thinks that an understanding of the knowledge one possesses is actually a derivative of God will help man understand his role in the world and assist him in persevering life’s obstacles and trials and tribulations. Epictetus thinks man should attempt to understand the natural order of things if he wants to live in “harmony with nature.” Spinoza thinks “Reason” allows man to understand the cause, how, and why things are what they are. Epictetus thinks reason helps man remain objective and evaluative when judging “impressions” that can impact his life. Spinoza thinks virtue is “the path to restraining and moderating the affects” of “external objects and the passions” they have over us. Epictetus thinks virtue is the motivation of a happy life. It is knowing who you are and how you give of yourself to others.

Explain how the Communist Manifesto fits in the discussion of Ethics. Next, illustrate salient points of Ch.1 and key points of Ch.2. Also, why do you think that Marx’s vision of utopia failed?

The Communist Manifesto fits into ethics because it critiques what it considers to be an immoral social invention, Capitalism. It lays bare the consequences Capitalism has had on humanity and recommends, what it considers, a moral alternative, Communism. It remarks on the exploitation of class of people, the breakdown of the family, the subjugation of women, and the indoctrination of children. Most importantly, it wishes to promote human compassion and cooperation rather impede man from flourishing.

Marx posits that the history of the world is that of “class struggles.” In all societies throughout history, there have been the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie has always possessed the means and thus dictated life for the proletariat. Yet, capitalism was different. Marx blames capitalism not for exploitation but for “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.” Marx continues that capitalism turned everyone into a “paid wage laborers” and has reduced human contact to nothing more than “cash payment.” Marx claims that capitalism is responsible for reducing artisans, craftsmen, professionals, and other honored men of occupation to nothing more than wage earners barely able to scrape out an existence in a world were “work increases” and “wage decreases.” Furthermore, the wage earner is destined to become nothing more than “a pauper” or a slave of “the bourgeois class, and bourgeois state.” Marx also posits that capitalism is responsible for reducing the “family relation into a mere money relation.” The proletariat family is unable to own property in a capitalistic world and most times, children were exploited while forced into labor for monetary gain, while women were forced to consider themselves commodities. Marx also suggests that capitalism sets up a society that insures one is unable to move beyond his class. “The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class.” Finally, capitalism is responsible for globalization. No longer are civic or national loyalties important when conducting business. Gone are the days of “local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency” and in their stead are a “universal inter-dependence of nations” meant to promote the bourgeoisie ideal of civilization. In summation, capitalism is immoral because it “impedes human flourishing.”

According to Marx, “Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor.” Marx continues that property, more than anything, is “a social STATUS in production.” In other words, “it is social power.” For this reason, Marx’s vision of a communist society is a society where there is no such thing as private property. Marx thinks that the removal of the idea, notion, and prospect of private property is the first step in the general direction of the removal of class struggle in society. Eliminating private property would change the character of the society because it would change the character of ownership. Private property, thus, becomes “common property” and thus eliminating individualized social power. Another point of contention for Marx is that of “wage labor.” Marx thinks the concept of minimum wage is implemented for no other reason but to keep the labor alive in order to continue the increase of capital. Marx contends that continuing implementation of minimum wage makes the laborer more and more dependent upon the bourgeoisie and robs him of his existence, his individuality, and his freedom. Marx thinks eliminating minimum wage altogether is a guarantee of a better existence for the laborer. Marx continues that in a communist society, the proletariat will not be forced into labor as he is now, he will, instead, voluntarily contribute to society and share his experience and ability for the greater good and, in turn, instead of being paid a paltry earning, he will receive what he needs to live a comfortable existence. This change in appropriation will impact his existence, improve familial relations, and stop the exploitation of women and children. Marx thinks communism can be successful with the transfer of private property into “community property” and the undoing of a “living labor” via the elimination of minimum wage, culture as whole will change because the “social power” no longer be in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Marx’s vision of a utopian society failed because Marx wanted to avoid having his vision “brought about by high-minded benefactors of humanity.” Also, he never stressed an “importance of morality,” in all his Manifesto was nothing more than a “call of theoretical necessity.” In reality, communism places too much power in the hands of one individual. In theory it is great but when practice, man is still at the helm.

Explain the connection among philosophers: Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus. What is the goal of life that each philosopher pursues? Compare and contrast in depth.

Aristotle’s theory of ethics sets out to discover what entails a life that is worth living and what one must do to attain such a life. His search for the “the good” leads him to declare that one who pursues “the highest good” should do so because “it is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for its sake.” Aristotle thinks the aim of all of humanity is eudaimonia, or happiness. He continues that happiness is an aim in itself because it “is the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world.” Aristotle further continues that one must apply reason coupled with “virtuous activity of the soul, of a certain kind” to achieve happiness. He also stresses the importance of having friends, family, opportunity, and the like in order to be happy. Aristotle continues by stressing the importance of a good and proper upbringing which gives some exposure of virtuous behavior during childhood. Aristotle posits that exposure of virtuous activity presupposes that one will display “good habits” at some stage in their life because an exposure to virtue will generate a love for virtuous activity and, ultimately, virtuous activity will serve “as the goal for the sake of which lesser goods are to be pursued.” According to Aristotle, there are two kinds of virtue: intellectual and ethical. Virtues of the intellect are those that pertain to the mind and are engaged in reason and “owes its birth and its growth to teaching.” Aristotle continues that there are two kinds of intellectual virtue: theoretical and practical. On the other hand, “virtues of character” are those that cannot engage in reason but follows reason. It is a virtue that is “made perfect by habit.” Aristotle continues that “ethical virtue is fully developed only when it is combined with practical wisdom.” The incorporation of practical wisdom into ethical virtue brings the prior knowledge of virtue exposed as a youth to fruition as a man. Aristotle posits that a good and proper childhood predisposes one on the path happiness due to the development of “good habits” and the love of virtuous activity. Once practical wisdom is developed and incorporated with virtuous activity on a daily basis, one is able to distinguish between “excess and deficiency,” “pleasure and pain.” That distinction is known as “The Doctrine of the Mean.” Aristotle posits that the mean is a way to find the middle ground between excess and vice in all situations when there is “a full and detailed acquaintance with the circumstances.” Aristotle claims one “must have knowledge,” he must “choose the acts, and choose them for their own sakes,” and “he must proceed from a firm and unchangeable character.” In other words, he who exercises “the doctrine of the mean” must act contrary to his natural instincts.

Epicurus, like Aristotle, thinks that an ethical person is one who pursues “the highest good….for its own sake.” However, the highest good for Epicurus is happiness coupled with pleasure, not virtuous activity. Epicurus thinks “one’s one pleasure” takes precedent over all things, yet one must seek this pleasure in a “moderately ascetic” way. According to Epicurus, all of humanity chooses to avoid pain by pursuing pleasure. Yet, not all pleasure is worthy of choice and not all pain is worthy of avoidance. All choice of the matter should be with long-term effects in mind, thereby, eliminating any possibility for instant gratification. According to Epicurus, the pleasure one seeks is directly tied into the desires one possesses. Epicurus claims that there are two types of pleasure: “moving’ pleasures and ‘static’ pleasures.” “Moving” pleasure are those pleasures that one is moving towards and “static” pleasures are those pleasures that one has attained and satiated. Unlike Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean between excess and vice, Epicurus does not think there is a middle ground between pleasure and pain. He claims either you feel pain due to unfulfilled desires or you experience pleasure due to fulfilled desires. Epicurus advocates toning down one’s desires to a minimum that way one can be “easily satisfied” rather than constantly striving “to fulfill the desire.” The types of desires Epicurus thinks one should eliminate are those that are considered “vain and empty” because these are false desires impressed upon man by society and “they are difficult to satisfy, in part because they have no natural limit” and those considered “non-necessary” because these desires are associated with extravagance and luxury and are not necessities of life. According to Epicurus, the only desire worth having is the “natural and necessary desires” because they “are easy to satisfy, difficult to eliminate, and bring great pleasure when satisfied.” Besides pursuing the one desire, Epicurus think virtues are important in the acquisition of pleasure. Yet, unlike Aristotle, who associates “happiness with virtuous activity,” virtue for Epicurus is mainly a means to an end in that it is considered “valuable solely for the sake of the happiness they can bring oneself.” Finally, like Aristotle, Epicurus thinks friendship is important if one is to have happiness. “Epicurus consistenly maintains that friendship is valuable because it is one of the greatest means of attaining pleasure.”

Epictetus understood that the majority of humankind lives in a state of unhappiness. The trials and tribulations of daily life, the obstacles of everyday life compromise one’s eudaimonia, or happiness on a daily basis. Epictetus posits that our lives are unfulfilled because we suffer from “mistaken beliefs about what is truly good.” Unlike Aristotle, who associates “happiness with virtuous activity” and Epicurus, who associates happiness with the avoidance of pain in the pursuit of pleasure, Epictetus associates “happiness with virtue.” He claims that our happiness is totally “dependent upon our own characters, how we dispose ourselves to ourselves, to others, and to events generally.” He suggests that this would entail that one understand “the true nature of one’s being and keeping one’s prohairesis (moral character) in the right condition.” Similar to Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean, Epictetus claims there exists a middle ground between virtue and vice and that is indifference, “that is, ‘indifferent’ with regard to good and bad.” Epictetus claims “indifferent” things can either be “preferred” or “dispreferred.” “Preferred” things are similar to Epicurus’ “natural and necessary” and “non-necessary” things in that they bring about pleasure because they contribute to living well. What is considered “dispreferred” things are similar to things Epicurus would avoid because they would cause pain and do not contribute to “a flourishing life.” Epictetus thinks “virtuous use” of “preferred indifferent” to be good. The point Epictetus is trying to make is in order for us to keep “one’s prohairesis (moral character) in the right condition,” one has to understand that he has power within his grasp. If one is unable to familiarize himself with this knowledge, he will be swept up in thinking Epicurus’ “non-necessary” and “vain and empty” things are good and not even Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean will be of any assistance. What possessing an understanding of the power within amounts to are the “capacity to judge what is good and what is evil” and the ability to not be carried away with the “impression” of a situation, similar to Epicurus’ desires. This is of importance because if one is unable to remain objective and carefully review what is happening, they will pursue things that have no true value and in no way contribute to living well and, in turn, he is prone to become a victim of circumstance. Epictetus, like Aristotle and Epicurus, thoroughly believed that the life one lived was totally dependent upon the individual. He claims that there are things within our control and things that are out of our control. He continues that one must learn to utilize the power within to adapt and overcome any “impression” and to recognize any “dispreferred” thing does not have to influence one’s action. The power of desire, action, and assent of any one thing as a motivating factor in one’s life is truly subjective in that it is up to the individual to decide whether to exhibit “moral virtue” or be “motivated by vice.” Finally, Epictetus claims that one must understand “God, the universe, and themselves in the right way” in order to not blame life for the circumstances one finds himself in. In other words, live according to the natural order of things and all will be well. Unlike Aristotle’s idea on reason, Epictetus thinks that reason is gift bestowed to us by God. This gift from God is power that is in us, this is the “authority over ourselves.” Once that is understood, one can live “in accord with nature.” In essence, one must not fight life and always be engaged in a never ending act of mindfulness.

When considering the connection among the philosopher’s, first and foremost, all were Greek. Also,I noticed that all three aimed at achieving eudaimonia, or happiness. Although the pursuit varied, each thought moral virtue to be an important factor in the attainment of happiness. Also, reason played an important role in determining happiness in each philosophy.

According to Sartre, can an atheist be moral? What would Sartre find unacceptable about a Christian world view and what might he find acceptable, if any. (Hint: Kierkegaard) Overall, discuss the connection among existentialism (define), ethics, and atheism.

According to Sartre, an atheist can be moral. He claims that “there is an ethical normativity about authenticity.” He also claims that it is moral in that when he acts, or chooses, “an individual commits not only himself, but the whole of humanity.” Sartre continues that values are constantly being created when one exercises his freedom to choose. The values that are created “have a universal dimension, in that any other human being could make sense of them” were he be in the same situation at the time the choice was made.

Sartre would find the idea of exercising choice to live in “commitment” to God to be acceptable because other can and will understand the decision making process. Also, he would agree with the “knight of faith” because of his authenticity. What he wouldn’t find acceptable is that God is responsible for human nature. According to Sartre, man, alone, is responsible for his essence.

Existentialism is defined as “a doctrine which makes human life possible and, in addition, declares that every truth and every action implies a human setting and a human subjectivity.” Existentialists think that “existence precedes essence, or, if you prefer, that subjectivity must be the starting point.” Atheistic existentialism “states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being by any concept, and that this being is man, or human reality.” The ethics of existentialism is expressed in the “ethical normativity about authenticity.” In other words, since there is value placed on the idea of freedom, Sartre thinks that “by choosing, an individual commits not only to himself, but the whole of humanity.”


In what ways is Kant similar to Kierkegaard? And more importantly, in what ways is he different? Explain why Kierkegaard specifically critiques Kant’s duty base morality. Make sure you explain each philosopher’s view of ethics in depth. (Hint: Kant’s “categorical imperative” and Kierkegaard’s “three stages”)

Kant
Kant’s ethical theory is not based on empirical evidence. Kant’s intent is to approach ethics with the concepts that we formulate in our minds, or “a priori,” rather than the concepts that have been formulated as a result of experience, or “a posteriori.” Kant reasons that by ridding ethics of “a posteriori” concepts he can eliminate consequential ethics and illuminate “deontological ethics.” Kant claims that “a priori” concepts originate from a place of “good will” or a place where to be good without qualification is to be good no matter what. It is from this place of “good will” that we are able to understand “deontological ethics.” The concept of the “good will” allows Kant to make a clear distinction between the “good will” and the human will. This distinction allows Kant to claim that “a priori” concepts conform to moral law. Thus, Kant presupposes that prior to individual experience, man shares a common link into the concept of the “good will.” It is from this link that all of humanity aims to seek out the highest moral law. Kant’s focus on the “good will” allows him to stress the importance of having and acting from “good will.” There are no requirements, no penalties; there are no winners or losers when acting from the “good will.” The bottom line is anything that comes from a “good will” is good in itself no matter what the circumstances are. Simply stated, a “good will” acts because it has to be unconditionally good. Kant continues by placing an emphasis on practical reason in relation to a “good will.” Kant claims the function of reason separates the rational being from man. He states that reason helps the rational being recognize that there are two separate causalities: nature and freedom. According to Kant, the rational being operates from freedom and man operates from nature. This is important because the rational being wants something more than mere existence. Kant posits that the rational being understands he has a choice and is not a victim of circumstance. The rational being chooses to go beyond circumstance and self. Without reason, there are no moral grounds; with reason, we are given the tools to set moral grounds. A “good will” is practical reason that has duly imposed duty upon itself. This duty, “good will,” practical reason places upon itself is the unconditional end, the “deontological ethics” Kant wanted to illuminate.
According to Kant, duty is an obligation of a “good will.” In respect to duty, we ought to act from duty because we can. Which brings us to “two kinds of laws produced by reason:” “hypothetical imperative” and the “categorical imperative.” According to Kant, when one is acting on the “hypothetical imperative,” one is acting on behalf of morality because it is a “rule of action for achieving that end.” When one is acting on the “categorical imperative,” one is acting for nothing more than the end in itself; because it is the rule for “moral action.” Kant clarifies that man adheres to the “hypothetical imperative,” and the rational being adheres to the “categorical imperative.” The rational being follows the “categorical imperative” because it is the one law that states, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The “categorical imperative” is based on nothing more than the end in itself.

Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard’s ethics concerned itself with “customary mores,” or social mores, and “teleological suspension of the ethical,” or religious mores. Kierkegaard’s “customary mores” were the laws that guided man in society. His “teleological suspension of the ethical” was a call to ignore the social mores for a higher calling. It was a calling to trust in faith and God over man’s laws. Kierkegaard’s was claiming that although the social mores are indeed ethical, “ultimately God’s definition of the distinction between good and evil outranks any human society’s definition.” “Christian faith” was important to Kierkegaard but not in “a matter of regurgitating church dogma.” Living in faith was a choice, a “commitment” to God. Kierkegaard posits that to live according to faith, one is adhering a higher calling and has a better chance “to become a true self.” Kierkegaard continues that when one commits himself to God, he is taking on a “burden of responsibility.” It is a burden because when one makes choices, his is a choice that will echo in all eternity in that every choice will determine whether he is damned or saved. This is what Kierkegaard referred to as “Anxiety or dread.” The anxiety of knowing that whatever you decide, it resonates in eternity juxtaposed with the freedom to make that decision. This brings man closer to God in that man must constantly renew his vow of faith as a reminder to him that God is the charge of his life. “This repetition of faith is the way the self relates itself to itself and to the power which constituted it, i.e. the repetition of faith is the self.” What is ultimately required when living in faith is suspension of reason “in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact, we must believe by virtue of the absurd.”

Kierkegaard has three stages in which man need to progress in order to arrive at the “virtue of the absurd” and become a “knight of faith. Stage one involves the man who is able to describe the “movements of faith” but not make them himself. He is simply one who goes through t he motions. Stage two involves the man who goes through “infinite resignation,” accepts faith, and learns his “eternal worth,” yet has trouble “grasping hold of the world by virtue of faith.” Finally, stage three involves the man who makes the “paradoxical movement of faith.” It is this stage where the “knight of faith” commits himself in such a way that it is a “matter between him and the Eternal Being, who is the object of his faith.”

Comparison
Kant thinks reason is responsible for moral grounds. He claims his “categorical imperative” is the rule for “moral action” and is based on nothing more than the end in itself. Kant thinks a call to action must have moral intent and stem from a “good will.” He continues that all rational beings aim to seek out the “categorical imperative” as its moral law. Here, the call to duty is ethical. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, also thinks a call to action must have moral intent but his call to action stems from a place of faith and moral worth. He claims that his living in faith is a commitment to God, and thus, adheres to a higher calling. He continues that the “knight of faith” choices echo in all of eternity and determine whether he will be saved or damned. Here, the call to action is divine.

Critique of Kant
Kierkegaard specifically critiques Kant’s duty based morality because Kant claims duty stems from practical reason and is an obligation of “good will.” Kierkegaard claims duty is not an obligation of “good will” but an “obligation to God.” Kierkegaard posits that since all duty is “traced back to God,” Kant’s duty based morality can not really be a moral law. Instead, it is an ethical law.

Discuss the philosophy of Mill’s utilitarianism (define) and compare/contrast it with Epicurus hedonism (define). (Hint: How does each pursue pleasure?)

Mill
Mill claims consequences of action influences whether or not people find moral worth in their actions. He presents the question: as a result of action, does one want to experience pleasure or pain? Mill posits that every human being chooses pleasure over pain because “it is morally demanded of us.” It is morally demanded of us because human beings “must seek pleasure.” Mill continues that a “maximization of pleasure” insures that man will be at his best because his desires will be satiated. Yet, he continues, one must be discerning in which pleasures he pursues because not all pleasures are worthy of pursuit. According to Mill, because man must seek out pleasure, he should understand that “Some experiences are qualitatively better than others, and in determining which line of action is better, this has to be part of the calculation.” That is when one is capable of determining which pleasure truly add to his living well in all facets of his life, he will move beyond simple pleasures and “self-interest.” Mill thinks man will see that pleasure of the “qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends.” Mill concludes that since every man is satisfied and happy, “the overall effect will be to maximize the pleasure for all.”

Epicurus
Epicurus thinks that an ethical person is one who pursues “the highest good….for its own sake.” The highest good for Epicurus is happiness coupled with pleasure. According to Epicurus, all of humanity chooses to avoid pain by pursuing pleasure. Yet, not all pleasure is worthy of choice and not all pain is worthy of avoidance. All choice of the matter should be with long-term effects in mind. Epicurus surmises that the ethical person should believe in a God that is “a living being immortal and happy,” should not fear death, should not be codependent upon another, and should have and understanding of the nature of one’s pleasures and desires. Epicurus claims that the pleasure one seeks is directly tied into the desires one possesses. He states that there are two types of pleasure: “moving’ pleasures and ‘static’ pleasures.” “Moving” pleasure are those pleasures that one is moving towards and “static” pleasures are those pleasures that one has attained and satiated. He continues that there are three types of desire: “natural and necessary desires, natural but non-necessary, and ‘vain and empty desires.” “Natural and necessary desires” are those desires that are associated with the necessities of life and are “naturally limited.” These desires are always “moving” pleasures and easily “static” pleasures. “Natural but non-necessary desires” are those desires that are associated with extravagance and luxury and are not necessities of life. Finally, “vain and empty desires” are those desires that are never satiated and have “no natural limit.” These are false desires impressed upon man by society and ignorance.

Comparison
Mill thinks that every human being chooses pleasure over pain because “it is morally demanded of us.” Epicurus thinks all of humanity chooses to avoid pain by pursuing pleasure. Mill thinks that a “maximization of pleasure” insures that man will be at his best because his desires will be satiated. Epicurus claims that the pleasure one seeks is directly tied into the desires one possesses. Mill thinks man must seek out pleasure is “qualitatively better than others.” Epicurus thinks not all pleasure is worthy of choice and not all pain is worthy of avoidance. Mill thinks man will see that pleasure of the “qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends.” Epicurus thinks the pleasure one chooses should have long-term effects in mind. Mill thinks man will one day move beyond simple pleasures and “self-interest.” Epicurus thinks the only desire worth having is the “natural and necessary desires” because they “are easy to satisfy, difficult to eliminate, and bring great pleasure when satisfied.” Epicurus chooses pleasure for the individual. Mill chooses pleasure for the masses. Mill concludes that since every man is satisfied and happy, “the overall effect will be to maximize the pleasure for all.”

Define ethics according to the first article/paragraph assigned in the course and then, most importantly, explain who is your favorite ethical theorist among the many we have studied. Apply their ideas to the modern world and/or your own personal life. Explain in depth.

Ethics, or “moral philosophy,” is divided into three fields of study. The first of which, metaethics, concerns itself with the origin and definition of ethical theories. It also concerns itself with “universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgements, and the meaning of ethical terms.” The second of which, normative ethics, is more practical. It generally concerns itself with how one arrives at the position they do. The final field of study involves applied ethics. Normally this concerns itself with the hot topics of the day such as abortion rights, homosexual rights, possibility of war, and the environment. By using the first two fields, applied ethics tries to “resolve these controversial issues.” There is no arbitrary line the make each field distinct in itself, the fields “are often blurry.”

My favorite theorist was Jean-Paul Sartre. I love the idea that man came before his essence. The thought that we are who we make ourselves out to be is rather empowering and also rather frightening. Also, the fact that an atheist can be moral is good to know. I think that if more people were familiar with his teachings, we wouldn’t have some of the problems we have today. For instance, the idea the when one chooses he chooses for all of humanity, if more people understood this idea, maybe we wouldn’t have the kind of issue we have.