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.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, April 13, 2009
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.”
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.”
Sunday, April 12, 2009
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.
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.”
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.”
Saturday, April 11, 2009
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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)