does cheating and lying is correct??

Do people have ethics every time they cheat? Does cheating is the best way to solve peoples problems? Human Beings tend to lie, tend to cheat, tend to do the bad thing even if its not intentionally. But what i think is that if you cheat and you believe is the correct thing to do then its morally good, because if you believe in something and you do it then is the righ thing to do, but if you are thinking if you cheat or not and you dont decide what to do, then that is not morally good. You have to believe in what you are doing in order to be morally good. However, cheating to your wife and destroying your family isnt ethical, because you have a family to be with and if you cheat and lie and not be honest then why you marry?.
In the other hand we have lies. Lying to others is not ethical, but in many circumsatnces human beings lie because its the only right thing to do in that momento. Lying is not always un-ethical, because sometimes we have to lie in order to not hurt other persons feelings, but at the same time is not moral good because your not being honest with that person, so its not good nor bad, its according in the situation you are.

Why not being honest?

Utilitarianism is against lying, stealing, and cheating. Why is not accepted? First of all because it affects the majority. A vast amount of people around the world has been stolen, taken away what they’ve hardly worked for. Some could say that thieves steal for necessity, I agree but not when it becomes a habit. I believe that everyone is capable of working, if they are capable of stealing then they can easily get a job and work to get what they want; not the easy way. Cheating is also rejected by utilitarianists. Why not create our own ideas, why not study hard for our tests instead of cheating the person beside us? Getting an A after a long night of studying makes us feel proud of ourselves. When we cheat we are not hurting others but ourselves, in the future we will be an unsuccessful businessman/woman because we have no knowledge, we didn’t realize that the person beside us wouldn’t be there for us our whole lives. Then what happened was that we lied to ourselves. Lying is another thing utilitarianists do not tolerate. We are always covering the truth with lies, lies and lies. Human beings never face the consequences of our actions, we always do what is the easiest thing. But you have to know something: lies don’t last too long, sooner or later we get caught and once again the ones who end up losing the most are us.

Why not being honest? Why we never do the right thing?

Why kill them? Let’s study them

Death penalty has always caused certain dilemma due to the fact that some people don’t believe someone has the right to take away life. Instead of killing every criminal who is sentenced to jail, we should study them and try to understand their nature and learn how society and certain genes make them act that way. This can help us understand how we can adjust society in order to prevent criminals to form. Killing criminals won’t help us in the long term, but learning from them and being able to understand their behavior, can actually benefit us in the long term. Many of the criminals that are sentenced to death penalty are mentally instable; learning what causes this to happen can help us improve human welfare in the world so that people won’t want to kill. Violence has become very common because media has made it so accessible for people. The has lead us to become very apathetic to the suffering of others, which in the long term can actually create more serial killers because they won’t respect or care about human life. Studying humanity in every aspect will help us not only to evolve physically, but also mentally. The more we learn and understand criminals, the more we can apply our knowledge to save many lives in the future.

strength through unity, unity through WAR

WAR. What a better way to to unite our people. Is what ethical? Many may ask. Well ofcourse it is. Not on first sight but inly after much analysis. You see War is nakedly not ethical because people die etc. But one you see further you realize that only by dividing people, can you unite them. People do have souls and do care about others and this is the way to bring it out. Once people start dying and fear is brough upon all, it is just a matter of time before the wars end and what is left is people uniting for strength. Strength is achieved through unity and this is the way to bring it through. And then we say, would it in any possible dilemma be ethical to to waste a chance to bring millions of humans and tens or hundreds of nations together at the cost of some people who die with pride to serve and get honored? No that is not ethical. You must analysze the situation enough to see that the soul desires peace and unity and this will make a better future. So fin the middle ground, Separate the people, in order to unite them, thus being ethical because it would bring the greater good.

Georg F. Hegel

War??, Lets call it Humanitarian Intervention

Liberty is defined as freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control, and this my friends is a very delicate matter. War however is a horrible thing in life, being the cause of deaths of hundred if not thousands, but… it is not the worst aspect of life I can muster. As I found myself once saying “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” War can only be morally accepted when it comes to a point when a man or society has to reclaim that which is rightfully theirs by force, liberty. A person, who thinks freedom is not worth fighting for, or defending their beautiful nation as my noble Great Britain, deserves nothing but death. We live in a time nowadays, in which the world is controlled by those who are of noble status, civilized and well educated, and parallel stand the barbarians of no education. It is safe to say that war… let us call it an intervention is justifiable when the oppressed are fighting for freedom against a state imposed by outsiders. This only applies to civilized people fighting for freedom, remember, the barbarians do not apply. A civilized nation must intervene when the latter applies, (Wink, wink U.S.A, I got your back) This I call "Intervention to enforce non-intervention" This is why a Humanitarian Intervention is basically society helping society maintain its key right, freedom. This and only this functions as a plausible clause for war.

XOXO - JSM

Freedom of Expression

Is freedom of expression ethical? Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship or limitation. Now a day the right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right Freedom of expression is a right that every individual has in society. No one is able to tell another person what they should do, think or say. Free will is a something we were born with and through out our lives we develop individual ideals and beliefs. As a utilitarian, I believe that anything that brings the greater good in society as a whole will be considered moral. Therefore freedom of expression is a moral act, but we still have to take in consideration what we are going to say. For example, sometimes things are better left unsaid since they could hurt another person. In these circumstances saying what we think would not be considered as the right thing to do. A second scenario involves expressing your beliefs about religion. Saying what you believe doesn’t convert you into a bad or good person. You are just expressing your self in one way or the other. In this situation freedom of expression is considered ethical since it does not involve a harm to no one else. The lack of responsibility in our actions is what makes freedom of expression unethical. There is no problem on saying what we believe, but society as a whole must be benefited from the outcomes.

ANIMALS SAY NO TOO!!

Is animal treatment correct? Let’s think about it for a minute. Does it make it correct to run tests on animals just because we don’t want to harm ourselves. Animal testing should be prohibited because of one simple reason: animals can feel too. People have to learn to live in harmony with its environment. Learn to love others. This means that we have to learn everything around us, even if animals can not transmit their ideas because they can not talk does not mean that they do not have feelings. We can see that animals have feelings because they like us get afraid, react when something hurts, “cry” whenever they feel sad. Why should we create pain for a little animal when we should be able to practice reciprocity and be kind to one another? Man is ultimately not good by nature, what makes a man good is its environment. Is eating meat ultimately ethical? What implies to eat meat is to kill another living being. Like I said earlier we humans have to learn to live in harmony with our environment, this would bring peace and happiness to everyone and everything. Every single thing has been created by God. Why do we have the right to kill something and eat it? Fact is that we do not have it. Let’s stop making test with animals someday we will be grateful. Killing other beings to eat them is not correct.

Humans have the right to live!

Is it morally accepted to kill a human being? I think that abortion should be ethical when it benefits the whole society. If the baby will be causing problems to the family, then abortion is accepted. For example, if the women is having problems during her pregnancy and she has the risk to die, abortion should be ethical because if she does not abort and she dies, the women would be leaving her husband and other children alone. She can’t leave her other children and husband alone when they really need her. The women would be affecting other people, which are her family, and what we want is what is best for all. Now, if the woman only wants to abort because she doesn’t want to take the responsibility of taking care of a baby, or she wants to stay in shape and not get fat, then it is unethical. It is unethical because that is not affecting anyone. Killing a human being is unethical if it is not affecting the whole society. A women can only chose to abort if she will be harming a group of people if the baby is born. All humans have the right o live, and we cannot kill them if they are not harming anyone. If the women is having problems, she has to decide if she aborts or not, and she has a family and husband to take care, it should be ethical to abort.” Being pregnant means having a new life growing inside. Whether the fetus is a person or not, and whether the state takes a position on abortion or not, it’s arguable that a woman has some sort of ethical obligation to the fetus.”

War and His view on it

War is defined a state of armed conflicts between different nations or states or different groups within the states. One would say that it is ethically correct or maybe even necessary to go to war and, in the process, take many many lives and cause injury to many. If this is what some people would say then I beg to differ. Why should it be acceptable for people to go to war and take thousands or even millions of lives in some cases when the Lord that we all must follow and who mandates our lives, which should be devoted to the sole purpose of worshipping him, clearly states in His laws that to kill is forbidden. The fifth commandment from the Ten Commandments which are the laws set forth by the church, states, “you shall not kill.” This law does not exclude wars. All society should be able to live in harmony under the rule of our creator God, with his representation on Earth, the pope, as the ruler. It is never accepted to take a life unless it is solely for the purpose of self-defense and it is necessary to protect your own life and the only way to do so is to kill or be killed. If it is not necessary to take this person’s life then one must not do so. If you do end up taking his life it is absolutely necessary to go to confession and repent for your sin so that you may be admitted into His kingdom.

- Thomas Aquinas

Multiplying beings

The right to clone a human being should be dependent with the ability to do it. If the government has the technology to clone they are in their sole purpose to do this. Cloning should not be considered inmoral since it has many good purposes it can be used. How about one person of your family is shot and needs a hear right away? Wouldnt you want to have a heart ready to save your loved ones life immediateley? Cloning should be allowed and without any question be put into doubt. The government should make the decision every time about cloning or not cloning a human being. If we have the ability to clone a person why shouldnt we do it? Why should we completeley ignore a scientefic advancement of this kind. Cloning a person is one of the ways to understand better ourselves. This should be allowed and for no reason tried to be stopped. It is completeley naive to say that cloning should not continue progressing since it would be a negative hit for our science advancements. I think that the persons trying to interfere with such projects should not be allowed to freely express their feelings since they are a threat to our governments and their laws. - Plato

Cloning, who has the right to recreate life?

If you are a devoted catholic, you are raised knowing and thinking that God has and had and will always have the exclusive right to give and take life from this earth. I think that this applies for most Christian based religion. We also have the other side, which is the scientific one. The cloning topic has been around for 20 to 3o years already, and people change their minds every day. Is it really for us to say that God has the only exclusive right to create life? Or is it our responsibility to discover new ideas to carry on with the continuity of our existence? As virtue ethicists, I encourage individuals to take pick sides and think for themselves. You are raised with certain morals that will forever serve as catalyst in any action you make in the future. Let me transport you to a very compromising scenario. There is a young couple that has been in love forever. They go to through high school, church, college and most of their lives together. They eventually get married and are very much in love. They decide to have a baby, and while the mom was given birth she stays in a vegetable form. Medics tell the baby’s dad that the only possible way to recover her wife is to clone her, or keep her as a vegetable for the rest of her life. Is it morally correct to make a duplicate for someone you love and is the mother of your newborn?

Dealing with Death

Does the state has the right to take your life? Does they have the right to kill you? No, of course they don't. I, Jean Paul Sartre, i am a great supporter of having to stand on your own consequences. For every choice you make, there is a reaction to it and you should be enough of a man to face. You should be prepared to take action over all choices you make, but i am also a firm believer of the essence of life as well as the ultimate freedom you have. Life is usually absurd and meaningless, but one of the many privilege of life is the freedom of choice. You can choose to do whatever you want, but people don't get to take your life, even if you committed a hideous life. This is a hard topic for me to discuss, as two of my firm beliefs clash together, but i believe that no one should be able to take your life, as that people are making a choice for you, which should not happen. They are taking the essence of life. I have experienced at first hand what is it to take someones life as i've been traumatized by the horrible acts of war, so no, it should never be ethical to impose death penalty.

JP Sarte

Abortion Allow!!

Abortion should be available only if your true feeling is to not have the child. When a woman gets pregnant is because they had sexual relationship, although the women could have been abused. Analyzing our feelings it’s important because what we end up with it is our pleasure and pleasure erases from morality anything that makes it mortifying from our soul and body. The end of moralityis happiness. Many people don’t consider abortion because of religious rules. I don’t believe in God and I think all the problems are because of human beings. Religion is just a feeling of fear on humans and the ignorance to the explanation of natural disasters. For example on my “instrumentalism” work the importance is how we feel about something or someone and not in what is reasonable. Our decision on this case based on abortion it’s only reasonable if we make it based on what we really desire.As our perception comes from ideas and impressions so it depends how we see abortion. For many of us abortion might seem somewhat nefarious but in reality it depends. I consider abortion should be allowed when the woman was raped or the baby may have some kind of problem that it is better to not make the baby suffer. Otherwise if they just have sexual relationship because they wanted they have to confront their responsibility since they knew what they were doing. It’s our responsibility because we have notion of cause and effect and especially when you are neither blinded nor deaf.

Imaginary babies? Oh wait! Imaginary world..

Abortion (When is ethical if ever to terminate a pregnancy?)

Baby on board! There is no such thing like thinking someone is pregnant. There is nothing inside a female's so called, non existent, womb. All there is, is a person conflicting with his or her individual minds; not saying that 'this' person really exists. People often encounter with a set of moral values that should account in society. Unfortunately, This ethical values don't exist, for they rely on another individuals perspective of principles of what is good or bad. Furthermore, this individual does not exist. You, yourself, do not exist. So having no ethical, having no womb, and moreover, being non existent, how is it possible to think that somebody is pregnant? Everything is inside a person's mind. You won't understand my point not necessarily because of it being complex, but because you don't have the same power or skills that I have in my mind. you won't be able to decipher what I am trying to say because I don't exist; I am nothing just like you. However you have the open door to think and perceive the world by your own, by what you have in mind. Everything else besides my perspectives relies on rhetoric. Abortion does not exist because the components for it are non existent. Still, when thinking of it in terms of rhetoric, you need to remember that nothing exists, and then with it you can analyze whether it is possible to have abortion or not. In terms of logic, if you are a female and you don't exist, then you don't have a womb. If you don't have a womb then you can't be pregnant. Abortion is non existent.

Willing to die....

Euthanasia is translated to “good death” in Greek. Some people terminally ill decide to end up their lives committing suicide. The majority of people aware of what it is all about consider it to be morally wrong, but still Utilitarianists are on favor. Utilitarianists will always be on favor of what will benefit the majority but will be on favor of what benefits the minority if and only if it results in the greatest good overall. Euthanasia reliefs family members economically and emotionally in cases like this. Why wait for any terminal disease to end your life? People with cancer, for example, they have to go through the process of chemotherapies, they’ll end up suffering even more the rest of their lives so euthanasia in this case will be a relief. Anyone in this condition or any other similar has the right to commit suicide, whether assisted by a doctor or do it by themselves, if they are snatched this right it would be considered censuring a person’s freedom of choice, which is what allows us to make our own decisions, whether they are for good or harm. Then yes, people terminally ill have the right to end their lives to avoid suffering according to utilitarianism beliefs.

A SOCIETY THAT DOES NOT SENTENCE A MURDERER TO DEATH TURNS INTO AN ACCOMPLICE OF THIS CRIME!

"Even if a civil society were to be dissolved by the consent of all its members...the last murderer remaining in the prison would first have to be executed, so that each has done to him what his deeds deserve and blood guilt does not cling to the popler for not having insisted upon this punishment; for otherwise the people can be regarded as collaborators in this public violation of justice"
As you can see, and stated above, I am very infavor of the capital punishment, of the death penalty. I believe that if not supported, the government and those not in favor of the death penalty are in favor then, on the act of violation done by the prisoner.
No society can exist without laws. Therefore enforcing the law equals protection. Any person who violates the law loses the right to be a member of such society. It means he?she oposses the social order and must be deemed guilty and punished. PUNISHMENT IS LEGAL if the basis is a crime. i insist that a country that does not sentence a murderer to death TURNS INTO AN ACCOMPLICE OF THIS CRIME!

Set them Free

Is Euthanasia moral? Is it ethical to kill people who are terminaly ill and cant really live a fullfilling life? I think that people would rather die proudly than dying without any honor. Anyways poeple dont have any purpose in life, they dont have to continue suffering a life that they cannot even enjoy. They live as zombies or as societies martyrs and it would be easier to end with all of their lives than keeping them in orphanages or psychiatric hospital in which they will only continue to suffer and be a burden to society. Also people have the free will to die when ever they want at the time they want and with the circumstances they choose. God has nothing to do with any of this there is no religious point in this because Euthanasia is free choice and there is nothing you can do about it. ''God is dead'' and all of his beliefs and purposes so why would it have to do anything with dying with pride. As an anti-christian i belive that religious cults and other churches are incredible hipocrites that only stick to the rules when they have the people watching over them. I think that people have the right to choose if to die proudly or live a life of suffering or in a vegetative state that they cant feel joy or even think or say that they want out. I also think that their should be a person who can come with a flame thrower and set all those poor souls free, even if it sounds cruel and inhumane.

Threat to the golden rule!

KANT> in weighing the morality of actions, would you want to be treated with disrespect? Disrespect to your own right to live? to your own life?
I do not think so.
"We must treat other people with respect rather than as means to selfish gratifications"
We should treat people with the respect they deserve and a child, an inocent child cannot be denied the right to exist, to explore, to live...
We have a moral obligation!
Lets FOCUS our moral obligations on the need to treat people with respect for their dignity and moral worth.
Even though a woman has their own choice, their own autonomy, to do what they choose to do with their body, she sure does not have the right to threaten and terminate the life of another being.
REESTATING> we must treat people with repect rather than as means to selfish gratification
in this case consider this mome as a selfish individual! CONSIDER> she is denying her child to live!

To Preserve & Conserve... Myself, Duh.

I think it may have been my fault the ozone layer got that infamous hole. Eh, it can’t have been only my wrong; it was the 80's, for crying out loud! Everyone lived off of hairspray and soft rock.

Now, I know I should have thrown my coffee cup away on the bin, but I missed the shot by a few feet. It’s not my fault I never quite became that professional basketball player. You can’t blame me for crappy aiming skills, can you? The preservation of the environment is not a task I should be forced to handle or care for myself. There are plenty other Green-freaks tying loose ends at bamboo conferences, and I’m just not one of ‘em. I don’t feel like watching my oxygen intake should be one of my main priorities, what a hassle! I can find much more pleasure in sleeping in with the air conditioning on full and a pizza box biodegrading under my bed.

The preservation of the environment is a current solution for a long-term problem, and as I see it, I’m not going to be around in a hundred years, so this solution has no immediate
gratification for me. It’s not like I can plant a tree and get an apple the next day! Where’s the fun in waiting a few centuries for a freakin’ fruit? Exactly. No fun at all.

For now, I think I’ll just stick to my fries, hairspray, and soft rock. The ozone layer can zone-out for a while longer, anyway.

AUTONOMY OVER LIES....

KANT> Lying is ALWAYS morally wrong. Humans are born with Intrinsic worth, human ditgnity. Humans are rational agents capable of free will, setting goals, and guiding themselves according to reason.
"To be human, is to respect the power in oneself and others."
Lying Corrupts the ability to make free, rational choices. Each lie contradicts self moral worth.
If I am lying to someone about a choice they should make this leads people to decide other than they would had violating autonomy. Violating free will.
It is true that we are born with free will to make rational choices, but take into consideration that in this scenario for example> Voter1: Im voting for pepe lobo you should vote for him too
Voter 2> but i dont think he is right he has promised death penalty
Voter 1> He did before but says he now regrets it and wont even come near to mention it (lie?pajombe)
voter2> oh ok then i will vote for him
Voter's 2 free will has been violated, his choice corrupted now by voters 1 lie. This lie violated Voter's 2 free will...he now acted acording to Voter's 1 will...

NIOTE TO MR. WILLETE!

NOTE TO MR. WILLETTE...at first i didnt know how the blog worked...so i posted my stuff as comments by accident...it wasnt until yesterday i discovered the "new entry tab" if u dont believe well they are dated anyway... :p...and they've got titles too so... i apologize... i will repost them as entries today... :(

War for God

Is war, if ever, ethical? The simple answer, and the most commonly accepted, is a resounding “no”. Throughout history there have been many wars. Most of the time, wars could be avoided if the parties involved try to reach a solution through diplomacy. There is also the matter of the people that fight for their religion. These “soldiers of God” believe that they are fighting for their God and wage war against other parties which they believe differ in religious views. According to society’s morals, wars are not ethical, however, if a divine command is received, society’s views on morals may be overlooked in favor of the divine command. To judge the actions of these people that fight for God, we would have to first determine if their doings are indeed willed by God. It is important to note that the only word that may be valid in this instance is the word of our Christian God. Thus we have the problem that not all societies believe in the same God. Thus, we can conclude that what may be unethical for us may be ethical for other people. To follow the will of a divine command, we have to take into account the teleological suspension of the ethical; people can avoid society’s moral laws in order to fulfill the will of God. So while waging war may not be ethical in the society, if a divine command requires one to wage war, then it is up to the person to decide if they want to stand by society’s ethics or to follow the divine order.

Treat animals the way you want to be treated!

Animals should not undergo any type of experiment. Scientists that test products in animals are murderers. There are other efficient ways to test products for humans. Animals are not necessary and vital for these types of tests. When animals go through this process they are treated with cruelty and selfishness. People need to learn that even though they are not humans, animals are part of nature and our surrounding. Also, people need to think a little bit more about it: Would I want to be treated the way this innocent animal is treated? For example, is it imperative to use an animal for cosmetic testing? How are cosmetics vital for human life to sacrifice an animal, making it suffer on purpose? People will not die without cosmetics. Women can live without it, so why kill an animal for something that does not sustains life. These actions are not acceptable. These people will be judged in their after life. If they are making animals suffer, they will suffer. It is one of the percepts- not to harm nothing and no one. I think people that work in animal testing centers should reevaluate their lives. Accomplishing the peace of mind and heart to be happy and ultimately become enlightened. Animals have a life, just like us. It is not virtuous to treat them with cruelty. When an animals kills another, they do it for survival, but how can one of them be scarified to produce something that does not determine human life's survival? Freedom of suffering is the basic. No one has the right to make something or someone else suffer. People should become vegetarians also. Eating chicken or meat involves killing an animal. Animals are as equal as we are. Being animals do not make them less being. Animal testing- UNETHICAL, UNACCEPTABLE!

If I want to, then I will

Should we be allowed to say whatever we want? Are there times when censorship is necessary? Through the eyes of an existentialist, we are allowed to express ourselves however we want to. People have the right and the freedom to speak and to express themselves since we create our own destiny. With this freedom, however, comes responsibility where we should have self-awareness. Yes we have the freedom to say whatever we want, but we have to be aware of what we are doing and have to take our freedom with responsibility. Even though we are free to defy our parents and talk back at them, we rather keep this to ourselves because we have the responsibility to behave with our parents. Is it wrong if we talk back to our parents? There is no right or wrong, as long we take responsibility and face the consequences. If we know we shouldn't express ourselves in a certain way, and we decide to ignore that and later do not take responsibility for it, then certainly it was unethical to act in such a way. Sometimes censorship is ethical, in a way that WE censor ourselves because we have the responsibility to measure our acts, no one else can do that for us. We should know if what we are doing is right or wrong. For example, when the government decides to censor someone's freedom of speech we are not being denied our actual existential freedom; legally we aren't allowed to say something, but as a person we can.

Suicide denied

Suicide is morally bad!. its true that people are very stressed out, but the solution to our problems are not killing ourselves, because we dont have any right to play or to say we are done with our lives. People in the entire world kill themselves because they have personal problems, but why we dont have the spirit to continue and solve our own problems, why we end up killing ourselves, as mathe says> every problem has a solution! If we are acting in a moral way we dont have to make bad choices not even playing god with our lives.
Acting in a moral way is doing what you think is best for you, if you are a killer you are acting in a moral way, if you are a cheater or even a good person, your acting in a moral way!. Not acting in a moral way is not doing what you want to do, but of course if you think something like suicide, thats nor morally because you dont have any right to kill or auto destroy yourself because is not entirely moral, thats insane come on!...

euthinasia:VIOLATION OF THE MORAL LAW!

I forbid suicide. I forbid euthinasia. I conflate respect for persons and respect for people, and assume that in killing a person, oneself or another, we are undermining person hood. An agent that takes his own life acts in violation of the moral law! Thereforem suicide or assisted suicide is wrong! According to the categorical imperative i say we should act according to maxims! We should not kill someone to end their pain because doing so is using them to another end.

Living souls on dead Bodies

Is euthanasia ethical? Is it moral to kill people when they are to a point that they cannot live a full life? I once wrote ''what we need is not the will to believe but the will to find out" so to come to a conclusion if to kill someone we need to research and find out both sides of an argument to balance the harm and the good that will be done to the person, irrespective of personal preference. If your religion or church states is agaisnt the because it has a biased side to the argument dont participate on the research because religious dogmas cannot be proven right or wrong so it cant be final. Euthanasia means ''good death'' who wouldnt prefer to die with a little honor or just the fact of it being painless instead of living a life of pain and disability. I think that voluntary death or Euthanasia should become legal and it is moral because even if in a country voluntary death is illegal the country is still killing hundreds of people ''legally''. I also think that poeple with mental and physical disabilities that cannot stand for themselves and say that they want out, or that they are suffering way too much have no cause or purpose in life and a life without a meaning is not a life at all. Its like they are already dead but with a living body that doesnt work at all. So if you ask me if Euthanasia should be morally acceptable and if you ask me that it is ethical to kill someone on a vegetative state i say it is beacuse your are relieving them from heir pain and their burden.

Win A Right (WAR)... Ayn Rand

When we think of war, we think of mass destruction, deaths, lying, and many other things described by ''majority'' as inmoral. The thing is that war could also be a conflict between to people independent of their race.

War occurs when someone, or many, want something. Motives for this are rights, materials, or independence. But war is not always something bad. If you see it from the winning country side of view, you'll see that war has brought many benefits to the man or country. When war brings a benefit to a person, it becomes ethical because it is for an egoist cause. Now thats one point of view. If you see it as benefits for one whole country, then the ethics change because now more people are against war because it made them lose something.

Just like my title says... win a right, and that is because you have to fight for what you want, and it is ethical because its beneficial only for you. Only being egoist makes things ethical and if war is egoist, then go ahead with it.

What are you thinking?

I think that euthanasia is something that should not occur because life is fragile and you should not be messing with it. You can’t go throwing life because you have been having a bad time. People need to understand that life is not always pink and that sometimes is grey. If life was just pink I am sure that people would get bored and wouldn´t appreciate the best times in life. They would not appreciate the tiny things that life offers. So you can’t go on in life feeling miserable and from that moment you want to die. Second of all I consider that people seeking death are weak. And is stupid to seek death in order to escape from poverty, pangs of love, from pain or sorrow is not the act of courageous man, but rather of a coward. In other words they can’t live with a little of pressure or sadness. That means that they still don´t understand life and have not learned anything of it, they are weak and they will always be. Killing them self doesn´t make you more man, it just explains us that you could not handle a little bit of pressure.
As a mention in my last blog I like justice and balance therefore; to commit suicide is to do oneself an injustice. Suicide is a criminal offence. However, in some cases committing suicide can be permitted, cases such as; that a person is under judicial order, or when one is being forced by an unavoidable misfortune, when one is so disgraced that life has become unbearable or you have a terminal ill that your life have gave a extreme switch, an example; that you have become a vegetable. That are the only exceptions, if not suicide is considered as being coward.

Thing 2?? Sounds great! (Ayn Rand)

Genetic engineering has been a recently popular thing to study because it hasn’t been fully explored. Scientists are always trying to make us life easier by getting all the best genes to reproduce only good quality animals or even cells. Critics, as always, says that cloning cells could be a contributing factor that could lead to many types of cancer.

The majority of people have come to consent that cloning in general is not ethical because maybe it causes pain to the human or animal, and because of the unknown results. I say that cloning is ethical due to its effectiveness. Cloning has developed a lot lately; has come up with many things like seedless fruits like the grape, the ruby red grapefruit, and the watermelon. It also has been a good way to prevent extinction, and it also clones common animals that we eat. Scientists hope that cloned cells will be used to treat serious diseases such as heart problems, diabetes and spinal injuries. So why not be ethical? In my opinion, if I were to have a son, I would like him to have my best genes.

I always make emphasis on the importance to look forward what is best for you and not for anyone else. Making selfish decisions is the same as ethical decisions, and if you get seedless fruits, good genes that would make great human beings and animals, and cure major diseases like cancer; genetic engineering is very ethical from my point of view, without glancing at the consequences of the vonlunteer. It’s a volunteer after all.

Come Home Lassie
It is for the best of society to allow animal sacrifices we, as Utilitarians, are interested in the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. I find, in fact, lamentable that communities continue to mistreat and use animals as Entertainment or even as food. Some argue that animals are unable to make moral choices, therefore cannot be regarded as possessors of Rights, but humans have duties and therefore only humans have rights. The ability to suffer, not the ability to reason, should be the benchmark, or the "insuperable line” that creates conscience that animals should be given Rights and equality. If reason alone were the criteria by which we judge the rights someone deserves, infants and adults with mental or physical disabilities might fall in the same category as animals. These are living organisms that just as human deserve to live. We, as human beings, have no power to decide which living creatures deserves and don’t deserve to be treated fairly. It is not ethical to say that just because animals are not capable of reasoning, they are unable to receive fair treatment. One day may come when the number of the legs or the color of the skin are not reasons that differentiate one another and we might consider all as sensitive beings that have the same fate

War ethical? Definitely not!

How can war be ethical? How can killing someone elses life to feel you are in power be ethical? I think there is no reason under no circumstance to end with someone's life. I think that in order to live a harmonious life it is necessary to respect others. People need to follow the five percepts or the five rules which are: No killing, no stealing, no sexual misconduct, no lying, and no intoxicants. The first one involves a respect for life, not just your own life but other people's life. There is nothing that should be killed, not even a bug. We should feel a loving-kindness attitude towards others, hoping they have a happy life free from any harm and danger. If there is a problem that needs to be resolved, fighting is not the correct way to do so. People can follow the Four Noble Truths which will determine the cause of the problem and how to solve it without violence. I am not saying there will be no suffering, but we know that it comes from desire, and desire can be eliminated by following the Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path is formed by eight steps. These steps must be followed each one by one in order to accomplish the end of suffering and to become a better person with more wisdom. Before any violence, people need to think and evaluate themselves before criticizing others. Usually fights take place between two sides that are intolerant of each other. This is why we need to think of others as good human beings that will do no harm to us. People need to learn that fighting will lead to more fighting and more disagreements. Violence does not solve problems. Talking and thinking things over does.
-Gautama

Playing God

A man is guilty of raping and murder, he is sentenced to death row. He is executed and the victim’s family has received closure and is at peace. Death sentence, although may bring peace to some, is not ethical. Even if someone committed the most atrocious of murders, no human being has the right to take away that person’s life. There is nothing that will ever give us humans the right to play God. Deciding when someone dies is nor our choice to make. Although it is socially accepted to execute a vicious criminal, one will ultimately have to answer to God, and He has giving us many pleasures and benefits, but never has a human being been blessed with the power to decide who gets to live another day. Having the means of ending a life does not justify the action of actually doing it. The way to bring about some good is not by killing a man, but by reforming him or secluding him. A life sentence should be preferred over execution; there are other punishments that are worse than a dying. The state does not have the right to take a life, no matter what the circumstance; we were not created by God to kill each other. The state can help society by other means. The death penalty, as has been proven, does not necessarily mean that crime will lower in the country or state applying it. There are other means, as well, that can be used to reach the goal of the death penalty, which is to inspire fear in criminals. It is only right that the power to judge a life falls on God and no other.

No war but PEACE

Having in consideration the utilitarian beliefs on war we are against it. We don’t believe war can be the solution to a problem between nations. First of all we practice “the dialogue”, we don’t go straight to a fight. We believe that talking what’s going on first makes everything easier and can help clear up the situation. War will affect each of the nations involved and therefore the people in each country too. Utilitarianist are always trying to protect society, what’s best for society is what we consider the right thing to do, we don’t support whatever will affect it. An ethical choice would be to talk about the problem and trying to find a solution but not going straight to the battlefield and kill the amount of people necessary to declare who is the winner and who’s the loser. The winner will always be the one who knew how to act, the one who does what is the best thing to do, always protecting the great majority.

Animals have a heart, do you?

Animals feel, have a heart, have siblings, parents…they can’t think logically like us, nor take drastic decisions, but can human babies or elderly people can as well? When you are growing up you must know the difference between what is right, and what is wrong. A virtuous person might eat stake only to fulfill his needs, but you probably won’t see him hanging a moose’s head or an alpaca any time soon on his wall. The line that defines good and evil is very confusing and sometimes even misinterpret. Many vegetarian people say that it is not morally correct to kill animals and eat meat, but plants are as much alive as we all are. Probably they even have a greater function on earth than all mammals and cold blooded animals. People who practice virtue ethics have been raised as moral agents; they know what the right thing to do by instinct. This is what people should and shouldn’t do. People should eat meat, having in mind that they should be very grateful that a living thing gave its life to support your own. This is what you shouldn’t do. If you dislike puppies or cats, don’t mess with them, just let them be. There are many people that will probably won’t ever like you, but they won’t get on your case or jump you, well most of the time. We humans as well belong to the animal kingdom; although in contemporary times we rule the world, let us never forget that as we evolved some other species may as well.

Clones, harmful or helpful?

“Cloning may be good and it may be bad. Probably it's a bit of both. The question must not be greeted with reflex hysteria but decided quietly, soberly and on its own merits. We need less emotion and more thought.”

Cloning has always been undermined by the skepticism of the world caused by religion. Most people immediately consider cloning an insult to their God because we are seeking to be like him. Human beings have always considered themselves as the created instead of viewing themselves as creators. Religion has always intended to stop human progress and label any person who promotes new ideals as evil and a threat. Cloning can lead to many benefits to people who were born with disabilities. At the same time cloning can be harmful in the long term because people will live longer, which will cause more global warming, more food demand, poverty and more social problems. It is important to think about cloning and not regard our decision on what we feel towards it. However, with the right management it can cure many diseases that are killing a lot of people like AIDS and even help us eliminate any kind of impediment. Cloning will never be accepted until religion becomes irrelevant or until we realize that our fate is not determined by “God”, but instead by the decisions we make.

Death of Choice

As an existentialist I believe that people should have the right to decide whether they want to be killed or want to continue living, and they should be allowed to decide the time and manner of their death- (voluntary euthanasia). The person who is not severely injured or severely mentally ill can choose to die or can choose to continue with his life. For example, an elder man at the age of 69 who lost his wife and wants to join her in the afterlife could ask for voluntary euthanasia, even though he is not severely depressed. This reason is acceptable, because he makes the choice to die and asks the physician for assistance. However there is another conflict when speaking of physician assisted suicide, because the physician feels like he has the duty to protect life and stop the unbearable pain of the patient. A little girl suffering from a horrible car accident, it's not guaranteed that she will live, or that she will die. The mother asks the physician to let her go, because she can't stand seeing her girl in so much pain. The physician will have a choice too in this because he'll want to help the child, and he knows this is his duty. In this case euthanasia would be wrong, since the girl's will has not been taken into account and the physician too does not want to take responsibility when it comes to killing her. Euthanasia, even though legal in some places should not be allowed unless the person suffering asks for the physician's assistance.

Prostitution: Should be legal.

One should always live in concurrence with one’s emotions. One should always search the practical way of life, the smooth easy going side that is often dismissed. So then why should we make a big deal out of prostitution? Prostitution is one of the world’s oldest professions. It has been practiced in every culture in every epoch. But this mere fact doesn’t make it appropriate because so has been assassination and extortion. So then, why should prostitution be legal?
Simple: Sex is something that comes naturally in almost very human beings. It is something that it’s often given away. So then why should something that you can easily give away be illegal to sell?
It will happen regardless is it is legal or illegal. When something is made illegal, felons often make a profit out of it. That particular thin is exploited. It happened with booze, it is currently happening with drugs and prostitution. If a prostitute is harmed, she can’t go to the police to report because she would get herself in trouble. If she is being blackmailed by a pimp or any other vulture there is no practical way to free herself with ought facing any type of legal consequence. It is currently happening everywhere and the legal system is faulty in that area. If regulations where to be applied, the demand for prostitutes would decrease to a point in which only regulated well organized groups would exist.
Cut the crap dumb Americans (as a Continent) and make it legal.

Balance is the key !

Death penalty is a big issue especially when you want to have a certain balance and moderation in the world. So, first of all I will accept that I agree with death penalty. However, this has an explanation I agree with it, but, in certain cases because I think that death penalty as fitting punishment for acts of murder, for example when an agent has acted voluntarily and viciously it’s acceptable, because I think this way it leaves room for adjustment according to the particular details that vary across time and culture. What I try to say is that using this method we will have more justice. This flexibility is important, because it allows a system of justice to fit death penalty judgments to the particular circumstances of individual cases. Another example would be; if you have this man that tells his story, and let’s say that he is actually saying the truth, but the police or man in charge doesn’t believe him. And suddenly he takes the decision of killing him without allowing him to defend himself. That is when the problem begins because we said that the man was not guilty but he still killed him, however, they realize that he was not guilty, that officer won’t be able to bring him into life again. So that is when we look at the balance, so the balance would be seen this way; the officer kill the man that was not guilty so now he has to give his life, (like a sort of return) and in that exact moment we will see the balance.
The whole idea of this method is to look at the behavior people apply in justifying for his theoretical claims, as well, as describing two components of justice that are equality and fairness. What equality means is that each person ought to receive equal respect and possession of the goods that they deserve. Fairness means that everything like evidence etc must be further analyzed into constituent terms of desert.
So like it was mention before the punishment is said to be just when it is proportionately and equal to the amount of harm inflicted and when the man try to kill, harm or anything related with harming and trying or taking away the life of a third person, death penalty should be apply. This way you involve the method of creating a balance. You have to take the life from the murderer this way the agent or person harmed can be reached.

never lie, cheat or steal...but if you do go to confession

Is it okay to lie, cheat or steal? Some other people might say that it is or that depending on the circumstance it can be accepted. I say that it is never okay to lie, cheat or steal. There mght not be any man-made law against lying, but there is a much more important one. The laws that God made for us to follow, the Ten Commandments. There is no clear commandment against lying where it is specifically prohibited but it is clearly something that is immoral and would be frowned upon in the eyes of God. There is also no clear commandment against cheating, but it is also immoral and I have absolutely no doubt that it would also be frowned upon in the eyes of God, maybe even more than lying. For stealing there are man-made laws and Holy laws against it, the eighth commandment states: You shall not steal. This is a clear commandment that no people should have trouble deciphering. There are also very clear man-made laws against it. In the case that someone should commit these sin/crimes, one should go to a church, find a priest and ask for a confession immediately, they should do this without any fear of being prosecuted by the authorities since in the view of the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy laws are above any man-made laws and forgiveness and repent in the ayes of God is more important than earthly punishment. The priests are all sworn to secrecy and cannot tell anyone what is said in confession, therefore there should be no fear of later going to jail.

- Thomas Aquinas

I’ll do what’s best for all

Euthanasia (Do humans have the right to end their lives if terminally ill?)
Humans have the right to choose if they want to live or die. If the person can choose to live or die they should choose what benefits the society. If someone is terminally ill should they live or die? First the individual should think about how their loved ones would feel for his/her death. Because of the pain and the suffering their loved ones might feel if he/she dies, a person may choose to continue living even though they might make an individual choice to die if such considerations did not exist. But, a person could also chose to die because of the pain and financial burdens that the family or society might have to bear with. They could be so big that even though the individual wants to continue living, it would be best for the family or society if they die, that the individual should choose to die. If the individual is unable to decide if he or she can live or die and the family needs to choose for them, then the family should choose what benefits the majority. They may decide that it is harmful to society to weaken the value of life, and that if there is a possibility of saving life, in any condition, it should be done for the good of everyone. However, the family could also choose the death of the individual. They may think that society would be forced to bear with the financial burden of the person utilizing such expensive medical care, and that those resources could be used for someone who still has hope of living. “We must examine the practice to determine if it increases the overall good in order to determine if it is ethical.”

If It's My Life, It's My Death, Too

So many euphemisms for this… Croaking, pushing up daisies, sprouting wings, throwing in the towel, and finally, dying. There has been much debate over whether or not a suffering individual should be allowed to end his or her life. Honestly, think about it… If you were dying of terminal cancer, suffering, choking on your own tears while begging for morphine, euthanasia would most likely cross your mind once or twice. I may have been all about pleasure before, but when it comes to laying in bed all day wishing I were dead, I’d rather do more than wishing and just get things over with. Euthanasia is a perfect way to diminish and rid people of their pain and misery; you know me, I’m all about ‘no pain, all gain’. As humans, we should not be forced by anyone else to endure a single moment of pain, so if it is our wish to depart from this world in blissful riddance, so be it. After a certain point, if the light at the end of the tunnel goes from being a flicker to shining as bright as the light of day, it’s most likely time to kick the bucket and call it a night.

I see no reason why anyone should withstand the pain of dying without the choice of death. If turning the leaf will promise an end to the unbearable, then by all means, meet me on the other side.

See you there,
H.

You are immortal, for you don't exist.

Death Penalty- Does the state have the right to kill another person?
There is no such thing like death.If the nonexistent exists, it will both exist at the same time. People don't exist. If people do not exist then there is no way you are able to die. Many persons live in an imaginary world in which they create their own creatures and places in their own mind. But how can you kill someone if you do not exist and moreover, that person does not exist? You can either believe in my theory that nothing really exists; just like morals and values in a society, or you can rely on your own rhetoric. However, you still should bear in mind that nothing exists in this world. Going back to the initial question, if the state should have the right to kill another person, society does not value this so if you are to rely on your rhetoric, you would encounter with the situation being non sense.The world is incomprehensible and the concept of truth is ficticious. Just the same way you cannot rely on the values of society because no matter how people think they are true, they are ficticious. Therefore, you should conclude that everything is nothing and nothing is possible. You might not understand what I am trying to say because you do not have the same power of mind that I have. It is more likely because I am not saying nothing and you are not consuming into your mind anything. At least it is certainly true that good charioteers are not those who keep their footing in their chariots at the beginning; then, when they have trained their horses and have themselves become more proficient in the art of driving, fall out."

Make Peace not War!

When is war ever ethical? People have been at war since prehistoric times and we humans have always asked ourselves when is it ever okay to start a war. We must learn to live in full harmony with our environment which must include of course humans. Why create war when you can create peace and love? I don’t think there is any kind of ethics to war. One must practice kindness and benevolence for everyone; after all you get what you have given. War is the act of trying to enforce your ideas and beliefs, one must accept others beliefs, you have to be able to live in peace and harmony with your whole environment. Is war ethical when you want something? You should never envy your neighbors well being, never take advantage of what you can do with the power you have been given, always try to put others first before yourself and they shall be the same with you. What this means is that if a country has the power to take over another it does not give them the right to do so, especially when they want something specific, countries should always try to help each other. We would live in a much better world if everyone was to be kind and generous with one another, not being egoist putting yourself first rather than putting someone else first.

Death by my own hand

Euthanasia, should it be something humans in their right mind should be able to do? Is it ethical? In the eyes of Jean Paul Sartre, He would've believe this to be totally ethical. As humans, we are all free, we enjoy freedom, in fact we are "condemned to freedom". We as human always have everyday choices, and one of those choices could be to choose if we should end our lives or not. We have the ultimate choice. Plus, is not something really important to ponder about, because life is meaningless and has no value, life is absurd. Also, this cannot be considered suicide, because your life is going to end soon, as well as their is no higher power or entity that could "punish"you. You are free to whatever you want and choose any choice you set your mind to do. SO yes, humans should be committed to euthanasia.  

Jean Paul Sartre

Women have the right to decide !

Should abortion be legal? This is a public controversial question that has been inquired for many years. The legality, prevalence, and cultural views on this topic vary substantially around the world. According to the utilitarian belief if a significant number of women desire abortion then the government should make abortion legal. Women have the freedom to decide the correct decision for their future. Therefore, abortion is considered legal according to the usefulness it has on women’s lives. There is no God out there telling people what is good or bad for them. One of the main reasons why abortion has been abolished in society is due to religion. According to religion, women have to “accept” the purpose God has given them, but the truth is religion does not really determine what is wrong from right. What is good or bad is defined as what the majority of the people say so or the utility it has on the majority of society. For example, women have to decide what this unborn child will need and what implies giving birth to the baby. What if this child was conceived through rape? Should the women be forced to keep the baby under any circumstances? Relying on utilitarian belief, this decision must be grounded in individual perspective and view of the situation. I believe abortion is an ethical decision since it facilitates the lives of many young women around the world. There are many of them that are not prepared for the load of motherhood; abortion provides an opportunity to make up their minds and choose what is best for their situation.

Modern knight or Murderers?

Is war ethical? Is killing ever accepted, are material things ever more valuable than life? I dont think that there is any ethics or morals in war. War is about getting what you want by force and its irrational to put lives in danger for material resources or even for a religion. I belive that God has made us all equal and that it is a sin to kill other human beings. The war on self defense is the kind of war that is almost universally admitted to be justifiable, and is condemned only by Christ. Another war that can be justified and maybe ethical is the war of principle this war is the one like the American Civil war that one of the sides is honestly trying to make good change for the progress of the people. The war on democracy i think it is not justified at all and that people can have different points of view, different governments if they want. War on religion i think is really unethical because religions are supposed to teach morals and virtues and why would two different types of religions fight? I think its hipocritical from both religions to fight and murder people and then say that it is a sin! Would God allow this? War is also really expensive to cost and it is not logical to lose so much money to kill people and feel powerful. In my opinion if war actually helps a society it can be considered ethical but it cant be ethical if its just to get resources or change a government.

This is War!

Is war ever ethical, is it right to fight for material or religious purposes? ''War has always been the grand sagacity of every spirit which has grown too inward and too profound; its curative power lies even in the wounds one receives.'' this qoute I said to answer the questions of war, War is an ethical way to get what we want by force! We have to live on our fullest and if someone is trying to stop us from our goals we have to take a stand and fight for what we believe in. People may say the deaths for economy or freedom are a waist of human lives and resources because in the end wars are extremely costly and death can come in thousands even millions, but it doesnt matter in the end because those lives lost and all the money used up was to give a feeling of satisfaction and power of getting what you want. On the other hand I think that religion is not enough reason for a war, I think wars are good to get what we want and if it wasnt for religion wars would allways be ethical. Religion is just a way to separate people into groups and there is no such thing as a God or a higher being, so why fight for something that doesnt exist? We have to put our goals before us because or lives have no meaning without goals, so war can only be ethical if we our on pursuit of that which gives meaning to our meaning less lives!

The great reality of abortion

Abortion has been considered a hugely controversial solution for a mother who feels that the only contribution they’re making to society is a burden. The main reason abortion can’t be accepted by the world population is because a huge obstacle we all call religion. We are all born to become beneficial to the future of society, not to fulfill the false claims of a “God” who has a determined purpose for us. We are all part of a huge process called evolution; therefore we must contribute to the evolution of our species in order to guarantee the survival of the human race. Abortion is a very beneficial solution to the parents who are not prepared for a baby and society itself. The ethical reason why abortion is so good is that if the parents will not be able to provide the baby with the ideal conditions, then it is actually immoral. The only people who consider abortion immoral are the ones that belief that only God can give or take away life from us, but I want to ask them if their God will take care of the baby and ensure it has a great life. It is immoral to justify our actions by claiming that some kind of deity commands us and has supreme power over us. It is biologically proven that a baby that doesn’t grow up in the ideal conditions will become weak and die eventually. Some even consider that birth control is a kind of abortion because we are killing the possibility for a baby to be born. This is absolutely absurd because a human being after the embryonic stage, two months after fertilizations occurs.
“In illustration of the dark side of absolutism, I mentioned the Christians in America who blow up abortion clinics, and the Taliban of Afghanistan, whose list of cruelties, especially to women, I find too painful to recount.” –Richard Dawkins

Stoicism; closer look

"Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them."- Epicetus

Although ancients stoics are often misunderstood because the different way of reasoning from time periods, there is one thing we know for sure; Stoics where people that kept their heads cool for the most part. They did not try to fully obliterate emotions; they instead tried to channel them at regulated patterns to be able to take wise decisions.
Some problems can be solved in the assurance that information can be attained through the use of reason. Truths can sometimes be set apart from fallacies in real life even though the fringes are blurred. Stoics believe that every object has a certain pulsation that leaves behind a particular trace in their minds. According to stoics the world is divided into two parts: the passive and the active. The passive things are matter, which lie motionless unless someone or something makes it move. The active side is fate, which acts upon those motionless objects.

Undestanding Stoicism

Stoicism, which means unemotional, was a school of Greco/Roman philosophy originated in Athens created by a man called Zeno of Citium in the early third century before Christ. They considered harsh emotions to be the product of errors in decisions person of high moral standards would steer clear of this emotions. Keeping your cool on hard situations and always avoiding rushes of unnecessary emotional stress”. Stoics were fretful with the dynamic relationship between human cognition and freedom, and the belief that it is good to maintain a good will that is in the good side with nature; In other words, good Karma. Because of this, stoicism became a way of life; a human was worth by his actions and not his words. This philosophy and way of life was preferred by the higher classes. Pauper and peasant where as always, kept close behind but with a distance.

Stoicism is a decent philosophy when it regards living life from day to day. Having huge emotional episodes is certainly harmful to any individual and stress gnaws a healthy man’s health just as a rat does to cheese. In present day, stoicism has had a revival. The acquisition of Facebook had helped form tightly knit groups of followers that present similar ideas and expressions.

Creating a Corruptive World

The world should not contain harmful creatures. Every human being is born free, raised free, and dies/died free. It should not be harmful for a person to walk by and suffer an unfortunate and unfair assault. If life is free, then it should be free enough to let a group of people out without running any risks. It is not ethical to lie because there is always one person that will suffer; the one being the victim. It is not ethical to cheat or steal because the people who own the objects or items have worked hard to obtain them. Besides the rigorous work, they have the freedom to own whatever they want if they follow societal rules. If you steal or cheat you are victimizing and harming others. The world should emphasize the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Morals will lead you to what is good or bad. Facing the contrary of the expected should be viewed as an enjoyable event rather than with jealousy. The way you view things will shape your type of actions. If you view the lack of a resource as something enjoyable, for example as a goal, you will strive to afford it in a proper and moral way. If you let yourself be guided by jealousy, you will try to obtain items in improper ways just like stealing or cheating others. These actions are not ethical because each person is free to own what they want. This means that stealing lying and cheating are not ethical because they do nothing more than harm others instead of promoting the greatest good.

Life "Willed Where What is Willed Must Be"

Let me just say, right at the start, that abortion is ethically wrong, no matter what angle or what point of view you decide to take. Even if a teenage girl is forced into sexual intercourse, or the pregnancy comes at the most unexpected, or the most inconvenient of times, in the most unfriendly environment, abortion is not an acceptable means of resolving any issue. The principle reason as to why abortion is wrong has to do directly with the highest of moral judges, God. The fact that God’s morals are higher than society’s morals accounts for a “teleological suspense of the ethical”, what this means is that even though society’s morals might frown upon or condemn your actions, your true concern should be to follow God’s norms. These norms primarily dictate that in the case of a pregnancy, the child must be conceived, for abortion is just another form of murder, and Christianity does not approve of any sort of murder, for any reasons whatsoever. Social norms may, in some cases, grant people the opportunity to legally abort due to the woman having been sexually assaulted. However, what a pregnant woman carries inside her womb is still a human being and he or she (not it) has a right to live right from the moment it is conceived. The means of the baby’s conception should not be a justifiable motive on which to decide the decision on whether to abort or not. The decision should be made by following God’s norms above all others. An abortion will not be an ethical decision no matter what.

Søren Kierkegaard

To Kill a Murderer

It is for the best of humanity to allow capital punishment, for we, being Utilitarians, are interested in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I find, in fact, lamentable that philanthropists want to keep alive criminals that have afflicted our society with aggravated murders. These claimed “lovers of mankind” are blind to the harm they will indirectly inflict upon humanity by leaving these murderers alive. These criminals have proved through their actions that they are unworthy of living. For the security of mankind it is indispensable to allow capital punishment. By eliminating these people from our society we are ensuring the well-being of all, for anyone else can become their victim.

If we leave these murders alive and punish them any other way, the memory of the crime and its punishment will eventually fade away and there will be no difficulty in committing the crime again. Why would we want to keep these people alive?

By implementing the death penalty, many people that have an impulse to kill others will restrain themselves from doing it because of the consequences –that is in pro of humanity. And also, if criminals are predisposed in their genes, by killing murderers we will be protecting our future generations from possessing such malicious genes. Furthermore, since we, human beings, are active learners, we can condition generations to value and respect the lives of our neighbors. And even if aggravated murders still occur, which they will, people will know, and even the murderer himself, that he is unworthy of living such a violent life.

I find it sad that we are debating whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for murder or not, when in fact, I strongly believe that capital punishment should be applied in many more cases.

XOXO - JSM

" Free Speech"

Government says that people don’t have an unlimited right to express themselves freely but I believe the state has no right to engage itself in the private relationships of citizens as long as people’s actions don’t hurt others. The government has no business in restricting what people do, for example the government has the right to banned or prohibit illegal drugs because of their negative effects on society but the government doesn’t have the right to prevent individuals from using them because of the negative consequences affect only the one that is using it, So the government doesn’t have the power to prevent the choice one makes as long it doesn’t harm others. I think that this law is reasonable only if it is used to avoid destructive consequences. I believe we need to find the greater good for the greater number of people. The morally right act to do is the one where the consequence it brings has the more benefits for the majority. I believe that we should all do what will benefit ourselves and all the society; we should not harm the society. Limits on individual liberty are justified only with the purpose to prevent disruption in the society in general and censorship is the limiting of people’s right to express themselves freely, for this reason expressions that offend other people and prevent behavior that is morally wrong or violent behavior and when it is addressed to a group of people that is incapable to avoid its harmful effects.

Make him pay!!

Death penalty is an issue that has been discussed around the world for centuries. A huge part of the population in the world is against it. Some people think that assassins should get one more chance, or maybe life imprisonment. After realizing what they have done they might regret, it’s true, but we are different, utilitarianists are completely on favor. We do believe in second opportunities, but not for this people who don’t care about others, they don’t deserve it. We also believe that no one has the right to kill others, but they broke this rule first. Cruel criminals or dangerous murderers should pay for what they have done. They have harassed and even assassinated our people, they’ve made everyone suffer. Leaving them in freedom can be a risk. They can keep on doing harm to the society and that’s what we are trying to avoid. Utilitarianists always look for what would benefit the society; we try to find the best way for it to live. Having this people as part of our society won’t benefit us.

War or peace?

Could war be considered moral or immoral? Something is only viewed as moral if a large group of individuals receive benefits from it. Is war something that will benefit Society as a whole? The answer would be no, war is an undesirable act, that only brings death and suffering to society. Many wars have been fought through out history, where millions of innocent individuals have lost their lives. Situation, that only leads to more social conflicts between people and nations. In this type of circumstances war would be judged as something immoral since many people are been killed, but it depends of its utility. In other cases war could be considered ethical when the final resolution of the struggle will bring harmony to the majority of society. For example, destroying communist regimes where people have no rights or votes, in this circumstances, war might be necessary for the people to free themselves from totalitarianism. Even though some individuals might be victims of the outcome, war served as a tool to free a society. The only things that matter are the final results of the situation. This means it depends on the individual perspective or the usefulness war has in the lives of the majority of the community. So the answer of the previous question relies on its utility. War is only and just only considered as ethical if it is beneficial to the society as a whole. As a utilitarian I believe that the moral choices made in society have to perceive the good effects of the situation.
- Jeremy Bentham

On Things Like Coldplay CD's & So-Called 'Private Property'

The new Coldplay CD is out!

Oh… No, I don’t mean the official release. Gosh, who buys these things anyway? Be thankful some guy from the record company leaked it last night, or we’d have to wait days for Chris Martin’s weepy phonetics.

Illegal, you say? Purchasing CD’s is so 1990’s! Why should I waste my hard earned money on it while I can have the pleasure of double-clicking it into my hard drive? Or, say, Bronte’s Wuthering Heights, I got the e-book! It’s not like Emily’s in dire need of my cash, right? Besides, if I want it now, it’s much more convenient to just ask Google. The Hangover hasn’t even hit theaters around here, but it sure hit my computer screen three months ago! Why should I be the one to wait for things to be released around here? It would take ages! If I have access to what I want, and I can conjure a wait to get it, then there’s really nothing around to stop me. This way, I don’t even have to leave my home to acquire what I want. I don’t think it can get much better than that. Plus, I think those big corporations have plenty of suckers feeding their egos, they don’t need us. We have a constitutional right to grab as we wish! Eh, okay, that may not be entirely true, but it should be.

What gives them the right to copyright everything? Honestly, if they can copyright, we can un-copyright to our whim, too.

Faster = Easier = Better.

Simple equations have never let me down.

I have not yet lived

In which mind has been ethical to have an abortion? It is absurd. How can it be ethical to kill a baby that is about to be born? It is ridiculous. People have no right to practice an abortion no matter the circumstances. This is considered killing and I am against all branches of killing people, even animals. If you want to have an abortion because the baby will be born with a sickness, think it twice. Is not the right thing to do. You need to respect that baby's life. Instead, you could have the baby, accept him the way he will be, love him, and take care of him. If that baby then dies, he will be born into the heavenly beings and gods. If you destroy his life, you are destroying yourself. Also, you need to understand that everything is constantly changing. What if the boy is cured after some years of being born? Or what if he is being born as healthy as he could be? Either way you have to love that child. Another thing is that you may suffer if you kill the baby. It is the law of cause and effect or karma. You will receive exactly what you have earned. If you make the wrong decision to end this baby's life, you will not receive something that will make you happy. On the other hand, if you decide to have the baby and love him the way he is, you will receive a good thing. Karma is not an enemy, instead it can be your friend because it teaches us how to have a bright future. It shows us that we determine our life in the future by our actions and thoughts. This doesn't mean that in your life will always be happiness, but you need to understand where does the suffering comes from and how to end it.
-Gautama

Forgiveness is the answer, there is no such thing as revenge.

Does the state have the right to kill another person? What if that person has committed a serious act of crime, such as murder or even genocide? Well, no matter how grave the crime committed by the person is, he/she should not undergo death penalty. Under no circumstance should the human race commit such grave act, we must achieve to build a non-violent society. "The ideally nonviolent state would be an ordered anarchy". If we want to achieve this then we must follow principles such as truth, nonviolence, simplicity and faith. The state does not have the right to kill a criminal since every one of us are mortals, we are human beings who deserve to live and all our sins will be forgiven by God. Nobody but God should determine the outcome of our life. If we want a peaceful environment then people must be able to follow norms, values and respect them. When a criminal has done such terrible act, then the ethical thing that she/he must do is tell the truth. Confess, that person must not be ashamed of what he/she has done since we are all mortals who commit mistakes in life, and we learn from our mistakes. There is a purpose after all of why we study history, and it is to learn from our past and to avoid the same mistake. People should be devotes to faith, they must have something to believe in, something strong enough to hold their faith tight enough until death. If people achieve faith and truth, then they will soon eventually become a peaceful-minded person. Peaceful minds do not think of death penalties as a solution to anything, or not even as revenge. Death penalty is not goood, either ethical nor moral. This does not bring anything to solution, it just brings more violence to society and war. Thats not what we want, we want peace, not war. We must learn how to forgive as human beings, we must atain ourselves to faith and truth.

When Feelin' Good Is All That Matters

Ever been caught stealing? How about lying? Well, I’m sure you’ve at least been caught cheating, like on last week’s exam. Honestly, what’s so wrong about this? You’re doing what you have to do to avoid negative repercussions. That’s what any sentient, reasonable human being would do. Or heck, at least what every human should do. It’s all about feelin’ good, man. I bet my marbles you wouldn’t feel so hot if you mom figured out you’ve been taking money from her purse for your personal Friday night outings, and y’know, she won’t miss it, it’s just a few green. Stealing is just a crafty way to get your hands on what you want, not much more. Besides, that’s what life is all about- the good side, the pleasure. I bet you’re just itching to know what the key to happiness is, eh? Allow me to let you in on a little secret: It’s all about pleasure. If cheating on the exam means acing it, and getting dad to lend you his new car, then bring on the cheat sheet! If your best friend’s hair looks like it was chewed on by a goat and you’d rather avoid the waterworks, a little white lie won’t do any harm past relieving you off comforting duty. It’s all means to an end, as long as the end means your own personal gain, of course. Egoism? Nah. Hedonism? Just ask Dorian Grey, it sure turned out nicely for him.

Remember, you can have your cake and eat it, too.

Fresh Meat

Is animal testing and eating animals ethical? You cannot doubt it, animals are living beings but they do not serve other purpose than feeding us or giving some sort of material for our benefit. I think that it is logical reasoning that if animals are the mayor source of food and its easy and profitable to get, why wouldnt we use it? Animal testing is the moral thing to do because it is logical that you cannot test harmful drugs or experiments on human beings. Also animals serve as our guinea pigs literally because they cannot communicate back with us or tell us how they feel. Lets say Eating meat is unethical because we say that animals are living creatures and they have souls, would eating plants be the solution or would we be doing the same thing?Plants are alive too and after all if a live animal has a soul why wouldnt a live plant have one too? so we can conclude that eating meat is ethical because its the logical thing to do, there is no other source of food that is more profitable and helps with our growth, more than meat. During all history animals have been used by humans however they pleased because they are perfectly fit to do so, and that way humans have created a way to breed animals so we get the most out of them and creating them in our mayor source of goods of all time. Always do what will help the most people and what is more logical to do.

War, Who says is right? second entry

War
Why are most wars fought? Pride (World War 2), glory (Troy), money (All of them)… the list may go on and on. Virtue Ethics has a lot to do with people involved in wars. Here is where people’s characters show off the most, in times of war. Who can judge what is right or wrong. Hitler is seen as a monster, but what If all what he did was viewed by him as a virtuous act. We can remember the very sad images and memories that the holocaust brings us, but was this why Hitler started the war in first place. Is it ethical to judge a man that wanted to raise Germany back from its ashes and make it a economical and military power again? Virtue ethics does nothing more than emphasize the character of the moral agent. War for some people such as former president George w Bush jr. was viewed as a way to fix things and as a payback to those who hurt America. Many people supported him at the beginning and many people where sure that there morals and heart were set in the right place. So, how come did the population stopped supporting him a couple of years into the war? Morals and ethics change according through current circumstances, and moral agents more often commit mistakes even though they think they are doing the right thing. Into the war, many prisoners were publicly humiliated by U.S. soldiers. Many people were in disgust when the press released this images, this is where there natural flow of virtue ethics click in their heads. What about if the prisoners over there raped someone and deserved to be publicly humiliated by the marines? Everything should be put in perspective every time virtue ethics kicks in.

I have the right to live!!

When is it truly ethical to abort a child? The answer to be should always be never. Who gives us humans the right to decide whether or not an unborn infant deserves to live? We have no valuable opinion in this decision, the only one who could decide this would be the same infant, but as we know he is talking impaired. Even though women claim and argue that it is there body and they can do whatever they please with it, they cannot decide over the little human they are carrying. The fetus is another totally different body from them women’s. The one person genetically designed to love another human being is the woman, they will have unconditional love for the baby they are carrying. We all have to learn this from mothers; humans have got to learn to love one another like mothers love their child. Be kind to others like a mother would be to their child. Man is born in similar conditions, what makes us different from one another is the environment that helped to form our morals, virtues, and ethics. Men’s attitude is by nature good, let’s not change this nature. Abortion is an atrocity that is abolished by many cultures because it violates human rights, and we reject Gods best gift: life. Confucianism recognizes the fetus as a living thing which implies that we have to give it its deserving respect. Respect other peoples life as you would respect your own, do not practice abortion.

Dead before knowing you are alive (abortion)

One does not need to be told what is right and what Is wrong, one must know what they are doing and how decisions will affect others. Abortion is a global dilemma and taboo, which can be viewed as both an in moral and moral choice. It is a fact, that a baby that it is already conceived is alive. No one can deny or refute this, it has been scientifically proven. But, who has the right to take away the life of an unborn? Ethics is a matter of perspective and how you view and evaluate things. Being virtue ethicists does not make you follower of consequatialism, given the fact that you should already know by instinct that what you are doing is right or wrong. In Catholics based countries, abortion is a closed topic with one very established and definite answer, NO. Zero tolerance is the norm for catholic followers; given the fact that there morals and values are thought through the teachings of a superior being that specifically states that killing is prohibited. This is their view, and for them helping to support the carryon of abortion is a must. Now, let me take you to another perspective, China. Chinese people have an unstoppable growing population; they are very concerned about not being able to cover all the needs of many children due to over population. So, for them is ok to kill unborn due issuing the excuse that, “why bring a baby to a world full of suffering?” Ethics and morals are established by a society that is living somewhat under the same understandings and share common feelings. It depends how you interpret and how you were raised to make moral decisions.

We should kill NOTHING!

Not in a million years will the death penalty become ethical. It goes against all my teachings. I have spent my life traveling around trying to teach some of my wisdom. Life is a precious gift and it doesn't end when you die; it just begins. If you kill someone your consciousness could be born into the paths of animals, hungry ghosts or hell-beings. I you think that that person has done something unethical, then he/she will receive his karma. Karma is one of the basic principles in my teachings: they will receive what they deserve. We do not have the right to kill; others have the right to live as we do. Instead, we should take that person out of his/her ignorance and teach him what has been his mistake and how to make it right. We should feel compassion and care for him. We need to show him that there are other ways to do things. For example, lets say that he killed a little boy. How can killing the man make it right? It doesn't. So, instead, we should enlightened him so that he then goes into the paths of gods and heavenly beings. We need to teach him that there are ways to live a happy life in harmony, without hurting others. Also, that he could live a complete truthful life, instead of feeling all those emotions that made him kill the boy. That his hatred towards the child can be conquered by love. Instead of killing the man, we should show him how to purify his heart and to be righteous in his actions. After all that, the man will be able to live in peace with himself.

-Gautama

Electric Chair Anybody?

What would you do if you were sentenced to death through execution? What would you do if a family member was being sentenced to execution? I think that we would all be in great pain if you or a member of our family was being sentenced to execution. It would especially hurt if it was someone really close to you, like a brother or father. Death penalty violates human rights for life. Men should be the ones to judge a person’s actions, the one and only who can judge someone is God. Death for someone who has committed a serious violation for the law is no punishment; someone who commits a bad action has to suffer some kind of humiliation so that he repents what he or she did. Human race has had the advancement in technology to discover ways to kill another living person. Human kind should learn to love your neighbor. “Do on to others what you want to be done to you” is one of the basic principles of life, this means that if you don’t want to go through the pain of losing a loved one because he or she was executed then you would not want others to be executed. Humanity is benevolent by nature and should practice reciprocity from one to another. “The government’s job is to govern not to kill” what is the whole point of killing a killer, and then you (the state) would become a killer.

You are nobody. I don't exist.

Lying , Cheating , Stealing (Is it ever ethical to lie, cheat or steal, and if so what would be the circumstance?)

Ethics don't exist. However, the non existent human society relies on imaginative principles of an ethical ideal, trying to perform what best suits this imaginary world. If ethics don't exit, there is nothing that defines what good and bad is, meaning that there is no principle by which humans must behave. Ethics is just a word that appears to have a logical definition. Bearing in mind that ethics are non existent, and at the same time putting it side, do you believe it is logical to have a set of principles by whichbehavior must be raised? This principles were made in the imaginary and non-existent world by a group of humans just like you. This accounts for the reason that nothing is real. How do you know what is good or bad? But the explanation gets deeper. Humans don't exist. All there is, is one being trying to perform a mental society, obeying mental rules, living in a world inside his own brain. This is because nothing exists. Everything is conceived by yourself which do not have a life. So do you believe that while being non existent and not having an ethical code, it is possible to categorize stealing and lying not only as not ethical but also as existent? The answer to these set of questions rely on rhetoric. It is of your own will to decide whether or not to believe my words or not. To me, stealing and lying are nothing more than non existent words.