Not enough room...

From the utilitarian point of view, abortion should be allowed. We believe that creating too many people will damage the environment and thus impair the long term ability to have large population on Earth; in the future we will be overpopulated. Moreover, it is generally agreed that if the society can allow all people to be prosperous and thriving and that creating extra people will undermine that ability, then extra people should not be created. Therefore the termination of unwanted babies is the key to keep the population low. If one is carrying with an unwanted baby she should feel free to abort the child because we are trying to procreate the less people we can, so instead of discouraging her we would give her support. We do respect human rights, we believe that one has the right to live and no one else has the right to kill him no matter under what conditions. But, we also support other idea and another right which is liberty. Liberty gives us the right to act according to our own will and if a young woman or a young couple decides that having a baby at a certain moment won’t be for good, then they will be free whether to keep the baby or abort him.

When is Abortion Accepted

The answer to the question when abortion should be accepted is never. The only reason for people to have sex is in order to procreate. Any recreational sex is a mortal sin. I distinguish four kinds of law: eternal, natural, human, and divine. The necessity to procreate is considered under the natural laws, therefore it is allowed, but any attempts to hinder said processis a mortal sin. Abortion, masturbation, condoms and even sexual positions that are not the missionary positions are all mortal sins. Human life has to be lived under the four laws. We all live to serve under God and procreating is the way to create more people to worship God and we have to teach our children the way of the four laws. It would be the greatest of sins if one were to destroy another life due to the fact that we were living in sin ourselves by having sex that was not intended for procreation. The life that was entrusted to us has to be nurtured so as to further worship. One should deal with pregnancy as the punishment for participating in no-procreational sex, this is the lord's way of telling us that our sexual organs were meant for us to procreate not to use as tools for fun.
-Thomas Aquinas

Make peace, not war.

Is war ethical? Are we considered brave heroes if we go to war to fight? Well, for starters war is NOT ethical, since war goes against all the principles of God. I am the pioneer of satyagraha- resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience, this philosophy is firmly founded upon nonviolence. I believe that in order to achieve peace in the world, we must not use any violence or make any menaces to the world. We must put in practice the concept of nonviolence and nonresistance, since: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". With war we bring violence, hate, murder and menace to the world. War is a way we are to auto-destroying what we have cultured our whole lives. Violence has no purpose, violence brings death, not peace nor freedom. The science of war leads to one dictatorship. While the science of non-violence leads to one pure democracy. Power that is derived from fear, punishment and death has no use at all. It fullfills no ones soul. Power that is based on love and peace is athousand times more effective than the power coming from hate and fear. To achieve this level of nonviolence, incredible faith and courage is required, which not everybody posses. I therefore advice that everyone need not keep nonviolence. If you must fight, then you must fight unarmed. War is not the solution for anything in this world, although it may seem the easiest way to set things straight, it isn't. It is immoral. War has no ethics, it is completely unethical.

Freedom of Expression and Censorship

Is censorship ethical? No it is not and it should never be. Why is not ethical, because we as human beings have the right to be free. Censorship is something that limits our freedom. Freedom of speech should never be unethical. What makes us humans is the fact that we are all free. Freedom constitute us a human beings and censorship takes part of what we enjoy as freedom, so in other words it takes part of our humanity. Freedom of speech is always ethical, we always have a choice of what we want to say, life is made up our choices and it is impossible NOT to choose, because not choosing after all is a choice as well. Although you can choose what ever you want, you still have to take responsibility for all the actions and choices you do take. What we say and what we do is what defines ourselves. If it is good or bad, that is what makes up our personality, so you can never take us the possibility of making that choice, even if the choice or the path we take is not the "correct" one. By limiting our freedom and the amount of choices we can make you are taking part of the advantage and the good part of being human, you are taking away our essence. So no, there should not be censorship and yes freedom of speech should always be permitted, and the way you act to it is what will define who you are. 

Sartre

Suffering vs. Ethics

Euthanasia, the act of relieving oneself from intolerable suffering by ending one’s life. But is it ethical? Yes, but not always. Euthanasia can only be ethical when the patient in question is completely aware of what his options are and what it entails. Thus, choosing to perish will fall on the shoulders of no one else but the individual. Humans are to be “authentic” and to accomplish this, they have to use the freedom they have to make their own choices and take full responsibility for their choices. Failing to do so will result in being “inauthentic”, this is morally impermissible because you are denying yourself the freedom which was granted to you. So I say to you that choosing euthanasia as a means to relieve suffering is right, only when it is your choice to make. There is another such thing called involuntary euthanasia, this is under no circumstance ethical. Whether another person should live or die is not your choice to make, no matter how close a relative you may be, dying or living is something one decides for oneself, no one may take that freedom away from another person. If the sufferer is unable to decide, due to extraordinary events such as his ability to reason being impaired, doctors are morally and legally obliged to do everything in their power and skill to make the person live. A person will take full responsibility for their own choices, this includes deciding to use euthanasia, and if so, the will of the person must be respected because it is the responsibility of each individual to make his own choices.

Plagiarize? Is it ok?

It is neither OK nor wrong to steal music of movies according to existentialists. Why? because it certainly depends on each individual. We each have our own freedom, and were put in a world that gives us that freedom and at the same time restricts it. We were each both with values, and even though we live in a society that has already established its norms we have our own. It is always OUR choice to choose what to do in life. However, having freedom does not mean we can do anything; we have to responsibly learn to deal with our freedom. Would using someone Else's work as our own be wrong? Depends, it is wrong in the way that we are abusing our freedom, and we wouldn't be responsibly taking advantage of that power, but it would also be right in the way that it truly depends on the person. If this person's values, his/her very own, tell him/her to do such thing because he or she is ready to take the responsibility for his or her actions. We can each make a choice, with the power of freedom we were given, so we can steal music or plagiarize as long we aren't affecting others negatively and as long as we know what we are doing. We have the freedom to do what we want, because we are born with that freedom. However, our world has laws and we have the duty to recognize each, and then guide ourselves with what we know.
-Existentialism

Liars

Whether stealing, lying or cheating its only view from the person perspective. Many people believe judging others basing us on our own interests but also on the ones that surrounds them. When we make moral judgment we won’t make them only by what is reasonable. Our reasoning bases from things we lived and from that we make moral judgments, we are not able to have another option but our feelings in the moment we make a moral choice. So when it comes to find out whether lying, cheating or stealing is ethical it depends on our moral views and our feelings. For examples stealing just to have money can be unethical for many but when someone steal to save a family member life we think twice because it’s for a good reason. Stealing for saving an innocent life would be kind of ethical because the ending would be the salvation of a human being. We all are different so we may have different points of view although we can differentiate from what is wrong and right. To kids many of their parents tell them that lying is bad and unethical but even they lie to their own children. Lying can be taken in two different ways. Lying could be or for a good or bad cause. For example a good cause can be when someone lies about a surprise party but a bad cause is when some adolescents lie to their parents about their grades. Lying depends on the consequence that will have and the reason on why the person it’s doing it for. Stealing, lying, or cheating is considered morally wrong but it’s open to other interpretation depending on the circumstances.
David Hume

Dead or alive ?!

"Governments that have the death penalty continue to have higher homicide rates than those who do not." I believe that society should to be against capital punishment preferring other harsh punishments as a better deterrent of crime. There are other ways in which criminals can be punished instead of the death penalty, which only leads to more crime in society. My ambition in life was to create a "Pannomion" which is a utilitarian code of law. This not only proposed many legal and social reforms, but also moral principie on which they should be based. The philosophy by which my work is guided is utilitarianism which argues that the right act or policy is the one that causes "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" also known as "the greatest happiness principle" or the principle of utility. Instead of having the death penalty I proposed an ideal kind of prison, the "panopticon" where prisoners would be under constant supervision. Some benefits this new method could bring would be to decrease the amount of crimes. This “panopticon” creates a new way of viewing legislation and the law. The death penalty seems to create negative results toward the elimination of criminal acts. It only leads to more violence. Violence should not be used to fight violence. I truly believe in freedom of speech, free will, separation from state from church and human rights, where no one has the right to take the life of any other human being.

!NO to animal care! (Ayn Rand)

Animal treatment shouldn't be something people should talk about. It's logical and very ethical to not take care of animals because that way, we live. First of all, lets take a look at the definition of ethics:

''The study of principles relating to right and wrong conduct;morality...''

We humans are in constant struggle to survive. Now that the world is suffering a lot, do you think someone is going to stop and yell, ''save the animals!'' The answer is no. There is a golden rule, key for survival, and that is, the survival of the fittest. If you are not strong, then you die. It's true that maybe killing animals for food or using them to conduct experiments might sound wrong, but it is ethical in a way. To explain this I rather use the definition that the Church of Scientology uses:

''Ethics may be defined as the actions an individual takes on himself to ensure his continued survival across the dynamics.''

First, take this definition and use it in history. What would happen if there would be a law against animal testing? Pretty simple... many diseases wouldn't have any treatment, like diabetes and leprosy which involved a dog and an armadillo.

Second, eating animals is something unquestionable. People need a choice, in fact, people develop allergies every time and most food allergies develop after eating that food over and over again. People would become allergic to sald because of the lettuce or any vegetable content.

The definition given by the Chruch of Scientology clearly states that you have to take the altruist part of you out, and be egoist. Only egoism will ensure your survival. In other words, as long as you do something that ensures your survival, you're being ethical.

Abortion should I?

Firsts of all, Plato and I (Aristotle) would be opposed to abortion. However, I can say that I sort of agree with this but, I tend to contradict myself because at the end I don’t agree with this because I think of abortion as not morally permissible. But I will honestly say that I haven’t actually got on the topic in full. Considering my golden mean or middle path as you want to call it. Golden mean means that you can’t be too good or too bad. In other words nothing at extreme is ok. And we can’t forget my great emphasis on freedom for the individual as opposed to the power of the state.Therefore, I think that every individual believes his or her action is for the best, that it will somehow advance goodness, and here is what I mean; “Every action and pursuit is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim" Ok, I know that this can sound not as good as is suppose to, because I know that this looks like that everything is permissible because everything leads to the good, at least that is how people think. In fact, I tend to differentiates between acts that people believes to be good and those that are in fact good. You have seen my way of asking questions and getting to a different point in Plato´s books. So I can say that this is a great example of how I tend to contradict people. But returning to our question; a woman who seeks an abortion might believe she is seeking the best for herself and the unborn fetus. However, even if that were true that is not the best choice, because you don’t have the right to take a person’s life. However, in “Politics” my book I reflected the acceptance of abortion in ancient Greek society. However, this will depend on the amount of people you have in the family. If the couple have children in excess, it is ethical to apply an abortion. However, if they apply the abortion, it must be before sense and life have begun.

Abortion: a self-regarding, not an other-regarding, action.

We live in an era in which society and our government, try to control our every action. So is the case with abortion. If we lived in a world where abortion was not legal, then women would not have the benefits of liberty and self-realization. This would ultimately mean that women would not have control over their own bodies. A fetus is not a person; it is an entity that could one day become a person, a potentiality. This means murder is not committed by abortion, so no extensive harm to the community is done. According to my harm principle, an individual is free to do as he wishes, as long as no harm is done to others. Individuals are rational enough to make decisions about their good being. The Government should only interfere when the safety of the society is at risk. Having said that, it is clear that abortion is a self-regarding not an other-regarding act. So no matter how much we disapprove or blame we may not intervene, ultimately the decision lies solely to the bearer of the fetus. Don’t get me wrong I understand there is a great deal of sadness and guilt involved in abortion, because of it; a person will never come to be. Nevertheless as long as no harm is brought upon society, society has no say on an individuals actions or choices. Law and morality cannot be and must not be the same. Many immoral acts are and should be legal, if not we would all be subjects to tyranny of a foolish majority and our liberty would be excluded.

John Stuart Mill - JSM

The Assignment

You will be a contributor to a class Web Log (blog) on ethics. For this blog you will be assigned a philosopher or philosophical school of thought. You will have to answer ethical questions as if you are that philosopher or a subscriber to that school of philosophical thought. If you are Immanuel Kant than you must answer all questions on the ethical topics as if you were Kant. If you are an existentialist than you answer the questions as and existentialist.
This will require you to become familiar with your philosophers writings and or philosophy. You must write on the several topics given. I will assign 10 topics to write on but you only need to write on 5. Each Blog will have to be a minimum of 250 words and be no larger than 500 words. You come up with a creative title for each blog entry. Every student in your class will be contributors on the same blog. In addition to writing a blog entry you will need to comment on your fellow student’s blog entries. During the course of the term you will need to read and comment on 5 blogs of your choice. This will count for 30% of your total grade. 25 points per blog entry 125 points total (10 points per blog comment, 50 points total).
You only need to answer 1 question per due date.
Make sure you address the question you are writing about in the first two sentences of your blog post.


Chose 5 from this list to blog

1. Death Penalty (Does the state have the right to kill another person?)
2. Euthanasia (Do humans have the right to end their lives if terminally ill?)
3. Intellectual Property (Is it ok to steal music, movies or books without paying for them? Is using someone else’s work as your own without any recognition or compensation wrong?)
4. Abortion (When is ethical if ever to terminate a pregnancy?)
5. Lying , Cheating , Stealing (Is it ever ethical to lie, cheat or steal, and if so what would be the circumstance?)
6. Freedom of Expression and Censorship (When is censorship ethical? When is freedom of speech unethical?)
7. War (Is war Ethical? What are the ethics in war?)
8. Genetic Engineering (Is it ethical to clone a human? Is genetic engineering ethical?)
9. Treatment of Animals (Is animal testing ethical? Is eating meat ethical?)
10. Conservation and Preservation (What are the ethics controversies in environment conservation?)

Due dates for Blog entriesTopic 1: February 26

Topic 2: March 5

Topic 3: March 12

Topic 4: March 19

Topic 5: March 26