a. Name.
Kevin Liu
b. Username.
kevinliu19
c. How many posts did you complete in total for the whole semester?
I completed 10 posts for the whole semester
Post 1 07/03
Post 2 07/03
Post 3 07/09
Post 4 07/09
Post 5 Did not do
Post 6 07/13
Post 7 07/14
Post 8 07/22
Post 9 Did not do
Post 10 07/29
Post 11 07/30
Post 12 08/03
d. List the two research projects you completed for the term (Museum
of Tolerance? The topics you researched and if applicable the
location you visited?). Make sure you have a section on your website
for your research where you "detail with thick description" these
field trips/projects.
I did Museum of Tolerance for my first project, and I did research on abortion for my second research. I did not post them on the Yahoo group because I do not know if that is required, I didn't post the Museum of Tolerance piece and you didn't ask me to do so last time.
e. Please list what "grade" you received on at the midterm time.
Were you asked to makeup any work on the midterm and
did you? If you received a "pass" this translates as a C.
You said I have a strong passing grade of C+/B-
f. What reading did you complete in this course?
All the readings that's relevant to the posts, I skipped some that post didn't ask for
Did you read all of the ten theorists assigned in week 1-3?
Yes
Did you read the material by
Nietzsche (Nietzsche's websites)?
Yes
Did you read ALL of Singer's articles?
Yes, they were quite interesting
Did you read the Gandhi material?
Yes, but way too long
Did you read the articles on Cloning and Stem Cells?
Yes, even though it mostly contain information I already known
Evolutionary Psychology article?
Yes
g. Out of all the reading that you were assigned what reading would
you recommend for future ethics classes? be specific.
which articles? is there reading that you would
absolutely not recommend? why? Really I want to find out how the
class worked without an actual book....but all online reading?
I like Singer's articles, and Einstein's article was interesting (I have studied theory of relativity in a modern physics class, so this is the side of Einstein I didn't know). I love the idea of not having to purchase a text book, I really hate when GE classes require text book.
Specifically, should I go back to using books or did you enjoy a
totally ONLINE course?
Totally online course is cool, and convenient. If anyone's complaining, perhaps one 90 minute lecture per week to brief go over all the readings make sure we're on the right track. (some article for the first few weeks were confusing)
h. Did you complete any extra credit this term? explain.
I did not complete any extra credit this term
Week 6 - Final
1. Give a very specific outline of the ETHICS of Gandhi as presented in his "autobiography" chapters 1-50 and the final last pages. Unlike a biography that only outlines his life, the "autobiography" allows you to go into his head and experience his world view. Focus on his world view. Articulate his ethics as "he sees them." Answer what does he mean by "experiments with Truth?" What are
his "specific" personal ethical struggles and life challenges? What personal problems does he face and how does he solve them? Give examples. Detail his ethical position. And, finally, why do you think Gandhi is considered by many to be a moral hero? Do you think that Gandhi's life can serve as an inspiration for us today? Apply Gandhi's ethics to your individual life AND to the world at large.
(Hint: I need to see in this essay that you completed the assigned reading; this most likely will be a longer essay and so worth a bit more). If you did not read the AUTOBIOGRAPHY then skip this question and write I DO NOT KNOW. Do NOT use an outside source on the life of Gandhi to answer this question (no credit)....I am trying to decipher if you read the assigned book and understood his ethical struggles from his own perspective.
In Gandhi’s autobiography, he speaks about his principle, ethics, and his codes of conduct. Gandhi’s philosophy is mostly based on truth, non-violence, simplicity, faith, and education. He has a Buddhism view on most things (Buddhism originated in
Even though Gandhi was presented as a holy figure, he had couple regrets regarding his past. For example, he regretted participating in the arranged marriage that his parents arranged for him when he was at the age of 13. He strongly believed that arranged marriage for children is wrong. In addition, he also regret about incident with wife. Gandhi’s friend convinced him of his wife’s infidelity, which lead him to act against his wife. He later realized that he had a bad friend, and he had wrongfully treated his wife. Furthermore, his friend told him that eating meat can gain strength, and then can lead to hope of overcome the English. Convinced by his friend, Gandhi betrayed his religion and began eating meat. He lied to his parents about eating meat, and that strongly bothered his conscious. He later realized that it is not worth lying to his parents in order to eating meat and gaining strength, so he quit being a meat eater. In addition, Gandhi also regretted the time he took up smoking. Smoking left Gandhi in financial need, so he stole from his brother, which he was ashamed of later in his life. Gandhi drastically changed his life style, he quite smoking and moved to a smaller house so he’d have excess money, and he also walked to school, which build up his strength and made him healthier.
Through the mistakes Gandhi made in his life, he learned many valuable lessons. He learned to love others, the values in life, and searching for truth. The mistakes he made helped him realize the truth in life, where life should be lived by one’s own standard, not by other’s standard. Gandhi experiments with life, thus he obtains the truth through experiments.
Gandhi is definitely a moral hero and an inspiration for today’s society. Gandhi lived up to his own standards, and his honesty in his autobiography made it even more convincing. There were many stories of Gandhi that I find hard to imagine if it weren’t for his autobiography. I believe everyone should live like Gandhi, not necessarily by the exact same standard as Gandhi, but a standard that suites an individual in today’s society and strictly follow it. Also by living a simpler life, one may actually achieve more happiness than a lustful and expensive life style. The many examples of Gandhi’s standing up to authority to demonstrate his belief during harsh times was an inspiration to many, and I believe that made him a moral hero. If everyone takes on Gandhi’s pacifist view, then the world will be free of war, anger, hatred, and evil. Furthermore, if everyone took upon Gandhi’s life style, problems such as pollution, money, and greed will disappear. The world will be a much simpler place if everyone lived and acted like Gandhi.
2. Compare/contrast the "moral systems" of Gandhi with Singer. Detail your answer. How might Gandhi's ethical views match or differ from Singer's. In discussing Singer make sure you define utilitarianism (explain in depth what this is) and his overall general moral stance and then compare this perspective with Gandhi. Do you think Gandhi would disagree or agree with Singer? In what areas of ethics? Explain your stance here.
Singer’s philosophy is based on utilitarianism, where ethical decisions revolve around degree of happiness. Singer bases many of his ethical decisions regarding abortion, animal rights, and human rights on the basis of utilitarianism. Singer believes that actions are moral when such actions promote happiness or reduces pain; when actions cause grief or unpleasantness to one’s self or others, the action is considered immoral. Such philosophy is called the “greatest happiness” principle, and Singer applies such principle in many ethical areas. Gandhi will agree with Singer’s “greatest happiness” principle, for he believes in creating happiness for others and eliminate pain as much as possible. However, different from Singer, Gandhi may put the happiness of others in front of his own. For example, Gandhi vowed to be a vegetarian because of his mother. Gandhi quit meat because he believes that he will cause unpleasantness for his parents; he puts his parent’s feelings before his own.
On the topic of animal rights, Singer view animal as active beings like humans, with capability to feel pleasure and pain, thus the “greatest happiness” principle should apply to animals as well. However, Singer only propose that animals should be treated the same as human, but he does not believe that animals should have the same rights as humans, rights such as voting; for animals have the same capability as human beings, but animals does not have the same intelligence and reasoning as humans. For the same reason, Singer promotes better treatments for animals and vegetarianism.
I think Gandhi will agree with many of Singer’s view on area of ethics. For example, both Gandhi and Singer adopt vegetarianism. Furthermore, Gandhi’s fight for inequalities and discriminations in society coincides with Singer’s fight for animal rights and speciesism (discrimination against other beings based on difference in species). However, I believe Gandhi prefer to solve the problems within the Homo sapiens species before advancing to equalities for all beings. One main difference between Gandhi’s ethics and Singer’s ethics is that religion and God plays a vital role in Gandhi’s view on ethics where as Singer places his own view based on utilitarianism and reasoning.
4. Discuss the ethical contributions of Einstein as presented in the web link on the course website. As you did with Gandhi, explain why do you think Einstein is considered by many to be a moral hero? What do you most admire about him? Do you think that Einstein's life can serve as an inspiration for us today? Apply Einstein's ethics to your individual life AND to the world at large.
Albert Einstein is considered one of the brightest minds that ever existed. Even though he is better known to his contribution to modern physics, namely special relativity and general relativity that revolutionized scientists’ concept of space, time, and gravity, which completely disproved hundreds of years of classical Newtonian physics, his views on humanity are also essential to philosophy community. Compare with Gandhi, I believe Einstein is more rational with his approach to pacifism. Einstein said that he is not an absolute pacifist but a devoted pacifist, which means that he will oppose the usage of force in any circumstances except when confronted by an enemy who cannot be stopped by means other than force. I strongly agree with his notion of being a dedicated pacifist rather than an absolute pacifist, I believe that it is more logical and rational. If one is an absolute pacifist, then evil will triumph since there will be no good to oppose evil. Another quality that Einstein possesses is the strong will to stand up for what he believed in; having the courage to publish a theory that falsifies two hundred years of classical physics and having to endure many opposing voices is phenomenal. Despite the number of scientists that will criticize his work, Einstein still continued with his research; I believe this is a quality that all should take upon. Furthermore, Einstein made a bold statement regarding the equality situation in
Albert Einstein stated that if he had known
5. What is the "utilitarian argument for animal rights" (define) as presented by Singer? When discussing Singer outline his argument for animal rights drawing specifically from the assigned reading (hint: you will need to mention and define speciesism and other important ideas and examples from the Singer reading and VIDEO, etc. Do not just write a vague response but draw key ideas from the material. Now answer whether YOU THINK animals have moral rights? Justify "philosophically" your position. This is not simply just your opinion. But you need to "back up" your answer with philosophical reasoning.
Peter Singer based his ethical views on his study of utilitarianism, where the integrity and rightfulness of actions is determined by the amount of happiness such actions create. If actions promotes happiness and enlarges pleasure, then the action is considered right and moral; however, if an action demotes pleasure or causes grief, then the action is wrong and immoral. Such principle is called “greatest happiness” principle, where actions should be done to create greatest amount of happiness. The greatest happiness can be extended to animals, for animals have the physical and emotional capability to sense happiness, pleasure, sadness, or pain. Therefore, human actions that cause animal pain or grief are considered immoral and should not be allowed. However, Singer only promotes the idea that animal should have the same treatments as humans, but not as the same rights as humans. For example, Singer believes that animal should have better food and living standards, but Singer does not believe that animals should have the right to vote; for animals have the capability to feel happiness, but animals do not have the intellectual qualification to vote.
Singer proposed that the discrimination against living beings based on species, speciesism, is a form of prejudice like racism and sexism, and it is immoral. He said that men should stop speciesism and begin providing animals with better treatments. The main actions of speciesism are animal experimentations and meat eating, where he believes should be terminated by society. Singer argues that experimenting on animals because of their lack of ability to defend them is immoral, and claims that animal experimentation is like experimenting on human infant that does not have the ability and reasoning to fend for itself.
I do believe that animal should have moral rights, but I have really mix feelings about it. I believe that meat eating is moral and should be allowed, however, I do not believe inhumane ways of executing the animals that we eat. Moreover, I do not believe in killing or hurting animals for pleasure, activities such as hunting should be forbidden. However, I contradict myself when I believe that fishing and rat extermination should be allowed. I also believe that animal testing for medical reasons should be allowed and my arguments is that the little grief that’s made on animal provides greater happiness for human beings. I guess I don’t have such strong feeling towards animals as Peter Singer does, I believe societal influence is stronger than moral arguments by Singer.
6. How does Peter Singer view abortion? Describe his reasoning process. More importantly, do you agree? Justify philosophically (explain in depth; do not write simply yes or no). (note: when explaining Singer's position here note that he is not simply pro-life or for abortion--his answer is a bit more complicated...explain the "specifics" of his position...it is not black or white but he holds a much more interesting position....explain this...in what circumstances is abortion acceptable to Singer and in what circumstances is it not.)
For Peter Singer, the central issue of the whole abortion issue lies on the debate that if the fetus is actually a rational human being. He identified the problem of the arguments of both abortion protesters and defenders. The pro-abortionists always call their stance as “pro-choice” because they do not want to deal with the issue that if it’s morally acceptable to kill a fetus. Instead, they make the issue of abortion an issue of personal liberty, that a woman is suppose to have the liberty of deciding for herself whether she wants to keep the baby or not. The problem with this perspective is that if a woman’s individual liberty has to be respected and protected, then should the liberty of the fetus also be protected, since some consider it a human being as well?
On the other hand, the anti-abortionists often follow this line of reasoning – it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being, a fetus is an innocent human being, therefore it’s wrong to kill a human fetus. Singer argues that it’s hard to identify when a fetus becomes a real human being; characteristics such as birth or viability are too vague in determining the line between a fertilized egg and a human being.
Combining the argument against both sides, Singer formed his own opinion. Instead of focusing on when the fetus becomes a human being, we should argue that if a fetus can ever be considered as human beings, assuming the word “human” implies both being part of the species Homo sapiens and a rational or self-conscious person. If a human being has to be rational, then a fetus shouldn’t be considered a human being. If being a human being merely means to be part of the Homo sapiens species, it’s hard to defend the right of the fetus just because it belongs to this particular species. Therefore, Singer concludes that the fetus should be looked at for what its characteristics are and what those characteristics represents, and value its existence according to that. So basically, he thinks the focus of the debate should be on the fetus itself instead of if the fetus is human or not.
While Singer identifies the shortcomings of the arguments from both pro and anti-abortionists and provided a compelling argument, he did not provide a clear stance on the issue of abortion. And I do believe that in this case, it’s difficult to separate the human being aspect of the fetus from the fetus itself, because despite its limited characteristics of human being, a fetus is still a part of the development of maturing of human beings, regardless of what “stage” it is in, regardless of if it’s a true, rational human being yet. To look at a fetus just for what it is will definitely make the process of supporting abortion or not a lot simpler, but it will not cover the whole story. It will be like determining a criminal’s rationale and motivation for committing a crime but not look at the possible external influences, such as how the parents raised him, what kind of neighborhood did he grow up in, did anything traumatic ever happened to him, etc.. Without looking at the whole picture, it’s easier to reach a conclusion, but the conclusion would often be biased and not sufficient enough to explain the whole situation.
7. How does Peter Singer view euthanasia? Describe his reasoning process. Do you agree? Justify philosophically (explain in depth). (note: there are varying types of euthanasia so make sure to explain each and his position on each one of these and your position on each of these as well.) And also, at the end of this essay, what do you think Singer would say about the past case dealing with Terri Schiavo
The term euthanasia refers to the killing of those who are incurably ill, for the patients, euthanasia is implemented to spare them of any further suffering. There are three types of euthanasia, voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia can be viewed as assisted suicide, when euthanasia is performed at the request of the killed. Singer validates the morality of voluntary euthanasia such that voluntary euthanasia fulfills the principle of respect for autonomy. Singer argues that one should have the basic right to make autonomous decisions (on a side note, suicide is illegal in the
I think Singer will support the termination of Terri Schiavo, for Terri does not have the ability to achieve happiness in life, any prolongation of her life will be causing more suffer for her and her husband. However, Singer will not argue that Terri’s parents were wrong when they wanted to keep her alive as long as possible, for the termination of Terri’s life will cause her parents suffering and grief. It is not certain that a person in comatose state can feel pain, but rather the justification to terminate her life lies in the pain generated in the people around her.
9. Do the same for STEM CELL RESEARCH. Utilizing the online article and VIDEO, discuss what it is, how it works, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the ethical (and political and religious) issues involved. Having been well informed about stem cell reseach, what is your ethical position here? Explain in depth your position on this topic.
Stem cell research took off in the 1960s, where the research focus on three categories of primal cells, adult stem cells, embryonic cells, and cord blood cells. The cord blood stem cells are found in umbilical chords, while adult stem cells are found in adult tissues. The embryonic cells are the area of study that is most contravercial, which are found in blastocysts. Blastocysts are precursor of an embryo, which means embryonic cells have the potential to develop into embryo. The number of disease that can be cured with embryonic research is phenomenal, however, the controversy heavily hindered such research process.
President Bush vetoed a bill that promotes the research in stem cell technology; stem cell research soon became a rising political issue. Religious activists are also a strong voice that speak against stem cell research, reason being the activists believe since embryonic cells are found in blastocysts, it is unethical to do further tests and experiments. Since the blastocysts have the potential to become a fetus, and even a human being, many believe that stem cell research is actually murdering a living human being. The same debate of whether embryo is life exists in topics such as abortion and stem cell research.
I personally believe that embryo is not a life form; it is merely a group of cell, granted that it has the potential to become a full grown human. Thus, I strongly support the advancement in stem cell research. The number of diseased that can be cured by stem cell research is vital in future human development. I do not believe ethical reasons should interfere with scientific advancement.
10. Out of everything you studied this term, from the ten ethical theorists, to the moral case topics, to the life of Gandhi and Einstein, to evolutionary psychology, what or who had the most impact on your thinking and may have actually impacted your life in some way? Explain in detail...apply to your life and world. I really want to see that you digested the material you studied and that somehow it affected your worldview. Articulate who or what influenced you the most and how it did. Offer details.
Out of the ten philosophers that I studied so far, I would say my favorite philosopher is Karl Marx and his view on communism. Although I regard communism as inefficient economic theory, and will never successfully be implement, I find communism an interesting concept that can be applied in everyday life. Communism will not work in a grand scale such as a country or any society in general, but communism has worked very will in small communities such as tribes and small communities or even business teams. The ancient Mongolians were living under communist ideas, where the tribe owns property and each person owns the same amount of wealth. The communist system collapsed when different Mongolian tribes unite and finally grew too large and politics begin to interfere with this way of life.
The concept of communism is wonderful, as the wealth distribution is extremely unfair. As can been seen in any major cities in the United States, cities such as Los Angeles or New York, where the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor are located close to each other. The Utopian society that Karl Marx wishes to establish will make everyone happy; however, human factors left this concept in fantasy. In the age where freedom is strongly valued, communism cannot operate smoothly in today’s society. A problem with communism is that if every occupation has the same amount of reward, society will not want to participate in occupations that have more mental and physical stress involved. Essential job such as doctor, which requires many years of training and long hours of work, deserve more pay; however, this violate the core philosophy of equality in communism.
I believe communism will work in a corporation, or any job that requires team work. As engineering major, I often work in teams to accomplish projects; Marx’s system will succeed because every team member will disregard glory and perform for the betterment of the team or project. As a result, every team member does the same amount of work; as a result, everyone will receive the same amount of glory or reward. When unnecessary competition emerges in collaboration, teamwork often collapses with arguments.
PS. #10 is the same as the midterm; my favorite/most influential philosopher did not change, the same reason applies. I included how Marx can apply to my future career and the world, so I believe the same answer from the midterm works on the final.
Research
My research is done on the research of abortion, specifically focusing on morality of abortion and whether or not it should be decided by the establishment of fetus is a person. The main reason for the establishment for a fetus to be a person is to determine whether abortion is murder or just a medical operation. If the fetus is a person, then abortion will be killing the fetus, and murder is committed. However, if the fetus is not a person, then abortion will not be murder, thus justifies the morality of abortion. It is generally accepted that if an abortion is needed to save the mother’s life, then abortion is permissible. But in my research, whether or not the mother’s life is at stake is out of the picture.
As medical technology advances in modern day society, abortion becomes more and more common. However, the debate for different moral views in debate for abortion continues. Major views on abortion can be separated to two schools, pro-life and pro-choice, where pro-life favors the ban on abortion and pro-choice favors permissibility on abortion under some restrictions.
A school of pro-choice argument assumes the condition that the fetus is a person with a right to life; under this condition whether or not the fetus is a person is completely irrelevant in the debate of abortion, hence how one establish that fetus is or is not a person with the right to life has no effect on moral decisions on abortion. In the case where abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life, both the mother’s right to life and the fetus’s right to life is at stake. Granted that abortion kills the fetus, the mother is merely exercising her right to life and proper self-defense. If a person points a gun at you, it is logical that you have the right to kill the gunman in order to protect your right to life. However, in the case that the mother’s life is not endangered by the pregnancy, the mother should still be allowed abortion. The right to life includes having given the bare minimum that one needs to continue life, but limits to cases where the right to life does not intrude or violate another person’s body. Having the right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of another person’s body. From the mother’s point of view, her right to life is more important than the fetus’s right to life; however, it is impossible for third party bystander to chose between the mother’s and the fetus’s right to life. The decision of abortion should be made entirely by the mother; bystanders have no right to make this decision for her.
An important concept to keep in mind is that abortion is not impermissible, but this does not mean that abortion is always permissible. The pro-choice party supports the idea for having abortion as an option; however the pro-choice party does not promote abortion. A teen age schoolgirl, pregnant due to rape is entitled to abortion, but having an abortion seven months into pregnancy is permissible.
An example called the sick violinist example can be used as analogy throughout to argue against many cases for abortion should be permissible. In the sick violinist example, imagine you were kidnapped one day and woke up in a hospital, having strapped to a hospital bed and having tubes inserted in you. A world famous violinist lies beside you, he as some rare disease and you are the only person in the world that can help him live. Even though you will be provided with the best food, entertainment, and environment that you desire, but you must stay in the hospital for 9 months so the violinist can survive. The instinctive decision is to pull the plug and exercise your freedom as a person; however, everyone in the world other than your relatives and friends believe that the sick violinist’s life is more important than your freedom, which shows that any third party by standard should not intrude on this matter. However, some Good Samaritan may agree to stay in the hospital for 9 months, where they believe in saving the sick violinist’s life. Nonetheless, the decision of these Good Samaritans will change if the situation changes where 5 years, 10 years, or even a life time is needed to keep the sick violinist alive. The basic argument still stays, that unwanted pregnancy is a violation of freedom for the mother.
Another argument of abortion revolve around the debate of define fetus as a person. If the fetus is indeed a person, then abortion is murder and should be forbidden; and vice versa, if fetus is not a person, then abortion is not murder and should be permissible. A school of thought state that if fetus is a person when it is “viable” – when fetus can live outside the womb and does not invades mother’s body – the boundary becomes unclear due to different scenario. Fetal development is different for each embryo, and “viability” is different for each fetus due to medical technology, hospital environment or maternal health. Therefore, “viability” is an impractical way to distinguishing fetus and person, or draw boundary between abortion and killing. Another suggestion to distinguish personhood and embryonic cell is self- consciousness. Some implies being a person is bound with minimal level of self-consciousness, an awareness of self existence in space and time. However, it is to argue that newborn baby does not have self-awareness, but that does not justify infanticide. Thus the debate for whether or not the fetus is a person should not be considered. Furthermore, if it is to say that fetus is considered a person because it has the potential of developing into a full grown person, then using condoms or birth control methods is considered murder, for the sperm and eggs killed too have the potential to develop into full grown person.
In conclusion, whether or not the fetus is a person is irrelevant in the debate for abortion. It is demonstrated that if fetus is considered a person, then sperm and eggs should be consider as persons as well, which is impractical and illogical. The sick violinist example shows that even if the fetus is considered a person, abortion should still be permissible.
Sources:
Thomson, Judith Jarvis “A Defense of Abortion”
Glover, Jonathan “Matters of Life and Death”
Wildung, Beverley “Our Right to Chose: Towards a New Ethic of Abortion”
Week 6 - Post 12
The first section of Gandhi’s book talks about his family background, childhood, marriage, and friends. His mother was very religious, which played a big role later on in his life. Through out Gandhi’s childhood, he was very shy and does not like company.
Even though Gandhi was presented as a holy figure, he had couple regrets regarding his past. For example, he regretted participating in the arranged marriage that his parents arranged for him when he was at the age of 13. He strongly believed that arranged marriage for children is wrong. In addition, he also regret about incident with wife. Gandhi’s friend convinced him of his wife’s infidelity, which lead him to act against his wife. He later realized that he had a bad friend, and he had wrongfully treated his wife. Furthermore, his friend told him that eating meat can gain strength, and then can lead to hope of overcome the English. Convinced by his friend, Gandhi betrayed his religion and began eating meat. He lied to his parents about eating meat, and that strongly bothered his conscious. He later realized that it is not worth lying to his parents in order to eating meat and gaining strength, so he quit being a meat eater. In addition, Gandhi also regretted the time he took up smoking. Smoking left Gandhi in financial need, so he stole from his brother, which he was ashamed of later in his life. Gandhi drastically changed his life style, he quite smoking and moved to a smaller house so he’d have excess money, and he also walked to school, which build up his strength and made him healthier.
Gandhi is a pacifist, and he believes non-violence approach towards all actions. He believes that by avoiding confrontations, people have a clearer mind to approach with reasoning. One of the interesting things with Gandhi is his method of finding truth; he believes in “experiment with truth,” where he explores and unveils the truth through his life experiences and many good and bad choices that he made throughout his life. Through his relationship with his wives, parents, and friends, he slowly learned to live a simple life. Gandhi’s “experiment with truth” made me realize that all experiences, regardless of good or bad, can aid one towards the path of truth seeking. Gandhi’s ability to forgive his enemies and take an absolute pacifist approach towards all actions is truly inspiring and impresses me a lot. Gandhi’s approach is uncommon in today’s society, where everything is fast paced and not much relationship is built, let alone forgiveness.
Week 5 - Post 11
Evolution psychology connects the mental and psychological traits of human beings to the process of natural selection. It attempts to “bridge the gap between philosophy and the natural sciences” and proposes the morality of human beings as a product of natural selection. Morality would help individuals to better fit into the society and therefore increase their chances of surviving in the community. Evolution psychology, when applied to the field of ethics, is known as evolutionary ethics and is most directly related to descriptive ethics, which classifies the different ethical beliefs of different groups of people and try to rationalize their beliefs. Scientists and psychologists can study the different ethical beliefs held by different groups and try to rationalize them with evolution psychology.
The thesis of the second article is that while making difficult moral judgments, instead of using our intelligence or power to reason, our emotions often gets in the way. And these emotions, as argued by Greene, are the products of millions of years of evolution of human morality. During the process of making a tough moral decision, the most important aspect is not the logic of our moral judgments but “the role our emotions play in forming them”. From living with each other, our ancestors developed feelings and senses that would best help their own survival and the prospering of their communities and then transformed those feelings into moral codes and passed it on to us. Using brain scanners, Greene found out that different regions of the brain would react when faced with tough moral questions, and those regions are part of a “neural network that produces the emotional instincts behind many of our moral judgments.” And when there’s a difference in opinion between the reasoning system and moral or emotional system, conflicts arise within the brain itself. With continued studies in the field, reasons behind human conflicts might be found, and solutions or methods of prevention can be found to reduce the harm brought about by such conflicts.
This is certainly an interesting concept and offers a different perspective in the field of ethics and morals besides the theories proposed by Kant and J.S. Mill. I, too, faced a moral and reasoning dilemma while thinking about those questions proposed by Greene. Sometimes, the answer that makes the most sense to me would also make me feel sick to the stomach, and seeing some scientific explanations to my reasoning and reaction is definitely satisfying. However, I really doubt the usefulness of such studies, for that there’s seems to be no real life application of the study other than to “understand each other better”. Not to take away anything from Greene and his studies, instead of studying the reaction of human brains to the situations proposed by Greene, maybe more efforts and resources should be dedicated to actually solving those problems in the situations, such as feeding the starving children in the world.
Week 5 - Post 10
Cloning is one of the most popular subjects in the field of biological engineering and genetic research, for it is the most amazing achievement in biologic science through recent years. Cloning is the complete replication of a living organism’s complete genetic information, where an identical copy or copies of that very organism is made. The outer appearance, genetic material, blood type are completely identical from that of the original. The concept of cloning has been around for many years, but can be only achieved in science fiction tales. However, through many years of research, cloning was made successful.
The cloning process takes genetic material from an original animal, and injects the information into mammary cell of another animal of the same species. The fertilized mammary cell is then implanted into a surrogate, where the cloned animal will be born. The most recent achievement in cloning was the creation of Dolly the sheep. Many view this as a giant leap in biological science, mainly the possibility for much medical advancement. However, there are many that reject the science of cloning due to ethical and religious influences.
For example, Christianity was a heavily opposing the development of cloning technology, for many Christians believe it violates relationship of human and God. By creating life forms in a test tube, many Christians believe that human is trying to play God, which should not be done by human beings. Some oppose cloning technology or further genetic research due to the possible application of cloning and genetic technology such as genetic enhancement or human replication. For example, cloning a deceased loved one for the sake of replacement is considered extremely unethical. In addition, the concept of genetic selection or enhancements to create the idea human is considered immoral due to reasons such as prejudice or acting God. Other issues are regarding the clone’s psychological developments. A clone child may be confused about its identity.
Week 4 - Post 8
Singer does not discuss topics on the basis on pure moral arguments, but arguing on the topic itself. Peter Singer’s utilitarian view says that “equal consideration of interest” should be applied when discussing animal rights. Utilitarian view heavily influence’s Singer, where he believes that happiness and violation of happiness is the key in making moral judgments. He takes account the effect of discrimination and liberation movements on animals. Singer believes that we should extend human morals onto animals, and perhaps generate more awareness on animal rights. However, extending moral values does not suggest giving animals the exact same right has humans, for animals cannot fulfill many rights; such as voting, freedom of speech, and more. Moreover, human should offer the same consideration on animals and humans. Singer brought up speciesism, where discriminations towards animals occur on events such as animal experimentation or consuming animals. Furthermore, the ability to reason, speak, or suffer should not be a factor in animal rights; the only thing that matters is animal discrimination where animals are not being treated correctly. The main argument that Singer is trying to convey is that humans should treat animals the same as treating a human; however, animals should not have the same rights as humans.
Lane and Singer have similar view on the topic of animal rights, where Lane argues for utilitarian view from a scientific standpoint. The Central Nervous System enables human to distinguish pleasure and pain; a system that is present in both humans and animals, which means that the ability for animals to sense pleasure and pain similar to humans. Lane suggests putting human in animal’s position, and treating animals as though humans would treat themselves. Both philosophers disregards intelligence when arguing animal rights and focus on utilitarian aspects such as pleasure and pain, and both philosopher claim that it is unnecessary to feed on animal meat for humans to survive. Singer especially opposes animal experiments and inhuman living conditions, which he claims is an act of discrimination and is a form of speciesism.