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.
No comments:
Post a Comment