Final...
Topic: Final

Final

Pre-questions:

1. Name – Jennifer Chengyu Ahn

2. Username(yahoo) – j1ahn

3. How many posts did you complete in total for the whole semester?Give me the dates for each. Make sure they are all on your website.
- I completed total of 15 posts.

post #1 - July 9, 2006 (#74)

post #2 - July 9, 2006 (#75)

post #3 - July 15, 2006 (#236)

post #4 - July 15, 2006 (#235)

post #5 - July 16,2006 (#240)

post #6 - July 16, 2006 (#239)

post #7 - July 21,2006 (#414)

post #8 - July 21, 2006 (#415)

post #9 - July 21, 2006 (#416)

post #10 – July 30, 2006 (#554)

post #11- July 30, 2006 (#555)

post #12- Aug 5,2006 (#657)

post #13- Aug 5, 2006 (#658)

post #14- Aug 6, 2006 (#667)

post #15- Aug 11, 2006 ( #765)



4. List the two research projects you did.
- Since I could not visit the Museum of Tolerance and other locations because I’m currently in China, I completed two research projects. One research project was on abortion and the other one was on euthanasia.


5. Please list what "grade" you received on at the midterm time.Were you asked to makeup any work on the midterm and
did you?
-I completed everything for the midterm and I received a strong B/B+.


6. What reading did you complete in this course?
-I read all the required readings including 14 theorists in Great Traditions, material by Nietzsche, all of Singer’s book, Gandhi’s book (p1-250), articles on cloning and article on evolutionary psychology.



7. Out of all the reading that you were assigned what reading would you recommend for future ethics classes? be specific. Which books? which articles? which chapters? is there reading that you would
absolutely not recommend? why?
- All assigned readings were interesting and I learned a lot by reading them. Even though I find the book Great Traditions a bit difficult to understand, I recommend all the material for future ethics classes.

8. Did you complete any extra credit this term?explain.
-None


#1

Gandhi

I had no real idea of Gandhi’s ideals before reading his writings. After reading the book “Autobiography of Gandhi”, I find it amazing and not boring at all. Gandhi searched for the truth for his entire life. Even though he spent much of his time in serving of his community and helping other, that was the means to the end he desired, the truth. Truth for Gandhi was absolute truth which he relates to God. In the introduction, he writes that he has been striving for self realization and to see God face to face. As he went through his life he finds only God is real and everything else is unreal. Evil keeps one from God and it depends on self to giving an effort to get closer to God.
Gandhi’s life was directed by his personal philosophies, which he developed through his life experiences. In this book, by writing his experiments in his life, Gandhi wanted people to learn from his mistakes. The autobiography begins with his growing up history and family history. Gandhi was born on October 2nd, 1869 at Porbandar, the center of a small city in Gujarat in western India under British rule. As a child, he was deeply committed to his family and completely devoted to his parents. His biggest regret was him being bonded by child marriage. At age thirteen, he was arranged to married to a girl in is age. As an obedient son and unaware of event of marriage, he followed his parents and he also remained faithful to his wife for many years. He believed that women should be educated and should be able to live independently and thus he tried to teach his wife.
Even at a young age, Gandhi believed in telling the truth. He lied few times in his childhood but he never lied in his life after that. There was time that he became defiant and started eating meat, stealing and lying with a friend. But he felt bad and guilty hence he wrote a confession to his father about his actions and awaited the consequences for his deeds. The tears rolling down his father’s eyes made him realize the love his father had for him and started to gain a deeper respect to all life.
After his father’s death, the family sent him to England for further studies. His mother concerned about his ability to manage alone in a new country and made Gandhi to take the vow to never drink or eat meat. Once he had gone to England for school, he remained a vegetarian even though he had to struggle in explaining the people his reasons for not eating meat and had to resist all temptations and the forceful offers that were put forth him. He started reading books on vegetarianism and gained self-confidence. After going through the hardship, the spread of vegetarianism became his mission. He became head of the executive committee of Vegetarian Society. Yet even though Gandhi was in this committee he had problems with talking in public. He wrote speeches and articles but always had to have other people read it for him.
Gandhi’s vegetarianism is similar to Lane’s. They both began as vegetarians for similar health related reasons and then vegetarianism became a bigger part of their lives as they continued as vegetarians for ethical reasons. There was an incident that showed Gandhi’s strong belief of vegetarianism. The doctor told Gandhi to feed his son who was ill, eggs and chicken but he refused to do so due to his belief. He felt that animal lives were no less important than human lives. After his son got well, he thought it was God’s grace.
Gandhi tried to get used to Western cooking, clothing, and manners and that cost him a lot money. He also learned how to budget his money and live not so a lavish life while in England. Gandhi also learned that great man never looks at the person’s exterior and they only think from heart from Narayan Hemchandra and these words influenced him greatly. After his study in England and becoming a barrister, he returned to home. In his hometown, he took up some small cases while he took a strong stand against giving commission for case because he believed it was wrong to do so. Not staying in India for long, he left to South Africa to work and to gain experiences.
In South Africa, there was a lot of discrimination against Indians at the time. Even though he was a well educated barrister, himself had to face discrimination and was insulted many times. While traveling in train, he was badly treated and he felt it’s not right to be treated in such matter due to color difference. While in Pretoria, he wanted to meet every Indian and he learned social, economic, and political conditions of the Indians. Gandhi then fought for the rights of Indians living in South Africa. Gandhi would not take money for his work for the community, and he devoted his time for the people of his own nation to receive their rights in foreign land. He realized that serving the community is the way to find God.
He was also faced a lot of difficulties and at times was accused of various acts which he was always able to justify. He was not allowed to step off the ship when he returned to South Africa as he was accused of bringing a lot of people with him to increase Indian population in the area that he was fighting. He became popular after he solved the case that he was only working on as a messenger outside the court. He helped many who were trying to avoid abuse or badly treated by their owners. He was appointed as a justice in the court of South Africa. He had to give up the turban in order to take the job. This was not taken very well by the Indian community who believed that he would fight for their rights and end the discrimination. While in South Africa, he learned how to do public work as well as work and practice as a barrister. Gandhi continued to help others when he returned to India. When plagues had spread around Bombay, he took on the task of checking for sanitation and also helped out in tree plantation
Gandhi had a strong belief in God. He believed that God guided him to the decision and everything that he was saved from was due to God’s help. He studied several religions but he had not found one better than his quest in Ahimsa (non-violence), which is the basis for the search of truth according to Gandhi. Gandhi never looked at anyone differently because of their religion. He believed all men had to decide what was right for them and then to follow that passion.
This book shows where the ideas that he formed came from, how he lead his life and how he achieved all the great things that he did. Gandhi is a great man and he lived according to virtue and pursued towards self-realization throughout his entire life. He fulfilled his duty as a son, a brother, a husband and a father. He strove all his life for others and he believed that helping others can have meaning only when it is done with pleasure.


#2

Gandhi vs. Singer

Peter singer’s definition of ethics or moral system is based upon utilitarianism, which is different than John Stewart Mills’ and Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism. Singer’s utilitarianism is based on “principle of equal consideration of interest“. He believes that we should go beyond of classical view of utilitarianism which focuses on individual’s feeling of pleasure and pain. People who make ethical judgment should go beyond their personal views and look at all people who will be affected by the choices that is being made, which means that the actions should be based on that which furthers the interest of those affected, rather then just what increases pleasure or reduces pain of the individual. In that way, we will be able to find the right decision on the issue presented. Moreover, Singer believes that this principle of equality should be applied to both human and non-human (animal). Humans should respect one another regardless of their race, gender, IQ or any other factors. Singer further states that we should not disregard interest of animals because animals are not part of our species. Singer mainly focuses on animal rights, euthanasia, abortion, poverty, and environment and his views on these issues are upon based on his utilitarianism. Singer points out that animal can also feel pain thus we should consider their interest as well. It’s wrong to kill animals as food or for other uses. Singer believes that euthanasia should be allowed when it’s used to remove suffering and pain of the person and he also thinks that women should have a right to abortion. His views sound harsh but his only goal was to bring happiness for the others who would have been affected by it. In the case of poverty, Singer believes that it’s ones’ duty to help others who are in need. Singer mainly focuses on future generation in the issue of environment. He suggests that we should consider others who will be affected by pollutions and destroying the forest.
Gandhi’s ethics or moral system is to live with truth. He strived to bring happiness of others all his life. He believed in equal rights for all and worked hard both in South Africa and India to strive for that freedom and equality with his knowledge of law and justice. I think Gandhi would have agreed with a lot of the issues pointed out by Singer because Gandhi dealt with some of these issues in his life. Gandhi believed in equal rights for all; we should not discriminate the others based on race, gender and species. He would support for animal rights because he is a vegetarian. In the issue of environment, he would also agree with Singer because he helped out to make environment cleaner and safe for the plants and animals to survive and helped out in planting trees.

Final..
Topic: Final
#4

Singer (animal rights) and Lane (vegetarianism)

David Lane’s neuron-ethical argument for vegetarianism focuses on suffering of animals. He explains that the moral issue behind eating animals is the fact that they have the capacity to feel pain. Lane argues that animals have the central nervous systems like humans; therefore, they can feel pain. However, most humans do not see how animals get killed or tested on with their own eyes and hence they do not know the pains that animals go through. Lane also explains that humans have other ways to get the nutrition value and don’t need to eat animals in order to survive. Therefore, humans don’t need animals for food. Moreover, Lane writes that animals with lower brain functions usually eaten by humans, but animals with high brain functions are regarded as being similar to humans and are usually not used as food but he claims that it’s not right to distinct animals based on intelligence. Lane gives out trans-human example to support his argument. He writes that if there are trans-humans from other planet who are more intelligent than ourselves decide to slaughter us to fulfill their wants, then do these trans-humans have the right to kill us? Since trans-humans do not understand our languages and we can not do anything, we humans would just hope for that trans-humans would understand our pains and stop their actins. Through this example, Lane claims that we should understand that animals with central nervous system are capable of feeling pain and thus we humans should stop killing and eating of animals.
Based on his utilitarianism, Peter Singer believes that the principle of equality should be applied to both human and non-human (animal). Singer states that we should not disregard interest of animals because animals are not part of our species. He defines speciesism as the idea of only to value or consider the interest of one’s own species and not others. This belief is not ethical because it allows humans to kill, eat and test on nonhuman animals. We should give animals equality of interests because their feelings of pain and suffering and of pleasure and happiness are no different than humans’. Singer explains that we can’t feel animals’ pain, but we can empathize by their reactions to the pain. For example, dogs cry (bark) when they are hurt. Humans can’t understand animals because animals use their own language to communicate. He also writes that some animals have ability to communicate through sign language and understand humans and have feelings like humans. Furthermore, Singer argues that we should not consider animals as inferior to humans based on the intelligence; we should treat animals as if they were intellectually disabled humans. In that way, animals have the right not to be used for scientific testing because mentally handicapped humans have the human right not to be used for scientific testing. To singer, humans don’t need animal flesh in order to survive, therefore, there’s no reason to use animals as food. Therefore, according to Singer’s utilitarianism, it’s unethical to use animals and cause them pain only to fulfill human’s interest. He rejects the idea of mass production of meat in factories by rearing all the animals in bad condition just for the sake of profit. Castration, raising animals in factory farms, fattening cattle, etc. are all done with the incentive of profit while their pain is hardly considered.According to Singer, we should consider interest of self –conscious beings because they are more aware of what is happening to them. And the studies show that animals are self conscious and should not be killed.
Lane and Singer both talk their view of animal rights. They both believe that it’s not ethical to kill or use animals as food. Singer explained animal rights based on his utilitarian view and Lane explained it based on the scientific reason. Both of them claim that animals are able to suffer and feel pain just like humans and thence we should also consider their interests as well. Moreover, they also pointed the abundance of resources we could use as food without hurting animals. However, I feel that Singer’s is more about protecting animal rights while Lane is trying to discourage people from eating animals.






#5

Animals’ rights

Before taking this class, I’ve never thought about animal rights. However, after reading Singer’s and Lane’s writing, I feel that animals have moral rights to live just like humans. Even though animals are born with lower intellect than humans, they have senses which allow them to feel pleasure or pain just like humans. All humans and animals are members of this society, thus as more intelligence beings we should protect and take care of animals and consider their interests as well.
Under his utilitarian view, Singer claims that we should concern about best interest of others as well as individual’s happiness; actions should be based on that which furthers the interest of those affected. He further explains that this principle should be also applied to non-human animals. Since animals are capable of feeling pain hence it’s wrong to kill them to fulfill our interests. David Lane supports Singer’s idea by saying that animals have the central nervous systems like humans and thus are able to feel pain.
John Stuart Mill’s ethical theory on utilitarianism, believes that the morality is based on the greatest happiness of maximum members of society and happiness is based on means when pleasures exceed pains. Mill states that utilitarianism must show that people are not only interested in their happiness but also interested in others because sacrificing oneself does not increase the sum of total happiness. He further explains that higher pleasure includes pleasure achieved by serving public good or helping others. Thus, Mill would also support animal rights because we can increase pleasure and achieve greatest happiness by protecting and taking care of animals which are also members of society. Killing animals will increase the pain and thus decrease happiness of all which is opposition of his utilitarianism.
According to Aquinas’ theory, there are two different laws; which are natural law and eternal law. He explains that basic concept of the natural laws is to do good and to avoid evil. Under his theory, we should avoid killing animals because it’s an act of evil.
Jean-Paul Sartre’s theory explains that people are responsible for everything because there are no guidelines or directions for people’s actions and choices since he denies god’s existence. Based on his theory, people should feel responsible for animals since we can not blame others for our actions. People should feel responsible for what they do and hence would think twice before taking actions.

Final
Topic: Final
#6

Singer- Abortion

Peter Singer brings up many controversial issues when he talks about abortion. The main controversy was the distinction between a fertilized egg and a child. He writes that it is wrong to kill human beings but it’s controversial when it comes to killing a human fetus. This controversy is important in deciding if abortion is right or wrong. There are issues in deciding when human life begins. Does it begin at birth or when fetus can survive outside of womb or when there’s quickening, or when fetus receives consciousness. The liberals argue that the abortion is permissible and he brings up three arguments of the liberals. First of all, the laws against abortion do not stop women from having abortions; rather the laws drive women to go to unsafe place to get abortions. Secondly, they argue that abortion is not the law’s business. Lastly, women have right to choose whether to have a child or not. In contrast, many believe that killing of fetus should be considered as murder while many liberal don’t count the fetus as human. Singer writes that we can not deny that fetus is potential human being but that does not mean that fetus is a person. According to Singers, a fetus is no greater value than the life of a nonhuman which has a similar level of rational, consciousness, awareness and feeling of pleasure and pain. He writes that abortion is sometimes necessary, and consciousness should be one measure to determine whether abortion should be allowed or not. His arguments are based on the idea that the overall life of a child born should be a happy and pleasant one. Therefore, one should consider the life of the infant and the parents after the birth when making a decision of abortion. For example, abortion is acceptable when fetus bears the birth defect or severe trauma to the mother. However it’s wrong to kill the fetus when it does not bear birth defect. He does not feel that disabled people don’t have the right to live but he suggests people to consider the future when making decisions. Peter singer’s view of abortion is based on his utilitarianism which supports that abortion should be carried under consideration of happiness of people involved in the issue. I agree with Singer’s view of abortion and I believe that everyone and everything should be considered before making decision of abortion. Whether we agree or disagree of abortion, we should consider what’s best for the health and the future life of the baby, the pregnant woman and other related people.


#7

Singer-Euthanasia

Euthanasia is another controversial issue which is killing in fast and peaceful way of those who are incurable ill and in a great deal of pain. According to Singer, euthanasia should be advised if it can reduce pain and bring happiness for greater number of people. There are three kinds of euthanasia: voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is which carried out when one request to die. Singer agrees with voluntary euthanasia because it reduces pain of a person when he/she is suffering so greatly that no medication or treatment can relieve the suffering. Involuntary euthanasia is rear; it’s carried out to reduce the pain but without the consent of the person in pain. It should be only accepted when the motive for killing is to prevent the suffering. The last one is non-voluntary euthanasia, which is used when person is not capable of understanding the choice between life and death. It is usually for disabled infants or certain elderly patients.
According to Singer, non-voluntary euthanasia is also acceptable because it is used to take away the pain. For example, lives of children born with spina bifida will be not worth living because their lives will be full of pain and suffering. Therefore, it would be also child’s best interest to not be alive, if the child’s life is going to be filled with severe suffering. In the case of a Down’s syndrome or a hemophiliac baby, euthanasia is also acceptable based on the replacement of children. Those who have infants with disabilities are usually aborted early to prevent suffering of the infant and parents, and the decision left to the parents and doctors because infants cannot choice. Singer also writes about the case of people who are in a persistent vegetative state. These people have no chance of recovery and they will still die whether or not help them or delay process; they will die instantly after removal from life support or will die after many years even with life support. He claims that there’s no intrinsic moral difference between allow to die or kill. The passive euthanasia is letting people die and active euthanasia is killing people. Singer justifies both of passive and active form of euthanasia based on his utilitarian view.I only agree with voluntary euthanasia and I feel that euthanasia should be only allowed when one requested his or her own death and other people who are related or helped that one person should not be given the right to decide that person’s death. Legalization of involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia will cause many deaths of infants and children, as well as people who are in vegetative state or coma.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, since Singer only support of euthanasia when it used to reduce the pain, I think Singer would have disagreed to euthanasia of Terri Schiavo. I believe that Terri Schiavo was not terminally ill and only required artificial means to be fed thus she was not in pain. Moreover, they were conflicting evidence regarding of his unconsciousness because some claim that she has responded to nurses and doctor and was able to smile and responds when her mother kissed her on the cheek. Also, Terri Schiavo’s parents and a lot of people did not want her to die except her husband.

#8

Singer- Poverty, Refugees, Environment


Absolute Poverty is the condition of life consisting malnutrition, disease, horrible environment, and low life expectancy hence it leads to human misery. Singer brings up this issue of absolute poverty based on the idea that allowing to die is not different than causing to die. Singer writes that the wealthy countries should help poor countries and it’s our duty to donate and help out the poor to fulfill their basic needs and free from pain or starvation. People who are capable of helping, but not helping are equivalent to killing the poor. However, according to Singer, we should help to prevent absolute poverty, but we should not give so much to put ourselves into poverty or to deny our own interests.
Due to either economic or cultural disputes, millions of innocent people suffer. Under the fear of disrupting their own economy, many countries fail to invite refugees. Singer claims that it’s wrong to let the refugees suffer just to avoid cultural disputes in their own country. He also mentions genuine refugees and economic refugees and their conditions, and also mentions that many are innocent and have a hard time resettling. Although nations fear their prosperity after taking refugees, it might actually bring them benefit rather than loss. According to singer, it’s a duty of one with resources to help others in need, thus rich countries as a whole should help the refugees in desperate need fro survival.
Environment ethics is the ethical issues of environment and Singer questions if it’s necessary to harm the environment. He writes that we have issues with environment because we have different values. According to western tradition, humans are the center of universe and environment was made for the use of humans. However, due to lack of understanding or careless behaviors of humans, we are losing the world’s heritage; trees are getting chopped, animals are losing their homes, pollutions caused by humans are killing animals and destroying the ozone layer. Singer states that even though the environment was made for the use of humans, we have the responsibility to take care of it rather than harm it. Humans are forgetting the beauty appreciation of environment and we only think of short term benefits rather than the long term benefits from the environment. Singer wants us to value the environment for its long term use rather than the big profit we might get at present. According to Singer’s utilitarian belief, when making choices that affect the environment, we should consider everyone/everything such as animals live in that environment, and moreover, future generations' lives must be considered as well. Furthermore, we need to adapt as a society an environmental ethic which will help guiding our decision in the future about the environment. We need to act ethical in the first place.
I agree with Singer’s position in the areas of poverty, refugees and environment. I believe that all countries with the ability to help will have to join together to overcome problems of poverty, refugees and environment. It’s wrong to rich countries to ignore poor countries and let them suffer. These are not a private issue faced by one but it is the issue faced by millions around the world in all countries. We should work all together to construct a better world.


#9

Cloning

Cloning is the creation of an organism that is an exact genetic copy of another which means that the DNAs are the same between two. Cloning became a very controversial issue when the first animal, Dolly, the sheep, was cloned on February 1997 by using somatic nuclear transfer method, because human cloning was never thought possible before Dolly’s birth. But success in cloning of an animal showed possibility of cloning humans by using the same method. A committee was set to research and discuss on the ethical, moral and scientific aspect of such experiments and research by President Clinton. Since cloning was a new technology and a little was known by the time, any types of researches or experiments that relate to human cloning was banned in the U.S. and also in nineteen European nations. However, some people strongly supported human cloning because of its usefulness in medical and social area. In the medical industry, this new technology will allow cloning of organs or cells to replace or regenerate the damaged ones and help to understand the mysteries of cancer in and genetic disease. Human cloning will also allow human to live again after unfortunate death and let infertile couples to have a cloned child. Even though the human cloning might be useful, there are strong debates regarding the morality of cloning humans in religious and ethical terms. According to religious perspective, some believes that human are the “image of god” and cloning will violates this dignity, some also questioned if it is also possible to clone the human soul along the human body. They are afraid that the cloned ones might be treated as objects and might be used just for organ transplants to save others. Some believe that a child should be “a marital union between opposite sexes” and a child needs both a father and a mother but human cloning will allow a child to have single parent. According to Ethical perspective, both opponents and supporters believe that current technology is not safe enough to use on humans. It took 277 tries to clone a healthy “Dolly”, but since cloning human is more complicated, there will be more deaths and birth defects can be expected during experiment of cloning human. Some opponents also argue that it will harm the cloned children psychologically because they might think that their life is in control. Opponents suggest that the government should make laws to prohibit the human cloning but the supporters suggest that the government should not make human cloning research illegal.
I personally feel that human cloning should be legalized under the law with certain restrictions which considering many issues presented. People are just unfamiliar with this new scientific method and thus only worry about the negative affects. Since we have benefited by accepting many scientific advances and new medical technologies have been helped millions of life, we will be also benefited by legalizing the human cloning. Since I am an atheist, I don’t agree with religious issues that presented above. I think the government should allow scientists to continue their researches.

#10

By reading required materials, I have learned a lot about the philosophers and their ethical and moral views. I find that some of the philosophers’ ideas do not apply to modern people and world while some still can apply. Among all ethical theorists, the one who had the most impact on my thinking was Peter Singer. As a modern ethical theorist, he talks about a lot of issues that are relate to the world that we are living in right now in his book, “Practical Ethics”. While reading his book, I had opened up my eyes and had gained knowledge of the modern ethical issues such as animal rights, abortions and euthanasia. As I have mentioned in the previous question, I’ve never thought about animal rights before taking this class. I had little knowledge about the vegetarians or vegetarianism because the only vegetarians around me were my aunt, my Indian friend and Canadian friend. I thought people choose to become vegetarians because their bodies do not accept any kind of meat. My aunt who is vegetarian can not eat any kind of meat because she throws up when she eats meat. My Canadian friend does not eat meat except chicken. It seemed that they all did no concern about animal rights but choose to be vegetarians anyway. Moreover, they did not mind if other people eat meat or not. Thus, I was confused about definition of vegetarian.
For me, I take it for granted when it comes to eating meat even though I get disgusted when I see people killing or hurting animals in the television and feel that it’s not a right thing to do. I think I thought of killing animals and eating animals as two different things for some reason. Through Singer’s writing, I find that animals are capable of feeling pain just like humans and they have right to be treated equally. Moreover, the trans-human example written by David Lane who supports Singer’s view of animal right, also helped me to understand more about animal rights. I think we humans are a bit selfish because we only care about our own desires and interests. Since we are the most intelligent beings in this earth, we treat non-human animals that have little intellect badly by using our powers. Singer also claims that humans do not need animals for nutrition supply; we humans can survive without eating animals. Before, I did not know about this fact and I thought humans need to eat animals to survive. After realizing and gaining knowledge of animal rights, I thought about my eating habits for few days and I decided to change it. Even though I can’t stop eating meat right away, I will start with eating less meat as possible.

Research Project #2
Topic: Research Project
Euthanasia

Until the 1940’s, medical care was often just comfort care, alleviating pain when possible. But during last 60 years, medicine has become increasingly capable of postponing death and that allowed us to have a choice of whether allow ourselves to die or not. Since then, euthanasia has become a very controversial issue throughout the world. The word “Euthanasia” originated from Greek language; eu means “good or well” and thanatos means “death”, which together can be explained as “good death” or “dying well”. Good death means peaceful or painless death. Euthanasia is the act of intentionally causing the painless death of a sick person. Normally, the term euthanasia implies only when that sick person wishes to commit suicide but people started to define it by adding both voluntary, involuntary, and non voluntary termination of life later on.
Ever since the legalization of abortion by the Supreme Court, society began to devalue the life of an unborn child. And it is a small step to begin to do the same with a child who has been born. Abortion slides naturally into infanticide and eventually into euthanasia. Doctors have allowed a number of “Baby Does” to die by failing to perform life saving operations or else by not feeding the infants. The progression toward euthanasia is inevitable. Once society becomes conformed to a "quality of life" standard for infants, it will more willingly accept the same standard for the elderly. That will put more “older does” into the death.
Euthanasia often divided in to three categories: voluntary, non voluntary, and involuntary. Voluntary is when the person who is killed has requested to be killed. Non voluntary is when the person who is killed was unable to make a choice at all. Involuntary is when the person who is killed has not explicitly requested aid in dying. Non voluntary and involuntary euthanasia require a second person who makes decisions about whether to end a life of a patient. Involuntary euthanasia is very rare and is not legal at all. Non voluntary is usually for disabled infants or certain elderly patient and is sometimes legal under the permission of court.
In terms of a physician’s actions, euthanasia can be passive or active. Euthanasia can be passive in that a physician plays no direct role in the death of the person or it can be active in that the physician does something directly to cause the death. Passive euthanasia is hastening the death of a person by altering some form of support and letting nature take its course. Passive euthanasia is usually performed on terminally ill, suffering person, and person in a persistent vegetative state, so that natural death will occur sooner. (A person in a persistent vegetative state has massive brain damage or in a coma state which cannot possibly regain consciousness). Such as removing life support equipment, stopping medical procedures or medications, stopping food/water supply and no delivering CPR can be the act of passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia involves causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response to a request from that person. An example of active euthanasia can be injecting a lethal substance with the intention of ending their life. From a moral point of view, distinction between passive and active are meaning less because both cause the death of a human.
Taking a human life is not the same as allowing nature to take its course by allowing a terminal patient to die. Some claim that the active euthanasia could be called mercy-killing and the passive euthanasia could be called mercy-dying, and some consider the former as immoral while the latter is not. However, it’s not easy to draw a sharp line between these two because modern medical technology has blurred line between the two. For example, ease pain, but they can also shorten a patient's life by affecting respiration. An artificial heart will continue to beat even after the patient has died and therefore must be turned off by the doctor. So the distinction between actively promoting death and passively allowing nature to take its course is sometimes difficult to determine in practice.
The opponents of euthanasia argue that there’s no doubt that the patient will die soon or passive euthanasia will cause no pain for the patient. In the case of active euthanasia, some argue that euthanasia eliminates the possibility for recovery. While this should be obvious, somehow this problem is frequently ignored in the euthanasia debate. Terminating a human life eliminates all possibility of recovery, while passively ceasing extraordinary means may not. Miraculous recovery from a bleak prognosis sometimes occurs. A doctor who prescribes active euthanasia for a patient may unwittingly prevent a possible recovery he did not anticipate.
The basic question posed by euthanasia is that should a person who is terminally ill and who feels that their life is not worth living because of intractable pain or loss of dignity or loss of capability and who repeatedly and actively asks for help in coming suicide and who is of sound min d and not suffering form depression be given assistant in dying?
The main opposition comes from some conservative religious groups, medical association and groups who concerned with disabilities. Conservative religious groups are often the same organizations which oppose access to abortion. Medical associations feel uncomfortable helping people to end their lives because members of these associations are usually dedicated to saving and extending life of people. The groups which concerned with disabilities fear that euthanasia is the first stop towards a society that will kill disabled people against their will.
The considerations of euthanasia presented are mainly based on ethical and religious aspects of view. Many religious groups within Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and other religions believe that God gives life and therefore only God should take it away. Allowing euthanasia can be considered as a rejection of God’s sovereignty. The two main arguments offered by Christians who are against an individual seeking suicide. First one was that life is a gift from god, thus only God can start a life and only God should be allowed to end one. An individual who commits suicide is coming sin. The second one was that God does not send us any experience that we cannot handle, God supports people in suffering. To actively seek an end to one’s life would represent a lack of trust in God’ promise. However, atheists, humanists, and non-Christians would not agree with these arguments. They would argue that each person has autonomy over their own life. Persons whose quality of life is nonexistent should have the right to decide to commit suicide, and to seek assistance if necessary. Also, sometimes a terminal illness is so painful that it causes life to be an unbearable burden; death can represent a relief of intolerable pain.
Under ethical views, the supporters question if the state has the right to deny patient’s wish when that patient prefers to end life due to intractable pain. They also question since suicide is legal act, isn’t it the act of discrimination to deny suicide of a person who have disabilities and mental or physical limitations. Many people who are opposition of euthanasia, concern that by making euthanasia available some people will be pressured into accepting assistance in dying by their families. There is another argument in favor of strict controls to confirm that a patient requesting aid in dying is “of sound min” because some people wish to die because they are suffering from clinical depression.
There were also many polls have been taken regarding to euthanasia. In the US (June,1997), 57% was in favor of euthanasia and 35% was in opposition. However, other countries such as Canada, Britain, Australia and Netherland had 76%, 80%, 81%, and 92% who support euthanasia respectively. It’s interesting that these countries showed higher rate compared to the U.S.

1.Bruce A Robinson. 1996. Religious Tolerance. Ontario. On-line. Available from internet, http://www.religioustolerance.org/
2.Lawrence M. Hindman. 1994.Ethics Update. On-Line. Available from internet, http://ethics.acusd.edu/Applied/Euthanasia/index.asp
3. http://www.euthanasia.com/index.html
4. 1998. Probe Ministries International. On-Line. Available from internet, http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/euthan.html
5. http://www.leagueforlife.mb.ca/Euthanasia.html

Post #15
Topic: Posts
Post #15

Gandhi

I had no real idea of Gandhi’s ideals before reading his writings. After reading the book “Autobiography of Gandhi”, I find it amazing and not boring at all. Gandhi searched for the truth for his entire life. Even though he spent much of his time in serving of his community and helping other, that was the means to the end he desired, the truth. Truth for Gandhi was absolute truth which he relates to God. In the introduction, he writes that he has been striving for self realization and to see God face to face. As he went through his life he finds only God is real and everything else is unreal. Evil keeps one from God and it depends on self to giving an effort to get closer to God.
Gandhi’s life was directed by his personal philosophies, which he developed through his life experiences. In this book, by writing his experiments in his life, Gandhi wanted people to learn from his mistakes. The autobiography begins with his growing up history and family history. Gandhi was born on October 2nd, 1869 at Porbandar, the center of a small city in Gujarat in western India under British rule. As a child, he was deeply committed to his family and completely devoted to his parents. His biggest regret was him being bonded by child marriage. At age thirteen, he was arranged to married to a girl in is age. As an obedient son and unaware of event of marriage, he followed his parents and he also remained faithful to his wife for many years. He believed that women should be educated and should be able to live independently and thus he tried to teach his wife.
Even at a young age, Gandhi believed in telling the truth. He lied few times in his childhood but he never lied in his life after that. There was time that he became defiant and started eating meat, stealing and lying with a friend. But he felt bad and guilty hence he wrote a confession to his father about his actions and awaited the consequences for his deeds. The tears rolling down his father’s eyes made him realize the love his father had for him and started to gain a deeper respect to all life.
After his father’s death, the family sent him to England for further studies. His mother concerned about his ability to manage alone in a new country and made Gandhi to take the vow to never drink or eat meat. Once he had gone to England for school, he remained a vegetarian even though he had to struggle in explaining the people his reasons for not eating meat and had to resist all temptations and the forceful offers that were put forth him. He started reading books on vegetarianism and gained self-confidence. After going through the hardship, the spread of vegetarianism became his mission. He became head of the executive committee of Vegetarian Society. Yet even though Gandhi was in this committee he had problems with talking in public. He wrote speeches and articles but always had to have other people read it for him.
Gandhi’s vegetarianism is similar to Lane’s. They both began as vegetarians for similar health related reasons and then vegetarianism became a bigger part of their lives as they continued as vegetarians for ethical reasons. There was an incident that showed Gandhi’s strong belief of vegetarianism. The doctor told Gandhi to feed his son who was ill, eggs and chicken but he refused to do so due to his belief. He felt that animal lives were no less important than human lives. After his son got well, he thought it was God’s grace.
Gandhi tried to get used to Western cooking, clothing, and manners and that cost him a lot money. He also learned how to budget his money and live not so a lavish life while in England. Gandhi also learned that great man never looks at the person’s exterior and they only think from heart from Narayan Hemchandra and these words influenced him greatly. After his study in England and becoming a barrister, he returned to home. In his hometown, he took up some small cases while he took a strong stand against giving commission for case because he believed it was wrong to do so. Not staying in India for long, he left to South Africa to work and to gain experiences.
In South Africa, there was a lot of discrimination against Indians at the time. Even though he was a well educated barrister, himself had to face discrimination and was insulted many times. While traveling in train, he was badly treated and he felt it’s not right to be treated in such matter due to color difference. While in Pretoria, he wanted to meet every Indian and he learned social, economic, and political conditions of the Indians. Gandhi then fought for the rights of Indians living in South Africa. Gandhi would not take money for his work for the community, and he devoted his time for the people of his own nation to receive their rights in foreign land. He realized that serving the community is the way to find God.
He was also faced a lot of difficulties and at times was accused of various acts which he was always able to justify. He was not allowed to step off the ship when he returned to South Africa as he was accused of bringing a lot of people with him to increase Indian population in the area that he was fighting. He became popular after he solved the case that he was only working on as a messenger outside the court. He helped many who were trying to avoid abuse or badly treated by their owners. He was appointed as a justice in the court of South Africa. He had to give up the turban in order to take the job. This was not taken very well by the Indian community who believed that he would fight for their rights and end the discrimination. While in South Africa, he learned how to do public work as well as work and practice as a barrister. Gandhi continued to help others when he returned to India. When plagues had spread around Bombay, he took on the task of checking for sanitation and also helped out in tree plantation
Gandhi had a strong belief in God. He believed that God guided him to the decision and everything that he was saved from was due to God’s help. He studied several religions but he had not found one better than his quest in Ahimsa (non-violence), which is the basis for the search of truth according to Gandhi. Gandhi never looked at anyone differently because of their religion. He believed all men had to decide what was right for them and then to follow that passion.
This book shows where the ideas that he formed came from, how he lead his life and how he achieved all the great things that he did. Gandhi is a great man and he lived according to virtue and pursued towards self-realization throughout his entire life. He fulfilled his duty as a son, a brother, a husband and a father. He strove all his life for others and he believed that helping others can have meaning only when it is done with pleasure.

Post 13
Topic: Posts
Post 13

Cloning

Cloning became a very controversial issue when the first animal, Dolly, the sheep, was cloned on February 1997, because human cloning was never thought possible before Dolly’s birth, but success in cloning of an animal showed possibility of cloning humans by using the same method. A committee was set to research and discuss on the ethical, moral and scientific aspect of such experiments and research by President Clinton. Since cloning was a new technology and a little was known by the time, any types of researches or experiments that relate to human cloning was banned in the U.S. and also in nineteen European nations. However, some people strongly supported human cloning because of its usefulness in medical and social area. In the medical industry, this new technology will allow cloning of organs or cells to replace or regenerate the damaged ones and help to understand the mysteries of cancer in and genetic disease. Human cloning will also allow human to live again after unfortunate death and let infertile couples to have a cloned child. Even though the human cloning might be useful, there are strong debates regarding the morality of cloning humans in religious and ethical terms. According to religious perspective, some believes that human are the “image of god” and cloning will violates this dignity, some also questioned if it is also possible to clone the human soul along the human body. They are afraid that the cloned ones might be treated as objects and might be used just for organ transplants to save others. Some believe that a child should be “a marital union between opposite sexes” and a child needs both a father and a mother but human cloning will allow a child to have single parent. According to Ethical perspective, both opponents and supporters believe that current technology is not safe enough to use on humans. It took 277 tries to clone a healthy “Dolly”, but since cloning human is more complicated, there will be more deaths and birth defects can be expected during experiment of cloning human. Some opponents also argue that it will harm the cloned children psychologically because they might think that their life is in control. Opponents suggest that the government should make laws to prohibit the human cloning but the supporters suggest that the government should not make human cloning research illegal.

Post 12
Topic: Posts
Post 12

Environment & Appendix


Environment ethics is the ethical issues of environment and Singer questions if it’s necessary to harm the environment. He writes that we have issues with environment because we have different values. According to western tradition, humans are the center of universe and environment was made for the use of humans. However, due to lack of understanding or careless behaviors of humans, we are losing the world’s heritage; trees are getting chopped, animals are losing their homes, pollutions caused by humans are killing animals and destroying the ozone layer. Singer states that even though the environment was made for the use of humans, we have the responsibility to take care of it rather than harm it. Humans are forgetting the beauty appreciation of environment and we only think of short term benefits rather than the long term benefits from the environment. Singer wants us to value the environment for its long term use rather than the big profit we might get at present. According to Singer’s utilitarian belief, when making choices that affect the environment, we should consider everyone/everything such as animals live in that environment, and moreover, future generations' lives must be considered as well. Furthermore, we need to adapt as a society an environmental ethic which will help guiding our decision in the future about the environment. We need to act ethical in the first place.

In the appendix, Singer talks about his experience in Germany, where he was kept from speaking about the topics of practical ethics such as euthanasia. The sensitive nature of moral issues is often a misunderstanding of the information presented. When Singer was invited to talk about his ethical views in Germany, there were people protesting because they disagree with his views but most of them misinformed about Singer’s views or misunderstood the topics in his book. For example, some people believed that handicapped people should be treated like animals, when Singer’s actual point was that animals should be treated with the same respect as handicapped humans. When it comes to the topic of euthanasia, Singer believed that euthanasia should be used only to take away the pain of humans. However, some people thought that Singer wanted the disabled people to die and they accused him for having views with that of the Nazi’s.
Singer believes that even though some topics might be sensitive to some people it is important to discuss these issues.

Post 14
Topic: Posts
Post 14

Evolutionary Psychology

Evolutionary Psychology is the study of morality; a new concept developed to test cognitive reasoning with moral choices presented to an individual. Different people in different situations act differently. Philosophers such as Kant believed that one’s decisions are made in accordance to reason. However, Joshua Greene states that one’s emotions play a key role in moral decision making rather than one’s reason. In the article, Joshua Greene shows the relation between moral decision and brain patterns. Greene used the MRI scanner to view the brain function of an individual and what part of the brain reacts when posed with ethical situations that required choice to be made. By the data collected through the MRI, he discovers the reactions of different parts of the brain that influence individual’s thinking of others, the area which involved for logical thinking patterns, and how they react to emotions. He explains that personal moral decisions stimulate specific parts of the brain more than impersonal moral decisions. Furthermore, the brain activates other area of brain which is connected to emotion to help to decide in difficult moral questions. Thus both reasoning and the emotion area of brain are activated and cause internal conflict and that activates another area of brain known as the anterior cingulated cortex (ACC) which can help to decide between reason and emotion. This supports Greene’s idea that emotion affects morality as well as reasoning. Greene further concludes that society also has an influence on morality; different cultures produce different types of moral intuitions and different kinds of brain.
Before reading this article, I knew that the emotion affects in the process of making moral judgment based on other readings. I find that this article supports this theory with scientific evidences. I completely agree that our brains contribute to moral decision making and moreover emotions and reasoning are used to make moral decisions. I think it is important to understand people’s different views and behaviors of many moral issues and we should research and study further to find out more about it.

Post #11
Topic: Posts
Post 11

Abortion, Euthanasia, Poverty

Peter Singer brings up many controversy issues when he talks about abortion. The main controversy was the distinction between a fertilized egg and a child. He writes that it is wrong to kill human beings but it’s controversial when it comes to killing a human fetus. This controversy is important in deciding if abortion is right or wrong. There are issues in deciding when human life begins. Does it begin at birth or when fetus can survive outside of womb or when there’s quickening, or when fetus receives consciousness. The liberals argue that the abortion is permissible and he brings up three arguments of the liberals. First of all, the laws against abortion do not stop women from having abortions; rather the laws drive women to go to unsafe place to get abortions. Secondly, they argue that abortion is not the law’s business. Lastly, women have right to choose whether to have a child or not. In contrast, many believe that killing of fetus should be considered as murder while many liberal don’t count the fetus as human. Singer writes that we can not deny that fetus is potential human being but that does not mean that fetus is a person. According to Singers, a fetus is no greater value than the life of a nonhuman which has a similar level of rational, consciousness, awareness and feeling of pleasure and pain. He writes that abortion is sometimes necessary, and consciousness should be one measure to determine whether abortion should be allowed or not. His arguments are based on the idea that the overall life of a child born should be a happy and pleasant one. Therefore, one should consider the life of the infant and the parents after the birth when making a decision of abortion. For example, abortion is acceptable when fetus bears the birth defect or severe trauma to the mother. However it’s wrong to kill the fetus when it does not bear birth defect. Furthermore, personal moral should play a bigger role.
Euthanasia is another controversial issue which is killing in fast and peaceful way of those who are incurable ill and in a great deal of pain. According to Singer, euthanasia should be advised if it can reduce pain and bring happiness for greater number of people. There are three kinds of euthanasia: voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is which carried out when one request to die. Singer agrees with voluntary euthanasia because it reduces pain of a person when he/she is suffering so greatly that no medication or treatment can relieve the suffering. Involuntary euthanasia is rear; it’s carried out to reduce the pain but without the consent of the person in pain. It’s should be only accepted when the motive for killing is to prevent the suffering. The last one is non-voluntary euthanasia, which is used when person is not capable of understanding the choice between life and death. It is usually for disabled infants or certain elderly patients.
According to Singer, non-voluntary euthanasia is also acceptable because it is used to take away the pain. For example, lives of children born with spina bifida will be not worth living because their lives will be full of pain and suffering. Therefore, it would be also child’s best interest to not be alive, if the child’s life is going to be filled with severe suffering. In the case of a Down’s syndrome or a hemophiliac baby, euthanasia is also acceptable based on the replacement of children. Those who have infants with disabilities are usually aborted early to prevent suffering of the infant and parents, and the decision left to the parents and doctors because infants cannot choice. Singer also writes about the case of people who are in a persistent vegetative state. These people have no chance of recovery and they will still die whether or not help them or delay process; they will die instantly after removal from life support or will die after many years even with life support. He claims that there’s no intrinsic moral difference between allow to die or kill. The passive euthanasia is letting people die and active euthanasia is killing people. Singer justifies both of passive and active form of euthanasia based on his utilitarian view.
Absolute Poverty is the condition of life consisting malnutrition, disease, horrible environment, and low life expectancy hence it leads to human misery. Singer brings up this issue of absolute poverty based on the idea that allowing to die is not different than causing to die. Singer writes that the wealthy countries should help poor countries and it’s our duty to donate and help out the poor to fulfill their basic needs and free from pain or starvation. People who are capable of helping, but not helping are equivalent to killing the poor. However, according to Singer, we should help prevent absolute poverty, but we should not give so much to put ourselves into poverty or to deny our own interests.

Post #10
Topic: Posts
Post #10

Singer vs. Lane

Peter singer’s definition of ethics is based upon utilitarianism, which is different than John Stewart Mills’ and Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism. Singer’s utilitarianism is based on “principle of equal consideration of interest“. He believes that we should go beyond of classical view of utilitarianism which focuses on individual’s feeling of pleasure and pain. People who make ethical judgment should go beyond their personal views and look at all people who will be affected by the choices that is being made, which means that the actions should be based on that which furthers the interest of those affected, rather then just what increases pleasure or reduces pain of the individual. In that way, we will be able to find the right decision on the issue presented. Moreover, Singer believes that this principle of equality should be applied to both human and non-human (animal). Humans should respect one another regardless of their race, gender, IQ or any other factors. Singer further states that we should not disregard interest of animals because animals are not part of our species. He defines speciesism as the idea of only to value or consider the interest of one’s own species and not others. This belief is not ethical because it allows humans to kill, eat and test on nonhuman animals. We should give animals equality of interests because their feelings of pain and suffering and of pleasure and happiness are no different than humans’. Singer explains that we can’t feel animals’ pain, but we can empathize by their reactions to the pain. For example, dogs cry (bark) when they are hurt. Humans can’t understand animals because animals use their own language to communicate. He also writes that some animals have ability to communicate through sign language and understand humans and have feelings like humans. Furthermore, Singer argues that we should not consider animals as inferior to humans based on the intelligence; we should treat animals as if they were intellectually disabled humans. In that way, animals have the right not to be used for scientific testing because mentally handicapped humans have the human right not to be used for scientific testing. To singer, humans don’t need animal flesh in order to survive, therefore, there’s no reason to use animals as food. Therefore, according to Singer’s utilitarianism, it’s unethical to use animals and cause them pain only to fulfill human’s interest. According to Singer, we should consider interest of self –conscious beings because they are more aware of what is happening to them. And the studies show that animals are self conscious and should not be killed.
In his article, David Lane writes about how he became a vegetarian. He chose to be a vegetarian due to health reason but he later realized that it’s morally wrong to eat animals. He explains that the moral issue behind eating animals is the fact that they have the capacity to feel pain. Lane argues that animals have the central nervous systems like humans; therefore, they can feel pain. However, most humans do not see how animals get killed or tested on with their own eyes and hence they do not know the pains that animals go through. Lane also explains that humans have other ways to get the nutrition value and don’t need to eat animals in order to survive. Therefore, humans don’t need animals for food. Furthermore, Lane writes that animals with lower brain functions usually eaten by humans, but animals with high brain functions are regarded as being similar to humans and are usually not used as food. However, we should not eat anything which has a central nervous system.
Lane and Singer’s views are similar regarding animals rights. They both believe that it’s not ethical to kill or use animals as food. Both of them argues that animals do suffer and can feel pain just like humans. I feel that Singer is more about protecting animal rights while Lane is trying to discourage people from eating animals.