I completely agree with the idea of choice and freedom, but I do not agree with the Freedom Principle in its entirety. I think we should have moral legislation in some cases. I think marriage age is a reasonable thing to have laws about, but I also take a pro-choice when it comes to abortion. I am for laws that protect people from harming themselves through seat belts and helmets. I do not think there should be a free market entirely. Therefore, I am conflicted about some of these libertarian views, and would not be able to identify for or against the Freedom Principle.
Scenario 9: Selling a Kidney
I think there should be a regulated market for kidneys. It would help the thousands of people that are dying, and if not enough people are donating their kidneys now, this sounds like a solution. It would also help people to receive the money - a farmer getting money for her daughter. Additionally, it could allow people to get a large sum of money reasonably quickly but in a way that is not illegal or harmful to the country (such as taking out a loan from from a mob or something to a similar effect), but instead helpful to a person. However, the kidneys must go to hospitals and not elsewhere.
I think people on death row should be allowed to sell two kidneys. They are going to die anyway, and selling the kidneys would help people.
Scenario 11: Same Sex Marriage
I feel so strongly that same sex marriage should be allowed all over the world. Homosexual people should be allowed the same rights and privileges of heterosexual people. It's about equality.
I would like to briefly discuss why I think utilitarians would not agree with option one (allowing same sex marriage). I think one major reason same sex marriage has not been allowed for so long is that politicians are aware of the strong views against same sex marriage and even if they believe it should be allowed, they do not want to upset the masses. I think it is true that same sex marriage would make the couple happy and hopefully their families happy (though, not in the case of my cousin and a lot of our family), but I think so many people would be outraged that it would not cause more happiness for more people overall even though I do believe same sex marriage should be allowed.
Scenario 8: Assisted Suicide
I think assisted suicide should be allowed. It's no different from pulling the plug from someone on life support, which is perfectly legal. I think assisted suicide is good from a libertarian and utilitarian standpoint, because it is allowing someone to do what they would like and it is also allowing for greater overall happiness, as the person is no longer suffering. There obviously has to be some regulation of assisted suicide if it were made legal in more places; it would have to be made sure that doctors were, in a humane way, killing only those who asked to die.
Monday 28 November 2011
Monday 21 November 2011
Utilitarianism (Greatest Happiness Principle)
I think I follow the Greatest Happiness Principle quite a bit. I weigh my options and choose what will make myself or others (and hopefully it can be both) happiest. I disagree with Utilitarianism in one of the examples Dr. Richards was using about dogfighting, because I do not think harming dogs is justifiable just to make some humans happy.
Scenario: City of Happiness
Although I think it's morally wrong because of my view of equality and human rights, I think it is justifiable to keep things the way they are, because it is benefitting many people, a whole city, which is more important than one person being unhappy. Molly brought up the point during our discussion at our table, that there are many children in the world living in as terrible conditions of as child in the City of Happiness, and so if the entire world was in this situation, it would be beneficial to everyone that so many people are happy and healthy and are not living in the conditions the one child is.
Scenario: Hampsterdam
I do not think moving crime out of the public view helps in anyway. I does not fix the problem of drug crime and it could even lead to more crime. It sends the message that police officers think drugs are okay as long as it is traded and taken privately, which I do not agree with. I especially think it is wrong when relating it to Jeremy Bentham's idea of rounding up the beggars. I think that is an even worse idea than the Hampsterdam scenario, because the homeless cannot help begging. It gives off the impression that police do not think giving to those in need is a good idea, instead it is just annoying to them.
Scenario: The Price of a Human Being
This whole concept makes me feel very upset. It makes me feel like people do not value other peoples' lives, their own wellbeing, or the lives of animals. I am kind of disturbed that a company would be willing to let 180 people die and 180 people get injured and not do anything about it. It is not just a company; there are people behind the company. And these are not just numbers; there are people that were actually killed because of faulty engines or smoking cigarettes. I feel like people are just so immensely selfish. What do the companies need with all that money when human lives are at stake? And how could a person be willing to strangle a cat for money? That is disturbing and upsetting.
Has your view of the Greatest Happiness Principle changed during this class?
Yes, it definitely has. At the beginning of class when Dr. Richards introduced the idea of Greatest Happiness Principle, I recognized that some people might suffer, but that does not matter if more people are benefitting. I viewed it as just like the scenarios we went through last class: one death is better than five deaths. However, I now realize that human life and such things are not just mathematical equations. There are real lives behind it that are more important than a company or the government making money. I think anyone who is a moral person will not agree with utilitarianism because of their values, such as the value of human life.
Scenario: City of Happiness
Although I think it's morally wrong because of my view of equality and human rights, I think it is justifiable to keep things the way they are, because it is benefitting many people, a whole city, which is more important than one person being unhappy. Molly brought up the point during our discussion at our table, that there are many children in the world living in as terrible conditions of as child in the City of Happiness, and so if the entire world was in this situation, it would be beneficial to everyone that so many people are happy and healthy and are not living in the conditions the one child is.
Scenario: Hampsterdam
I do not think moving crime out of the public view helps in anyway. I does not fix the problem of drug crime and it could even lead to more crime. It sends the message that police officers think drugs are okay as long as it is traded and taken privately, which I do not agree with. I especially think it is wrong when relating it to Jeremy Bentham's idea of rounding up the beggars. I think that is an even worse idea than the Hampsterdam scenario, because the homeless cannot help begging. It gives off the impression that police do not think giving to those in need is a good idea, instead it is just annoying to them.
Scenario: The Price of a Human Being
This whole concept makes me feel very upset. It makes me feel like people do not value other peoples' lives, their own wellbeing, or the lives of animals. I am kind of disturbed that a company would be willing to let 180 people die and 180 people get injured and not do anything about it. It is not just a company; there are people behind the company. And these are not just numbers; there are people that were actually killed because of faulty engines or smoking cigarettes. I feel like people are just so immensely selfish. What do the companies need with all that money when human lives are at stake? And how could a person be willing to strangle a cat for money? That is disturbing and upsetting.
Has your view of the Greatest Happiness Principle changed during this class?
Yes, it definitely has. At the beginning of class when Dr. Richards introduced the idea of Greatest Happiness Principle, I recognized that some people might suffer, but that does not matter if more people are benefitting. I viewed it as just like the scenarios we went through last class: one death is better than five deaths. However, I now realize that human life and such things are not just mathematical equations. There are real lives behind it that are more important than a company or the government making money. I think anyone who is a moral person will not agree with utilitarianism because of their values, such as the value of human life.
Thursday 17 November 2011
Justice
What does the word justice mean to you?
Justice occurs when something is fairly dealt with. Justice is when someone is treated fairly according to their actions. Justice can be administered through the law and in more personal cases of fairness.
Getting justice against someone is not always the way to deal with something. In my Humanities I in Action class during my freshman year in Hong Kong, we did a unit on justice. We learned about alternative forms of justice that are not simply through the law, such as the victim talking the situation through with the perpetrator.
Scenario 1 - Price Gouging
The government should intervene in emergency situations because they are essential items. The government is responsible for protecting the people, and price gouging clearly does not have the majority in mind. This is taking advantage of people in a desperate situation.
Scenario 2 - Bank Bailouts
The government should intervene, because these companies provide jobs and keep peoples' investments safe and so provide money to the people. You could argue that it's the companies' own fault for terrible investments, but try comparing the situation to someone living off food stamps. Some argue that it's a person's own fault for not having enough money or being employed, but the government still provides them with money for food, because government tries to prevent joblessness and homelessness. The government must uphold the nation's economy and, most importantly, protect their citizens.
Scenario 3 - Trolley Driver
Five peoples' lives is more important than one person's life. Think about the effect the death of five people will have on the people they know versus the effect of one person's death on the community or their loved ones. Additionally, you have the responsibility to save lives and prevent deaths as a citizen and a member of the community.
Scenario 4 - Trolley Observer
I feel very conflicted with this scenario. I don't think I would be able to actively push someone, but at the same time, five lives are still more important than one. It's true that you do not have the right to play God. I think the argument that you are not responsible for the situation is invalid, because as citizens we have all have the responsibility to act in these situations. I would like to stand by my belief in the earlier scenario that five lives are more important than one, but I do not feel as confident in that stance as I did in the previous scenario.
Scenario 5 - Afghan Goat Herders
I think the Special Forces Unit should kill the two men as it is for the good of the nation. It also provides justice against this bad man and likely stops further killings of the innocent on the bad guy's part (assuming that the bad guy was killing others).
Justice occurs when something is fairly dealt with. Justice is when someone is treated fairly according to their actions. Justice can be administered through the law and in more personal cases of fairness.
Getting justice against someone is not always the way to deal with something. In my Humanities I in Action class during my freshman year in Hong Kong, we did a unit on justice. We learned about alternative forms of justice that are not simply through the law, such as the victim talking the situation through with the perpetrator.
Scenario 1 - Price Gouging
The government should intervene in emergency situations because they are essential items. The government is responsible for protecting the people, and price gouging clearly does not have the majority in mind. This is taking advantage of people in a desperate situation.
Scenario 2 - Bank Bailouts
The government should intervene, because these companies provide jobs and keep peoples' investments safe and so provide money to the people. You could argue that it's the companies' own fault for terrible investments, but try comparing the situation to someone living off food stamps. Some argue that it's a person's own fault for not having enough money or being employed, but the government still provides them with money for food, because government tries to prevent joblessness and homelessness. The government must uphold the nation's economy and, most importantly, protect their citizens.
Scenario 3 - Trolley Driver
Five peoples' lives is more important than one person's life. Think about the effect the death of five people will have on the people they know versus the effect of one person's death on the community or their loved ones. Additionally, you have the responsibility to save lives and prevent deaths as a citizen and a member of the community.
Scenario 4 - Trolley Observer
I feel very conflicted with this scenario. I don't think I would be able to actively push someone, but at the same time, five lives are still more important than one. It's true that you do not have the right to play God. I think the argument that you are not responsible for the situation is invalid, because as citizens we have all have the responsibility to act in these situations. I would like to stand by my belief in the earlier scenario that five lives are more important than one, but I do not feel as confident in that stance as I did in the previous scenario.
Scenario 5 - Afghan Goat Herders
I think the Special Forces Unit should kill the two men as it is for the good of the nation. It also provides justice against this bad man and likely stops further killings of the innocent on the bad guy's part (assuming that the bad guy was killing others).
Monday 7 November 2011
Sneetches Work with the Lower School
1. What will you remember most about your visit to the Lower School?
None of the kids mentioned race or skin color until I brought it up. They all mentioned language, hair color, height, religion, and every other difference imaginable, but not race. I will also remember that one kid was disruptive and racist. While everyone was being lovely and saying nice things about being friends no matter what a person's culture is, this one boy Jenson tried to share a joke about "chocolate people." I told him please not to share it because it goes against what we are talking about and ask him to explain why he thought that was. He refused to answer but everyone else chimed in saying everything we had said before about friendship. Also, they all had trouble with the last question ("Have you seen any situations at school or in your neighborhood that was like the story?"), so Brendan and I said that anyone who is friends with someone even though or because they are different than them is acting like the Sneetches did at the end.
2. How did your view about what "The Sneetches" was about (i.e. the messages) change after hearing from the children?
I hadn't thought about how the book related to multiculturalism in London or at the school, and the kids made great connections about it that I hadn't thought of.
None of the kids mentioned race or skin color until I brought it up. They all mentioned language, hair color, height, religion, and every other difference imaginable, but not race. I will also remember that one kid was disruptive and racist. While everyone was being lovely and saying nice things about being friends no matter what a person's culture is, this one boy Jenson tried to share a joke about "chocolate people." I told him please not to share it because it goes against what we are talking about and ask him to explain why he thought that was. He refused to answer but everyone else chimed in saying everything we had said before about friendship. Also, they all had trouble with the last question ("Have you seen any situations at school or in your neighborhood that was like the story?"), so Brendan and I said that anyone who is friends with someone even though or because they are different than them is acting like the Sneetches did at the end.
2. How did your view about what "The Sneetches" was about (i.e. the messages) change after hearing from the children?
I hadn't thought about how the book related to multiculturalism in London or at the school, and the kids made great connections about it that I hadn't thought of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)