Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Zhongyue Cheng

Pages: [1]
1
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« on: July 25, 2019, 10:59:44 am »
Quote from: libo on July 12, 2019, 11:28:32 pm
First of all, I don’t think abortion is illegals or moral. The unborn baby is part of your body, I I think once your part of body got sick&, you deserve the right to deal with that part. Either leaving it alone, or cut it off. However, that part of yours could potentially being a human being. That makes us think the part of body is unique and be more cautious. My point is, if there’s andy thing we have to do with your own body, it’s their own decison

I am replying to libo’s comments on abortion. First of all, I want to claim that I totally agree with abortion. I consider it to be moral and should be protected by the law. In my opinion, why abortion should be legal is because that pregnant is not always controllable. In the case of raping, if the victim had the baby of the raper, then it is cruel to say that she is immoral to do the abortion.
But I want to argue that under a situation where people get pregnant under their agreement, but want to abandon their child while pregnant, they should able to do that, but should take the moral blame, because they made the wrong decision in the first place. Everyone should carefully think about their responsibility as a parent before pregnant. If people don’t want to be a parent, then they should not be pregnant.

2
General Discussion / Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
« on: July 18, 2019, 12:51:47 am »
Quote from: Xuehuan Zhu on July 12, 2019, 10:29:11 pm
in，Davis.A.j.Richards, SEX, DRUGS, AND PRIVACY; it mentioned that " To say, therefore, that people have a human right to use drugs is not to conclude that everyone should exercise this right." I think this is totally right and easily understand. it means that every citizen do have right to use drugs, but it does not mean, or strongly not suggest, that everyone should use this right to take drugs to experience this. many people when they begin to take drugs. it is hard for them to get rid of it. They will be addicted to drugs and destroying their lives.
in Qing dynasty, ancient China, government did bot forbidden opium. Almost Everyone take it, because they did not have correct recognition. Everyone, even officials take it, thus there is the bad example. Besides, there is no law restriction. Many people even do not want to take the drug. They are lured into taking it. Once they taken, they cannot resist the temptation, so they still taking it, then they get sick. Some people wanted to take drugs to comfort the disappointment in real life, so they takes it, this worsen the situation. Of course, this bad situation might because many England  wants to invade China, so they did that. Also, the main reason is that there is no law to forbid that. Thus, the situation is that people in Qing becomes sicker and sicker, many people even died, and the country becomes weaker. Thus, after that, Qing made a activity to destroy the opium. The story is remembered by others.

I agree with Davis' argument of the rights to use drugs too, but I still want to argue the feasibility of this moral standard. This discussion can dig back to the definition of rights. The question I have is that if a human right have negative effects toward human society, should that right still consider to be a right? Also, if the government agree with the idea of the right of drugs, should  the government make drugs legal? If not, what is the meaning of agreeing humans' right of using drugs?
In my opinion, the reality meaning of discussing human rights to protect human species and to protect people from hurting each other. We human cannot always realize the result of our action, therefore, we hurt others' feeling and even existence without realizing it. The meaning of human right is to prevent these unnecessary damages. Therefore, drug should be illegal and the discussion of the rights of using drug is not that important in determine its legality. The main problem of drugs is illusion. After taking drugs, people lose their ability to control themselves. Many criminals commit crime without intention since they are high. Some people might sat that most drug users are not criminals, but I believe that it is too late to prohibit drug after it becomes the source of criminal.

3
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« on: July 18, 2019, 12:26:38 am »
Quote from: Baitianyu on July 17, 2019, 10:52:58 am
Do animals have rights

The author in “immoral and moral uses of animals” argue about the moral questions about how human treat to animals. He asks questions such as can we do immoral things to animals or do animals have rights? He first tries to consider the problem from rationality and ability to communicate. One opinion is “rationality and the ability to communicate meaningfully with others are the most commonly mentioned differentiating characteristics.” Since human can think, talk and act rationally which animals can’t, animals should not be considered as human and have rights. Based on this argument, we can treat animals like nonliving objects. However, the argument also has some disadvantages. “The trouble is that not all human beings are rational.” People who have mental problems, brain-damage human and even three-year-old child all are irrational, and should we treat them not as human beings?

The second argument is based on Aristotle which is “Man’s tyranny over animals is natural because his superiority as an animal determines for him the dominant position in the natural scale of things.” Just like what write in the Bible, God approves us to take control all living animals. If we give up the dominance over animals, we will deny our nature. The problem with this argument is that we avoid slavery and child labor, not because they are unnatural, but because slaves and children have their own will. So, do animals have their own will and our act to them is immoral?

Baitianyu    Johnny Bai

I am replying to the argument Johnny made on animal rights. According to Johnny's reply, "Since human can think, talk and act rationally which animals can’t, animals should not be considered as human and have rights." However, I want to argue whether human is the only individual that have rights in the world. The definition of right, according to the dictionary, is the qualities that together constitute the idea of moral approval. What Johnny imply in the reply is that human is the only being which can have rights. On one hand, I will agree that only human have the ability of thinking and reasoning, therefore, only human can realize the idea of rights. I also agree that human created the idea of rights, and only human is able to define the word "right". However, depending on these consideration, once human want to give animal rights, animal can also be considered to have rights.
Many people have pets and established a special relationship with animals. Due to sympathy (which only human can have), this kind of relationship is not only with their pets, but with many other animals. Protecting animals is protecting human emotion. This is one of the basic reasons why animal should have rights.

4
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« on: July 05, 2019, 10:02:44 pm »
According to Dan W. Brock’s definition on page 191 and 192, “In assisted suicide the patient acts last (for example, Janet Adkins pushed the button after Dr. Jack Kevorkian hooked her up to his suicide machine), whereas in euthanasia the physician acts last by performing the physical equivalent of pushing the button.” In his article, he compared the two and argued that in the case of assisted suicide, the doctor is moral while in the case euthanasia the doctor is not. Even though I agree with his conclusion, I still want to argue that these two cases can not be compared by the definition of suicide. In my opinion, suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death. There are two important points in this definition, one is that “intentionally”, which in this case means that the patient should have their own will to death. In the case of euthanasia, instead of the patient, the doctor made the decision, thus the death cannot be “intentionally". Another point is “causing one’s own death”. Similarly, the consequence of euthanasia is the death of the patient, but the “act” is taken by the doctor.
As a conclusion, I won’t consider euthanasia as a kind of suicide, and I don’t think it is a comparable case with assisted suicide, since they are not in the same category.

Zhongyue Cheng

Pages: [1]