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 - Xuehuan Zhu

Pages: [1]
1
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« on: July 25, 2019, 09:46:58 am »
“ A man’s will is good, not because the consequence which flow from it are good, nor because it is capable of attaining the end which it seeks, but it is good in itself, or because it wills the good. By a good will is not meant mere well-wishing; it consists in a resolute employment of all the means within one’s research, and its intrinsic value is in no way increased by success or lessened by failure.” From the passage, we can know that Kant’s idea is that the thing it is good or not is dependent on the thing itself, not on the consequence, or the benefit on others, just because he didn’t do anything  wrong or the thing someone did is absolutely conditionally moral good. It is demonstrated by “ it wills the good.” We should do what we should do no matter what situation. This demonstrated “ By a good will is not meant mere well-wishing; it consists in a resolute employment of all the means within one’s research“. For example, In daily life, if one of the best friend gets sick, and the doctor said that the situation is not good. Then he asked you about the situation. You lied to him for not let him worried and let him get cure more quickly. However, from Kant’s idea it is not right, because you lied even if you wish someone get better, the initial point is good. You should not lie, instead you should telling the truth, because by Kant’s idea, you should do something absolutely moral right, no matter what condition.

2
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« on: July 19, 2019, 10:20:33 pm »
Quote from: Chris Wang yipeng on July 17, 2019, 11:10:40 am
Does animal have rights? - Chris Wang

"A common argument against recognition of the rights of farms animals takes the following forms. Since these animals would not be exist except for the economic interest that farmer has in raising them, his economic interests should determine how they oughted ti be treated" (Regan,458)  I my opinion, I personally don't believe animal have rights. First, how do you determine rights. I believe the right are made from human beings to be as if one had experienced it oneself. It should be a special form of sympathetic. Therefore, when most people say how little chickens were born and crushing in to meat balls they fell sympathy for them, and believe animals should have rights. Animals eat animals, human eat other animals. I do not agree with other's thoughts of animals should be equally treated as human. But as a human, I do feel sympathy for animals as well, people should eat meat and need meat. Not everyone would become a vegetarian. We should not make it be extreme. Have some kind of animals undter suitable treatment is some kind of progress we have done, and some are set a laws. There are animals protection charities. Dogs and cats are treated as they should. One of the other debating at now days is about animals testing. medical and psychological. I understand it is unfair for the animal to try everything for us, for we humans. But at the day when you or one of your love get sick and need that medical achievement. All these aninmals suffered and dead become meaningful, although they won't be remembered. Animal rights are important and need to be considered, human development is more important.


I totally agree with Chris's idea. I also don't agree with that animals should have rights. First, rights are match with duties. it is hard to find what duties animals have. if they do not have duties, they do not do anything. if they do not do the duty, because they do not know ho to do it, how can they have rights. if they have rights but no duty, it is easy to harm the environment. so they do not have the right. Second is that animals do not have self-conscious. they do not have self-conscious, they can not use the right, especially the positive rights. About negative rights. Usually it is the whole society which can communicate   with each other can have the negative right. However, most animals can not communicate with each other, or make tools, and also not all animals are gregarious animals. It is unfair for other animals not gregarious animals, while gregarious animals have negative rights, but they don not. Third, every animas  have different habitats. Some rights are suitable for some kinds of animals, but not suitable for other kinds of animals, but there are too many kinds of animas in the world. Human even can not know all of them. So it is unfair for animals to have not equal rights. Also, people need to monitor and take care of the consequence of animals did when they have rights. it is a strenuous work.

3
General Discussion / Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
« on: July 17, 2019, 11:03:52 am »
Quote from: libo on July 05, 2019, 10:36:02 pm
Page 169-189, this is a short science-fiction story. There’s couple questions I want to discuss. I know in those kind story we are forced into doing some moral choice like this, so I have get rid of any other possible solution, like the situation in the “train” story.
As in utilitarianism approach, in order to maximizing the benefit, the best choice for them is to throw the little girl out the window,  which would save other five’s life. And they did, also they are following the conventionalism approach, they are on a mission and no matter what it takes, they should follow the command. Here is my question, what if that was not a little girl, instead, it was an animal(dog/cat/bear), and captain has huge connection to it. Does he still choose to throw it out the window. I guess he could not make choices in that circumstance. So the point is, anything , a living creature or a object, once there’s relation or emotion associated with it, people tend to hesitate, that is the virtue doing the work. In the end, they throw the girl out the window, she does not have a connection to the captain. That is why she got throw out in my opinion.


Libo cheng

I agree with lido's idea. in that situation,by utilitarianism ethics, it is right to abandon that girl, because we needs to get the most benefit in lowest cost. So there is no doubt that he abandon the girl to save other people's life. However by Kant's idea, it is wrong, we can not kill one's life to save others, because it is immoral. Everyone is equal, it is unfair that we did that. There is also another question that how we measure the utility, we think that the girl's utility is smaller, because there is only one person, and she is young. what about there is another special situation that she can get high achievement in the future, that it is higher even plus other's achievement, then did we do wrong. it is hard because we do not know the future. so is there a way to consider all situation or did author consider this situation in this question? Also, by other's idea, it is right because there can be exception, and I think this is the special situation, and by convention, we may be not do that, because we may not let a girl died, we will let a not elder male die instead.
 

4
General Discussion / Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
« 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.

Pages: [1]