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 - unmusedsr

Pages: [1]
1
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« on: July 19, 2019, 10:08:26 am »
Quote from: bobbyfangxingjie on July 12, 2019, 10:18:17 pm
  On page 282-291, the author Jeffery Reiman talks about the folly of capital punishment. He believes that since capital punishment costs more than life in prison in America, by rationality, people should all choose life long imprisonment instead of death penalty. “Thus, his arguments goes, we must follow common sense, which teaches that the higher the cost of something, the fewer people would choose it.” (Abelson 282). However, although life imprisonment costs less than capital punishment, sometimes capital punishment are still needed for certain people.
    Recently, there was a famous news about a series killer in China, that aroused a lot of public concerns. A few years ago, he was put in prison because he **** a girl, who was abou ten years old. For that, he was put in prison for ten years. However, since he performed well inside the prison, he was released after five years. Then, a few weeks later, he **** and killed another young girl. After that, he confessed his crime to the police. If he did not do that, he would be put a life long imprisonment. However, since he confessed honestly, he received a reduce in his penalty. After several years, he came out from prison again and people think he would not do that kind of thing again. Then, surprisingly, he **** another girl and kill her.
         From this situation, we could find out that sometimes death penalty is needed for some people like this. They do not care about imprisonment, and they just want to do what they want, and death penalty is for this kind people.




I totally agree with your point on capital punishment. I have also followed this news for a long time and each time it makes me feel sad and upset. A lot of people are still debating about whether a country should have death penalty or not, in my own point of view, I think every country should have death penalty since life-long imprisonment does not have the same effect to the criminal as the capital punishment. As Jeffery Reiman stated in the reading, he thinks death penalty costs more than life-long imprisonment in the United States, thus people should all choose the life-long imprisonment instead. However, according to different national conditions, his claims may not be suitable in every case. Moreover, the Chinese government did apply similar approach as Reiman and even gave this criminal chance to behave himself several times, but the result was not expected. Thus, capital punishment is needed for people like this, especially the ones with psychological disorders. In this case, I think death penalty is the best solution. The inhumane behaviour disobeys any moral ethics in the world, if Mill is viewing in this case, based on the utilitarianism, his behaviour may satisfy his own need but disobeys the universal principle of moral standard.


shuran lin

2
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« on: July 17, 2019, 10:38:32 am »
-   Does animal have rights?
In my own point of view, I think animals have rights and should be treated equally as human. In the textbook, the author argues that animals should have equal rights as human and being vegetarian is not supererogatory, but obligatory (Raziel,452). I personally think it is necessary for human to have this idea in their minds since humans are animals too. Moreover, in the textbook, the author stated that farm animals are not treated with respects and farmers and consumers only view them as the money source and food. The main point is to deliver this idea to the society and let people be aware of this issue, although it is impossible to wake up next morning and every meat industry gets shut down and everyone becomes an vegetarian, the relationship between humans and animals should be re-examined. Furthermore, animal-testing is always a controversial topic in today’s society, though scientist have sufficient evidences to support their action, I think it is immoral to test anything on animals. Transpositional consideration should be mentioned during any testing, if fails, then it disobeys the morality of nature. In addition, a lot of people may claim that it is the natural law for animals to obey and follow the instructions of human, but what if the farm animals are the ruler of the Earth? What will us, the human, feel if they treat us the same way we treat them? It is important for us to recognize this issue and make changes.
 shuran lin

3
General Discussion / Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
« on: July 12, 2019, 02:20:18 pm »
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.

shuran lin


Libo cheng


First of all, I think you have a very clear point for your argument, it is easy to follow and make connections of. I specifically agree with your point on utilitarianism, which "kill one to save a hundred", valuing personal satisfactions and cost-benefit worked as the main aim of this ethic theory. However, in this case, I think the relationship between the captain and the little girl is debatable. Although the little girl is not related to the captain, the captain should not throw her out of the window. If being flexible in different circumstances is the captain's virtue, then throwing his loved ones will also be equivalent because it is virtuous and he should not hesitate. If he knows the negative feelings will come to him if he decides to throw his loved ones out, then the little girl should be treated the same. Moreover, humans have feelings and too complicated to analyze every kind of it, in the same time it is hard to follow the same standard all the time, thus in my opinion I think the captain have made the tough decision between throw the girl or not, but I think there is no essential difference if the little girl was replaced by someone or something that is associated with him based on utilitarian's perspective. Different emotions will be attached to him if the person is different, but the decision will be the same.

4
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« on: July 12, 2019, 12:50:49 pm »
The topic of Categorical imperative (or Duty ethics), which was introduced by Immanuel Kant, specifically argues that each human being should follow the universal duty in order to obtain morality in life. His theory is somewhat extreme, yet his idea is well spread due to his unique views on absolutism. In the text of Ethics of Morden Life, by Raziel Abelson, the author mentioned that Kant may have a clear distinction between genuinely moral rules and some mere custom or prudence (Raziel, 32) at the very beginning. Moreover, he decided to follow this ideology in a life-long path. Based on Kant, one should always be rational and be fully aware of his behaviour, and also be able to take consequences based on the actions he took. Although a lot of other philosophers pointed out that his theory is too strict or hard to follow, I personally think it is a basic human ethics that everyone needs to obey. In my opinion, I think human was born without saint, the crime or vice we have are built through our growth, it is impossible to eliminate any crime in today’s world, but based on Kant’s duty ethics theory, if everyone can have this faith and regulations in their heart, the crime rate may be decreased a lot. Moreover, based on the education and environment I grew up, I was told not to lie at all circumstances no matter what. For example, if my best friend stole something from the shop and the owner found out and ask me for evidence. I will tell him/her the truth even my friend may break with me. I believe everyone should be honest no matter what the situation is or how hard it is, and eventually faith will overcome the vice. Although it is not simple to apply this theory to every circumstance, I think Kant’s duty ethics theory is one of the most successful and moral theory in the world.


shuran lin

Pages: [1]