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 - Chris Wang yipeng

Pages: [1]
1
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« on: July 23, 2019, 08:37:03 pm »
I would say Terrorism can be ethics in some specific situation, but most time people are unable to recognize wether what they know is right. Deontological ethics can condemn terrorism fairly easily, individuals have worth by virtue of their status as human beings. Consequentialist (Utilitarian) ethics Since consequences are they, terrorism is always justified if it increase happiness. How do you measure the happiness, whose benefits are more important in such circumstances. How do you now the truth is true. We have talk about the Indian scenario in class. I would say most people will be incite easily to become terrorism. They could become faithful as they fight for their own country, although you never know if you are really doing the right thing. What you are doing now is just taking down the current regime, nobody know what is going to be like after the war, if it will really make most people live better. When does terrorism become a war, and when does terrorism become legitimate. If Nazi’s had won the WWII and take control of the whole world now, I would say most of the people would never said the past was done immoral. It was a small sacrifice for the human better life. Only the Winner write the history. It like China’s two regime after the WWII, the community stand to the end which make our great China. But it was Chinese fight with Chinese. The civil war was also a example, even now the confederate flag is still outside the White House. What I mean is terrorism and war ’s starting point should be the same, only the one for the better result of all human beings would be endure longer.

2
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« 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.

3
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« on: July 17, 2019, 12:19:03 am »
“Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that shall not do with his life for his own benefit what be choose to do with it” - said Mill. I agree with Mill.  Isn’t paternalism just a way to force people. Given it a acceptable philosophy name? How do you determine wether it is beneficial to that individual ? Human are too persist in self benefit. Most people, to be precise. As it says on Google, examples of paternalism in everyday life are laws which require seat belts, wearing helmets while riding a motorcycle, and banning certain drugs. but what I think it is a way to restrict others, it should be belong to some other idea, but not as a individual idea of philosophy. letting other doing things is against individual's negative right. A negative paternalistic explanation of slavery is one that claims that slave holders held slaves because they believed it was in the slaves best interest or an explanation that claims that slaves viewed their masters in a manner similar to the way children see their guardians. which is against human right. How do you define if a person has the ability or not that they need others to take care of them, and to determine for them. Everyone is born free and equal. Society has made them different, and society has conduct paternalism for the moral and utilitarian purpose. I believe human don't even has the real right, right only exist when people are together, there should not be any positive right, only negative rights make sense under a society. Therefore I agree with Mill that Paternalism shall not hold.

4
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« on: July 17, 2019, 12:09:45 am »
About Abortion- Chris Wang (Yipeng)
Should abortion be legal. “open-textured and flexible… but intolerable that a creature is not a person simply because it is in the interest of others [to regard it so]” (Devine 243-244) in page 234 Devine talked about why abortion should not be allowed, as it is killing a fetus, same as killing a person. I would not agree with that. abortion should be banned after a certain time the woman got pregnant. the way of not given woman a choice to keep or not keep the baby is not fair in certain situation. What if the woman was being **** and get pregnant. What if the girl was too young to have a baby. What if there is a very high risk to for the mother to birth the fetus. Even now some of the countries has the rule of illegal to do abortion after 20 weeks. i would think when it risk the mother's life to birth the fetus. The family should still have the choice to do abortion. Also about Warren's idea: Abortion is “no different from cutting one’s hair”, because a fetus is not a person. I would not agree with him either. This idea is too heartless and cold blood. If you choose to have a baby. just killing it with no reason would be unaccepted for most people, which is inhumanity. Devine's idea was too extreme as well. as my personal opinion, there was no right, right are created by people's benefits. therefore we should not have something affirmed. I mean what we have now the law of abortion might be the best way for society's benefit, even you are in a states in USA that is not allowed abortion can still go to another state to do it. Things are always flexible only if you reach the bottom line.

Pages: [1]