Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« Last post by Zhongyue Cheng 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: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by Xuehuan Zhu 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.
3
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by Baitianyu on July 25, 2019, 12:50:39 am »
Abortion
   Abortion is a moral problems people are hard to determine is it morally right or wrong. The chapter about abortion introduce two writer and explain their own argument about abortion.

   Devine suggests that abortion is wrong because the act of abortion will kill a incent person. The article states that “The infant is member of the human species. The infant will, in due course, think, talk, love and have sense of justice.” If we don’t take abortion, after nine months of pregnancy, a woman will reproduce a human being. The act of abortion will kill infant thus kill a human being.

   However, Warren who support we should have the right to abortion states that infant cannot be consider as a human being. She suggests that a human being should have at least one of five factors which are “Consciousness, and in particular the capacity to feel pain; reasoning; self-motivated activity; the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics; the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both.” Since infant don’t have any of those factors, infant should not be considered as human. Thus, people should have right to abortion without any concerns.

   I am more favor Warren’s idea that infant is cannot be consider as human because infant don’t have any “signals” of human being. Some people may argues that based on Warren’s definition of human, people who in coma, lose their consciousness also don’t fulfill any of five requisite and still be consider as human. Personally, I think people who lose their consciousness still be consider as human because they already proved they have ability to think, act, communicate before. Based on their history of life, we should still consider they are human, though they loss five prerequisite to be consider as human briefly. However, infant never proved they have any of five prerequisites, thus they cannot be consider as human.

Baitianyu Johnny.Bai
4
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by Baitianyu on July 25, 2019, 12:11:38 am »
Quote from: Zhou Chang on July 20, 2019, 11:30:58 pm
page 472, animals do not have rights.
I think animals do have rights. By Huff’s argument, because animals do not have rationality and the ability to communicate, so they are different from human and  thus the use of laboratory animals raises no serious moral questions. It is morally important to respect life. Like our human, animals have life. Our moral standard is not allowed to treat life cruelly. Laboratory animals may be tortured and abused if people think animals have no rights. Even they are not as intelligent as human, they still can feel pain and the earth is their home as well. It is true that animals can’t share the same rights as human. However, any living, breathing creature has some form of basic rights. If so, human can not harm them as cruel as they want to because they have basic rights. However, the killing or harm of animals may be ethically acceptable only when there are no reasonable alternatives. For example, an animal is suffering a incurably ill or infected by flu. In conclusion, animals do have some basic rights.

Zhou Chang disagree about Huff’s argument about animals’ right and he concludes that animals should have right. One opines Chang suggests is that animals have life and we respect life, thus animals have rights. However, does animals really can feel pain and have rations as human? Aren’t the painful actions of animals are caused by their nature body defense system. How can we say animals are reasons and have ability to thinking like human? I think it is because people consider animals have right is because human sympathy. I don’t think the moral system can be used in animals. The ethical system we developed is based on rational human being but not animals. Animals cannot think like human. Also, human and animals cannot communicate with each other. If we state that animals have right and use the human moral system to animals, should we treat animals as human beings? Another reason I think animals don’t have rights human actually have more power to control animals. Even, “any living, breathing creature has some form of basic rights,” human identity is much higher than animals. As the Bible mentions that “Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” We are in higher position than animals and we should rule them rather than give them rights.

Baitianyu Johnny.Bai
5
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by Baitianyu on July 24, 2019, 09:59:59 pm »
Quote from: Chris Wang yipeng 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.
   Chris Wang yipeng make a common about Paternalism and I would like to make some commons about it. Chris strongly agree about the idea which Mill hold on about paternalism and he believe that paternalism is a way to force people, a restriction, and against people’s right. However, I don’t agree with him. The ideal he mentions is similar to Nietzsche’s will to power idea that people have other intension underneath their “moral actions.” He mentions that “Human are too persist in self benefit” and any act that government established seems to help people stand for a moral action is just use for restrict people’s free will. The reason I don’t agree with him is because his ideal basically deny people have moral intentions. Based on Kant’s duty theory, people will find our which actions are moral because they are rational beings and don’t what to break the reason. Thus, when people doing moral actions, people must have moral intension. But Chris states that we make our actions based on our own desire and use philosophy reason for excuse. His idea denies people have moral intension and even deny we have rational think. What are differences between human and animals if our actions is followed by our desire but not reason? If we don’t support Paternalism, isn’t we deny the existence of moral, thus any immoral actions we did is not wrong?

Baitianyu Johnny.Bai
6
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by Chris Wang yipeng 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.
7
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by xzz0427 on July 21, 2019, 11:01:12 am »
I agree with Shuran's idea that animals should have equal rights with human beings. She says that human beings are also a kind of animal so that they should have empathy.
When we judge problems, often based on our own own perspective, not from the full perspective of the problem, the Germans are really higher than the Jewish people? Are black people really inferior? The assumption that they were pre-implanted during the Nazi or invasion of China in history was that "Jews are not humans" and "Chinese not human". Only by letting them die can we make the society progress civilization and the human civilization to be sublimated. The soldiers who fought in the war thought they were exercising justice and were proud of what they had done (improving the overall quality of humanity), and they were transformed into "messengers of justice".
Today we seem to have made similar mistakes in dealing with animals, with humans pre-empting "the value of animals only in the consumption we eat", but in reality "animals, especially vertebrates, have emotional and cognitive abilities, and each animal has the psychological activity of distinguishing other animals".
Siyi Qiu
8
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by Zhou Chang on July 20, 2019, 11:30:58 pm »
page 472, animals do not have rights.
I think animals do have rights. By Huff’s argument, because animals do not have rationality and the ability to communicate, so they are different from human and  thus the use of laboratory animals raises no serious moral questions. It is morally important to respect life. Like our human, animals have life. Our moral standard is not allowed to treat life cruelly. Laboratory animals may be tortured and abused if people think animals have no rights. Even they are not as intelligent as human, they still can feel pain and the earth is their home as well. It is true that animals can’t share the same rights as human. However, any living, breathing creature has some form of basic rights. If so, human can not harm them as cruel as they want to because they have basic rights. However, the killing or harm of animals may be ethically acceptable only when there are no reasonable alternatives. For example, an animal is suffering a incurably ill or infected by flu. In conclusion, animals do have some basic rights.
9
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by bobbyfangxingjie on July 20, 2019, 08:20:23 pm »
I want to reply to post # 29 suggested by BaI tianyu, which talks about if animals have rights. In the reply, he talks about two different famous philosophers’ idea about why animals do not have rights, and he also suggests his own questions about the idea they suggested. In the first argument, i agree with Bai tianyu. I believe that if we need to differentiate animals and humans by rationality or the ability to communicate, then it does not make sense for new born human babies or brain-damaged patients. They do not have the ability to think, but we still consider them as the same kind with us. The second argument suggested by Aristotle also has some problems. However, it seems make more sense to me, since i can still find an explanation of the argument.  According to Aristotle, he says that “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.” Bai Tianyu says that this can not explain the existence of slavery, but I believe that the relationship between animals and humans are different from the relationship between humans and humans. As a specie, human are beyond any other animals, whereas there are still hierarchy within humans, just like within some other animals. For example, there might be some leader lion in a group of lions. Therefore, I believe more on Aristotle’s perspective.
10
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by Xuehuan Zhu 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.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7