Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7
51
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« Last post by yeqiyang on July 05, 2019, 10:59:38 pm »
As the response to Van Den Haag’s argument, I contend that death penalty may not deter murder. There is more fearfulness of death penalty than any other sentence. However, for most of the cases, murdering comes out of unreasonable behavior rather than intention. For those cases, no matter what sentence actually lets to the same result because the murderers have never expect the result or they will not commit that. Or, in terms of the intentional killing, like terrorist or like the case of Breivik, their murdering comes out of extreme thought which will not be deterred by any kind of sentence. In other words, what they are aiming at it to die and then they will become martyr. For those extremist, the only possible way is to educate and therefore deters more people to become extremist.
At first, it is questionable that whether the government has the right of sentencing and executing death penalty. It is dangerous hand the right to decide one's life to the government. Nowadays, in majority of the countries, there is at least a certain amount of transparency in the process of sentencing even in the countries which are implementing sharia law. However, what if we are living under WWII? Nazi Germany and imperial Japan are both seemingly civilized and modernized countries, but the government does not obey the minimum extent of human rights. Jews, communist or any kinds of people who fail to meet the requirement of Nazi are put to death. At the time of the election of Hitler, a few people may expect the disastrous outcome of Nazis’ policy. It is the same thing we are facing today. If Donald Trump is given the amount of power that owned by Hitler, there will certainly be disastrous outcomes followed by. The power that decides one’s death is one of the most important but dangerous power held by government right now. A good government may uses this power to do some good, but the bad government may uses it to destroy the whole country. In conclusion, the harmfulness if the government holds the power of death penalty exceeds its benefit. 
For the second point, death penalty may not be recovered. No matter in which country or which jurisdiction, there is a certain possibility that a trial system carries out misjudgment. Any kinds of sentence may be recovered except death penalty.
52
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« Last post by libo on July 05, 2019, 10:36:38 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
53
General Discussion / Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
« Last post by 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
54
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« Last post by haoruli on July 05, 2019, 10:26:10 pm »
I would like to talk about the right of abortion. In the textbook, Mary Anne warren points out that the debate over the moral status of abortion is that the term `human’ has two distinct, but not often distinguished, senses. Since it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, and fetuses are innocent human beings, so it is wrong to kill fetuses. However, does fetuses have the same rights as human beings? What characteristics entitle an entity to be considered a person? From the concept of humanity in the moral sense, a human being must have consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the capacity to communicate and the presence of self-concepts. Obliviously any of these conditions above cannot be applied to fetuses. In this way I would say fetuses do not have equal rights as normal human beings. A more interesting thing is that abortion is not an isolated moral issue, it can be related to euthanasia. Imagine a situation of an infanticide case. The fetus is diagnosed with a disease that will kill him after a year or two with great pain. An infant is born with such severe physical anomalies that its life would predictably be a very short. It will be better to let fetus not suffer by euthanasia. It can be immoral to practice involuntary euthanasia on persons, since they have the right to decide for themselves whether they wish to continue to live. However, infants are incapable to make their own choices and end that suffering in the most humane way.

Haoru Li
55
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« Last post by Zhongyue Cheng 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
56
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« Last post by Qi Wang on July 05, 2019, 06:31:55 pm »
Duty, then, consists in the obligation to act from pure reverence for the moral law. To this motive all others must give way, for it is the condition of will which is good in itself, and which has a value with which nothing else is comparable. It was quoted in Mill’s article. It states that duty follows the moral law and it leads people to do good and right things. Following their own duties makes the society better and better, because value of duty is more important than other things. In my opinion, the modern society is duty-based and make it to develop in a well-organized way. Everyone has their own duty to do things. A single person also has several different duties at the same time.
Take myself as an example. As a college student, I have duty to study hard and graduate from college. By finishing this duty, I could make more contribution to the society and make more money maybe. Colleges cultivate people to explore knowledge in depth and develop social skills. The duty of study also helps me to develop myself. Then, in China, it is very common that kids need to take care of their parents when their parents get older. It is very different from America. In China, kids have duty to take care of their parents for the reason that parents bring up kids when they are young. In this way, kids have duty to take care of their parents when parents do not have ability to make money and could not look after themselves. As a son, I have the duty to raise my parents when I could make money.
Everyone has duties to do things in their daily live. Police officers protect citizens from criminals and help them. Teachers cultivate students to good people. Doctors cure patients and help them out.  Duty is very important for the reason that society is duty-based and everyone does their own duties.
57
General Discussion / 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« Last post by xzz0427 on July 05, 2019, 02:05:45 pm »
I’m interested in if euthanasia should be legalized. Euthanasia refers to the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. But the reason why it’s still illegal in several countries I think is because there are some limitations. First, the incentive for executing euthanasia must be reducing the pain of the patient and should be done by medical staff. Then the patient must be suffer unbearable and incurable pain. Also, the thought should be sincerely given by patient or his or her family .Last but not least, the way to get euthanasia should be as simple as possible.
In China, euthanasia is illegal and become a controversial topic. People are afraid of the uncertain and illegal use by evildoers. Moreover, once you assist others to suicide, it’s also consider as murder in Chinese law.
People should have their own rights to decide their life. If there’s a patient is suffering extreme pain and with clear mind, he or she can choose euthanasia to end the life, it’s a represent of respect of his or her own life. Others do not have rights to oppose the patient. The choice follows the utilitarian, which is to bring greatest pleasure to greatest amount of people. The patient can release their pressure, and his or her family do not need to afford lots of charges.
However, there’s also problems. As far as I learn about euthanasia, I can learn that people usually use cyanide to achieve their goal. As a chemistry-related major student, I know that cyanide can kill people in few seconds but I don’t know how much pain the patient will suffer. People think the patient dies peacefully only because their placid face. The doctor would tell the patient’s family that he or her dies without much pain. But no one knows if the word is true. Only patient knows that it’s moral or not. Therefore, it makes people hard to choose. Just like the passage says “This reflects not just a fear of experiencing substantial pain or suffering or of being abandoned by loved ones when dying, but also a desire to retain dignity and control to the extent possible during this last period of life.” Only the choice that is made by patient sincerely can be effective, or it would bring problems.

Siyi Qiu
58
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« Last post by Xiaoyu Zhang on July 05, 2019, 01:02:59 pm »
When we talk about Determinism, we always mention the “free will”, For soft determinism, it agrees with the determinism, but free will may still exist; for hard determinism, it states that there is no such “free will”. When reading Galen Strawson’s “Hard Determinism”, Part II of the reading named “What should we believe?”(p118) talks about the idea of whether “free will” really exists. As it believes that all human activities are the results of previous causes, therefore, human behavior can be predicted according to previous conditions and experiences. As mentioned in the reading, when all the choices we made are resulted from our previous experiences and has causality, the free will will no longer exist. If people understand all the factors involved in an upcoming event, they can accurately predict it; or, conversely, if an event occurs, they can assume that it is inevitable. Oppositely, what soft determinist says, just as Simon Blackburn said in “Soft Determinism”, that “sometimes the causal routes are totally independent of what we think”(p145). It argues that people can have free will while the causality happens.
So here comes a problem, how can we make sure that the “free will” is the real free will? The so-called free will is that a conscious subject can make his/her own choice when facing a variety of open-ended possibilities, completely according to his/her own wishes. Let’s imagine a hypothetical situation, you want to eat something, you can eat apple because you haven’t eaten it for a long time; or you can eat pie which you have never tasted before. After hesitation, you chose to eat pie. These are two possible choices, and choosing either one is according to your own will. But when we’re thinking about the reason why ate pie, you might think: I’m hungry now, I need some food, though apple is delicious, I want to fill up my stomach more; I never tried pie before, I should have a try; I can eat apple anytime I want, but the pie is hard to buy… Where do these thoughts come from? They are influenced by many elements, such as your mood, your personality, what others told you… These makes your decision predictable. Since your decision is predictable, it must happen. Are you still “free” to make it? Your decision is only the one that you have been determined to make, just as someone said “we do what we will, but we don't will what we will”. In that case, when the world is in determinism, all of our decisions had been decided previously, also the process of making a choice is totally out of your control and is processed with those determined factors. Therefore, the existence of free will cannot be proved.
59
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« Last post by bobbyfangxingjie on July 05, 2019, 09:39:48 am »
On page 15 in Ethics for Mordern Life by Abelson Friquegnon, the author writes about rationality ethics suggested by Immanuel Kant, “the most influential thinker of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment”. This method of distinguishing whether one act is moral or immoral suggests that “good will or moral character is the willingness to obey rules that each person legislates for all to obey”. To be more specific, rationality ethics, or duty ethics, states that people’s own will or duty is the key for moral actions. Kant also suggests a concept of categorical imperatives, which gives a standard of which kinds of acts are moral and which kinds are not moral. Categorical Imperative tells us that if there is an act and we do not know if it is moral or immoral, we just set this act as an universal maxim. Suppose this act could be acted as an universe law and there wouldn’t be any self-contradiction exists. For example, to determine if stealing is moral, we set stealing as universal laws, and check if it is possible. If everyone steals things from other people, then nothing belongs to anyone, and therefore stealing does not exist because there are nothing for the thief to steal. Therefore, stealing is not moral. This method gives people a clear perspective of what is moral and what is immoral, which is a profound theory on ethic philosophy.
  However, there are still some problems with this theory. The first problem, is that sometime the categorical imperative test could be overcome by just simply add some restrictions to the requirements. For instance, if we say that we should not steal unless my name is Jack. This can pass the categorical imperative test because not everyone can steal. Nevertheless, that guy named Jack can convince himself that stealing is moral because his name is Jack. This is one defect of duty ethic. Another defect is that sometimes people would not choose the action that are only based on their duty. There is another ethic theory, which is called utilitarian ethics, suggested by J.S Mill, which argues that people will measure the cost and the benefit and then decide what to do. Sometimes these two methods would not come to the same decision, and for some certain questions people would more likely to choose the perspective of utilitarian ethics. For example, if one of your friend is having a incurable disease and you just know the truth from the doctor. As for duty ethics, you should not lie to the patient and tell him/her the truth. However, some people would choose to lie to him to let him enjoy the rest of his/her life. This choice can not be explained by Kant’s duty ethics.
60
General Discussion / Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by ethanmoore on July 02, 2019, 11:28:58 pm »
Respond to one or more of the readings so far assigned, on this forum.  You may respond to the abstract moral theorists (Kant, Mill, Nietzsche, Foote, Strawson, Van Inwagen, etc.) or to one of the moral philosophers attempting to deal with a specific contemporary issue, such as euthanasia, abortion, or capital punishment.

In your comment, you should:
Quote a passage from the reading and criticize it or explain it more fully.
Give an example of a hypothetical situation, or a situation from your own life, or use ANOTHER one of the author's points, to help explain your points.

Your comment should be 200-500 words.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7