The Ultimate Price

     When dealing with the third issue of the death penalty, I feel that people seemed to think that most of the people being put to death were innocent and were in the situation by mistake. The point is, these people did horrible things to other humans and deserved to be on Death Row. The idea that killing these criminals is a crime that should be punishable by death of the execute is just silly. Police Officers have the right to handcuff a person and lock them away in small rooms, but we as a society don't see this as wrong; they are simply doing their job.
     I feel that the third issue didn't really have a strong effect on my principles, as I feel that these people deserve to be punished and removed from society because of the things that they have done. There are however certain mitigating circumstances in determining if someone should be put to death, such as if they have done great things in an effort to fix their mistakes or if there is a true spirit of repentance because of their actions. I think that each case must be taken into careful consideration and that there must be certain limitations placed on the practice.
     I think that to properly judge certain issues such as these, a person must be well informed on a situation and should never be taken lightly. I agree with Aristotle in that people must act in moderation and should never lean too far in one direction or another. A person must be well informed and should never act too rashly if there is any doubt about a situation. A person must have compassion and understanding, and must be fair and just. That is what makes someone a better being.

Also, this week I commented on Alex's blog at http://ethicalwellbeing-richardsa.blogspot.com/.

Abortion in Society

     The question about abortion is not whether or not it is right to kill children, that is rather naive to think. The question is whether a woman should have the right to choose or if the government should have the right to choose whether the child will be given a chance at life.
     I have to say that I least agree with Warren's point of view because it seems like it is taking the entire process of abortion and treating it like there should be no regulations on how or when a pregnancy could be aborted. Maybe it was just the reading, but I just could not find myself agreeing with Warren on her points.
     I believe that I should not have a say in how a woman treats her own body. As a christian, I believe that abortion is wrong and that it shouldn't be allowed except in extreme cases where actually having the child would result in death of either the mother or the offspring. I strongly disagree with the premise of using abortion as birth control, and I fell like if it reaches that point, the parties involved should just not be allowed to reproduce, and they should be chemically castrated.

Today I will be commenting on Dallas's blog at http://dallaslrsmith.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-5-how-did-second-contemporary.html#comment-form

Human Cloning: Good or Evil

Blog 4- How did the first contemporary issue effect your principles? Did it challenge them? Were your principles helpful in working out your response to the issue? Which philosopher's position was most consistent with your own principles and why?

     I have to agree with Tooley on most of his points; I feel that the deal-breaker in dealing with human cloning comes from the fact that whatever we would do with our clones would also be done with our biological siblings. If a clone was to be made, he/she would most likely behave and be treated just like every other human, he/she would not be a second class citizen and the advantages of having them around could outweigh the negatives. If a person needed a certain organ, like a kidney, they would have a guaranteed match. I am not advocating using the clone as an "organ farm", but having a person who would be a perfect match could save lives.

     Looking at those who claim that human cloning would bring about a society like in "Brave New World", you seem to forget that there would be some limitations placed on the process. For the situation to grow completely out of control, you would have to ignore the fact that people would stop it if it became a problem; thinking that people would just allow the world to be turned into something like in Aldous Huxley's book is naive.

     The issue of human cloning didn't really effect my principles, because I can only hope that even when this science does become available, the people who will use it will make the right choices of what to do with it. Past that, I really have no say in what is going to happen with human cloning, so I see no reason to worry about it.



This week I commented on Evon's blog at  http://evonsommerville.blogspot.com/.

Political Powers?

Blog 3 - What Social / Moral Principles do you find compelling and why? How do these principles fit with the personal principles you identified in Blog 2? Do they conflict at all? Do you think you can live according to both? How will you go about doing so? i.e. Prioritize them? Adopt specific ones for specific contexts?

     I like the ideas of Libertarianism and Communism, but I don't feel that either could work in practice. Libertarianism (which would be great if people upheld a certain moral code) relies too much on the people involved not over stepping their bounds and by trying to punish them, we as a society would be limiting their own freedom which completely throws the idea of libertarianism out the window. 

     On the other side of the spectrum, I believe that communism sounds great in theory,  but could never be done on any sort of large scale community for a period of time. If we were not connected with new forms of travel and information sharing than it could possibly work in small, self sustained pockets, but past that, I don't believe that it is possible. I like the idea of everyone being equal and being on the same level, even those who currently don't fit into our society could find new hope and those who do not work would be made to.

     If we could figure out some form of compromise between the two, I believe that it would fit rather well into my own moral code. There wouldn't be much difference between my ideals of treating people well regardless of who they are and any form of  Libertarianism and Communism. 

     I think that I could live according to both of my "codes", but I would only uphold the law if I felt that it did not take away certain rights or go overboard in how it controlled everybody's' lives. As long as the demands were not totally unreasonable for the people to follow, than I could support either of the two ideas without too much complaint. My moral code and my spiritual beliefs however would come first. The Bible tells us to obey the law until it comes into conflict with God's Word, so that is what I would do. I would obey the law to a point, but I would not sacrifice my beliefs for it.






Also, this week I commented on Brittany's blog at http://brittbloom22.blogspot.com/.

How a Man Should Live.

Blog 2 - What personal principles did you adhere to before entering this course and where did they come from? Were they taught to you? Did you develop them on your own? How have our readings and discussions impacted those principles? Of the principles covered which are you drawn to the most and why?

            I have more or less lived my life by the “golden rule” that we hear so much about in elementary school— “Treat others the way you want to be treated.” I judge all of my actions based on how I would view the situation if I was a third party. If I would think that my actions were mean, rude, or simply careless, than I most likely will not do them. This changed slightly when I became a Christian in seventh grade, and my actions were soon filtered through a new lens, based on what I thought the Bible would say about a certain situation and how to act. This is not to say that being a Christian is defined by being a good person, if fact it is quite the opposite. You do good deeds because you are a Christian, not to become one. I will be the first to admit that I still make mistakes more often than I am proud of- Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.

 I learned to act like this from the people in my life: my sister, my pastor, and my parents. By following their examples and by judging their actions in the same way that I judge mine, I was able to develop my moral compass.  

As for which of our readings I have been drawn the most to, I would have to say our lesson on Aristotle. His beliefs that you must put the state of the public before your own self has strongly impacted my beliefs. Because of this, I strive to always consider what is best for the majority before worrying about myself. In my opinion, we need a political leader who can do this for us; one who stops giving the people what they want, and instead gives them what they need! Although this might not be a popular decision, in the long run, our nation would be better for it.




I'm commenting this week on  Luke DeMuro's blog at http://lukedemuro.blogspot.com/.

Is anyone out there?!!

So class starts tomorrow, and so far every blog which I looked at is empty and non have been customized, which begs the question: Has ANYONE in this class made a blog before??? Myspace, Tumblr, other social networking site...? Anything?

Welcome to my Blog!

Even though this is pretty new, I'll still try and update this every once in a while. Although mainly used for my Ethics class, I may or may not post some other stuff on here as well. If you want to get to know me a little better, look me up on Facebook, or (even better!) check my Tumblr at http://drowninginthebay.tumblr.com/. Talk to me, I'm a nice guy and would love to meet you. Enjoy.