BlOG #6

In regards to the death penalty, I do agree with retribution – stating that if one commits murder than one deserves the same. However, I feel as though it is a drawn out process when going through the legal system. I believe that keeping a person in jail for years until the day of their execution is immoral. In a sense it is torture just as Mill would say that life in prison is, and I’d have to agree. Unfortunately, due to the times we live in harsh punishments must dwindle over our heads in order to keep the country in line. I would say that is mainly why the death penalty hasn’t been abolished completely in the United States; it serves as deterrence to those who live in states where the death penalty still exists. In regards to my own principles, I obviously believe that taking the life of another human being is immoral and overrides our natural rights of Life, liberty, and happiness. Although it sounds harsh, I firmly stand by my earlier statement – if one commits murder and is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt then they too deserve the same fate.

            On opposite ends of the spectrum though, it also creates pain for the family of the criminal, and so as the end result – no one really attains peace. I use this as an example because I believe that the ability to view situations (even those that don’t agree with your own personal principles) without judgment would make myself as well as others a more effective ethical being. The ability to take into account others feelings and literally step into their shoes makes for a more peaceful environment with less fighting. I’m not saying that one has to agree with everything others believe in and the actions they make, but for a second to reflect on the situation that they may be in, and the numerous reasons they may be doing something that you may not know about. In opening my mind to others situations I can be a more effective ethical being, and in the long run that’s what counts.


- I commented on Ndeah Terry's blog: http://ndeahterry.blogspot.com/

BLOG #5

         I feel as though abortion is always a topic of great disagreement, and it’s always the same argument every time. Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice there are always certain exceptions. I am pro-choice, but only to a certain extent. I believe that if a woman wants to abort her baby she has every right too, and shouldn’t be judged because no one else knows what her circumstances may be. However, I don’t support the killing of an unborn baby if the child’s skull has to be crushed in order to complete an abortion. There’s always a grey area, even those who are pro life should be able to see the legitimacy of a woman who was raped and therefore wants to abort the child.

         I believe that a person becomes a human once their heart starts beating. This contemporary issue affects my own principles because clearly – I don’t advocate the killing of other human beings. But I’m not going to point the finger at someone for getting an abortion. Since abortion is such a touchy subject, I feel that in regards to my principles there are always exceptions, or like I said earlier, grey areas that need to be explored. In a sense, I feel that the only adjustments that need to be made when it comes to your own as well as other principles is to be less judgmental, and more open minded. In regards to human cloning, Tooly states that we restrict our children. Perhaps that is why some women who aren’t well off chose to get abortions. Rather than bringing a child into the world that will automatically be restricted in life, they abort it. However, I don’t believe that we have children for ego driven motives. I would say that having a baby is a selfless act, and if someone is not in the position to be selfless than they shouldn’t be having a child.


- I commented on Danielle Grosso's blog: http://daniellegrosso.blogspot.com/

BLOG #4

         In regards to human cloning I cannot distinctly say that it greatly affected my personal principles because it was something that I hadn’t ever taken the time to think about. I understand Tooly’s argument for human cloning, and in essence it does make sense. While Kass’ objection against it could be that human cloning demolishes what it means to be a unique individual in society, and that holds true in most cases – but then one has to look at twins as well. Whether twins raised together or apart they both can compare greatly and contrast vastly. I can support cloning from the respect of using it to eradicate diseases and other genetic dispositions, and to medically create new organs for those who need them. Unfortunately, cloning entire humans seems almost to be an act in which defies God.

         I by no means believe that neither myself nor any other human being can be put on the same pedestal as God or any other higher power. I support cloning in the respect that it can better people’s lives and cure diseases such as cancer, or Autism and Down syndrome. But I believe that creating an exact replica of yourself comes from a selfish desire and therefore, goes against my principles and is not morally right. So I’d have to say that I agree with both philosophers, and if cloning ever became prevalent in society today it should be done on only a small scale, and for and in extreme cases only. Simply creating clones for ego driven desires would be threatening to the world. Imagine four Adolf Hitler’s or Justin Beiber’s running around this world. It would be anarchy. 


- I commented on Marshay Rice's blog http://marshay-monet.blogspot.com/

BLOG #3

             When it comes down to social and moral principles I feel as though there’s always a disconnect. Whether it’s Sartre, Locke, or Marx the scale that’s weighing the advantages with the disadvantages comes close every time. So it’s quite difficult to distinguish which side to stand for, or against. Locke’s three principles of life, liberty, and property are all very compelling. And the idea of working hard in order to accomplish something that is tangible is also appealing, but goes directly against Marx’s view that no person should have an advantage over another. So here is the problem I’ve encountered, which is right and which is wrong? Although Marxism appears wonderful on paper, when played out in real life situations more things often conflict with each other rather than better the situation. On the other hand, Locke’s principle allows for the wealthy to rise and the middle/lower classes to stay firmly planted in place. Thus, allowing the wealthy to have more control over our country that consists mostly of those whom are less fortunate than themselves. Perhaps there needs to be a limit on how much property one can have and the income they can make. This may allow for a bit of Marxism as well as Locke’s views to coincide.
            In my previous blog I noted that our principles have a direct affect on our happiness, whether we do the morally right or wrong thing comes from a decision based on our principles and what we stand for. Sartre’s view that we are fully responsible over our own lives seems too good to be true. Don’t get me wrong; if we did life would be much different, and perhaps even better. But – do we really have THAT much control? I do however find a parallel between my own personal principles and Sartre’s principle that we must act in good faith. By guiding your actions in such a way that you would expect others to follow, (if they are good actions, of course) there would be less evil in the world. Most people fail to look at the bigger picture, and only take into consideration what will benefit themselves. I believe I can try to live according to this principle, and although at times it may present difficulties in the grand scheme of things it will be for the greater good. In applying the principle of utility more people will be pleased rather than displeased, and since there’s no way to please everyone it seems like the most fair 
concept.








- I commented on Melissa Swain's blog http://melissaswain22.blogspot.com/

BLOG #2

         I’d have to say that my personal principles came from my parent’s principles. You know, all those basic ones you’re taught as a kid. Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat. Don’t fight. If you have nothing nice to say don’t say anything at all, ect. I think everyone already has these principles embedded within themselves and tries their hardest not to disavow them. But that’s just scratching the surface. Deeper principles, regarding God and religion, sex, life decisions, acceptance, and forgiveness, are where it gets a little fuzzy. I can safely, and thankfully say that my parents had no involvement regarding most of those principles. Those are ones that develop as you grow up, with time and experience and mistakes and misfortunes. Those are the principles that one has to experience themselves in order to gain. They can’t just be told to you as a little kid and accepted without further questioning.

I can agree partly with Aristotle’s viewpoint, that a good life equals a happy life. And I think our principles have a lot to do with that, whether you choose to do the morally right or wrong thing will affect your happiness in the long run. However, I disagree with his whole idea of “pure contemplation” equaling pure happiness. In my own personal experiences, when I over think things and start obsessing, well that’s when things go directly downhill. And it’s hard to climb back up that hill once you’ve tumbled all the way down it. The philosophical idea that seemed to make the most sense to me was the Taosoit approach. In contrast, it also seems like the hardest one to accomplish. The whole idea of completely letting go, not caring and not over thinking seems in and of itself a miracle if it could ever be accomplished. Personally, I don’t think I’d be able to do it. No judgment, now that’s a good principle. I think too many people are too quick to judge something or someone, and therefore miss out. No judgment equals no suffering, I highly agree with that. It is an appealing approach though, and it does make perfect sense. Although most people don’t aspire to be average, once you’re at the top of the hill, the only way left to go is tumbling back down. 


-- I commented on Kyle Bay's blog: http://honor-is-better-than-honors.blogspot.com/.