Obligations to Climate

How much of an effort are people morally obligated to make to prevent or reverse climate change?

People I think are morally obligated to make at least some effort to slow down and possibly prevent climate change. They are especially obligated to put in as much effort as they can when the action comes to little cost to them. What I mean is that, while it would be nice if every person gave up their cars, people aren't going to be inclined to do so. Giving up motor transportation in this society would greatly effect most people's lives, as they have jobs that are more than 20 miles away and they have children that they need to bring to school. They could however do other things, which would minimally affect their lives. They could separate their trash into regular trash, recyclables, and compost. Most people could become vegetarians, which would work towards eliminating approximately 1/5 of the world's greenhouse  gases; the move to become vegetarian would also contribute towards helping solve poverty problems (it takes 12 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat - that's inefficient). If people feel inclined to do more, then they ought to do so.

You Did It First

Should those who, in the past, contributed more to climate change have to contribute more towards fixing it?

I don't think that contribution to climate change should necessarily relate to how much a country ought to do to fix it. I think that there is a correlation, in that a country that contributed greatly towards climate change, likely has the resources and ability to contribute towards helping fix it. I think that a country should contribute as much as it can to fixing it. If a country once contributed largely to climate change, but is now a third world country, or no country at all, they obviously don't have to contribute as much. To me, it seems silly to dally when something so important is on the line; I don't think we ought to bicker about who ought to contribute more because they caused more damage - it's a childish game comparable to "you started it." The situation is important enough that, simply, every person in every country ought to contribute as much as they can in order to fix the problem.

Contributions

Common people, too, contribute to the tragedy of the commons. While it would be nice to blame the large industries that contribute towards the destruction of our environment/climate, we cannot let the blame fall on them. Society is comprised of individuals, all of who have a "choice" to contribute or not to contribute to the problems of climate change. Many of the actions that the common people do support the large industries that we'd like to blame. The oil industry, for instance, is nasty and devastating to the climate, it is, however, the every day person who uses a car, instead of walking, to go one mile up the road. It is the common person who refuses to protest against the oil industries and it is the common person who refuse to support other sources of energy to power cars. It is the common person who eats meat and thus supports the meat industry that contributes to 20% of the worlds greenhouse gas (methane, produced by cows, is a very powerful gas).

Wasting Time on Revenge

In response to Brian - full post here

I agree with you and Avery, naturally. I think that people favor retribution because it makes them feel better, as people who have done a great wrong, apparently deserve the same. We've already pointed out that this is not appropriate, so instead I'll talk about religions.

One of my cousins recently posted something which read something akin to "Don't seek revenge, karma will eventually come back to hurt those who hurt you." I found that to be interesting and pathetic because it is basically saying "don't act in revenge, but hope for it." This still a kind of revenge, which is seemingly contrary to the first message. This cousin identifies as Christian so I tried to identify a genuinely Christian response to that idea. I came up with this "Don't waste your time on revenge. We all deserve to punished for all of eternity; but even those who hurt you can be forgiven and will go to heaven and enjoy paradise and happiness." This message, it seems, is contrary to retribution. Even excluding the historical Jesus, Christians ought to be against retribution.

Nazis =/= Monsters

I think that it is morally unethical to desensitize ourselves to human by referring to them as something negative. For instance, some people may think torture against humans is completely unethical. They could then insist, foremost, that animals used as food are not human, so it is okay to torture them in the process of creating food. Some of the people will also make exceptions to their no torture rules when the torture involves certain groups. An American might say that torturing a member of Al-Qaeda is okay because the members of Al-Qaeda are monsters who attacked America. Similarly, a Jewish person may say that it's okay to torture a Nazi because Nazis are monster who killed many Jewish people. This is inconsistent and a prime example of why we should strive to keep personal and ancestral bias out of ethics.

Necessary Conditions for Torture

The necessary conditions that I think would allow for torture are as follows (I tried to place them in order):

Firstly, the lives of a sufficiently large number people must be at risk.

Secondly, there must be no other conceivable way to prevent the bomb from causing harm. 

Thirdly, the torturer, or the institutions supporting the torturer, must be certain, beyond a shred of a doubt, that the person they are torturing has the information necessary to prevent the bomb from causing harm. 

Fourthly, the torturer must use the smallest sufficient amount of force necessary to procure the information.
Finally, the institution supporting the torturer should sufficiently compensate the person who was tortured; the institution has committed a crime by doing a substantial amount of damage to the person who was tortured. If the person who was tortured planted the bomb, they should still receive sufficient compensation, though that does not mean that they should be exempt from prosecution.


Note, while these are my current necessary conditions, I am willing to change them if some brings a convincing argument before me.

Question 1

Would issuing warrants to torture actually help to regulate torture, or would they make it more widespread?

I, personally, think it would do neither. I think that it would only legitimize the torture that already happens, and make it more open. I don't think that allowing torture warrants would equate to the government torturing more people than they need to torture. I think that would should certainly set up a a list of necessary conditions for torture, and we should indeed be worried when the government strays from that. I think that is the way with most government actions though. People ought to be more aware of what the government is doing. At any rate, if the public watches the government actions, warranting torture may in fact regulate torture. This is risky, in that the government can easily sway people to think that torture is for their own safety. 

Third Party Threat

Is third-party torture or threat (i.e. capturing a terrorist's spouse and threatening to kill or torture the spouse) more or less morally justifiable than direct torture?

I think that, if done correctly, a third-party aspect of torture could prove very useful and morally justifiable in some circumstances. I think that it would be wrong to capture the spouse, given that it is against the spouse's will and then threaten to kill or torture the spouse. The spouse, in this scenario, had nothing to do with the the crime, as such, we are not justified in punishing the spouse. However, I think we could consider talking to the wife to persuade her to help in saving many lives, along with the promise that she will return unharmed and that, as compensation for her time, and for the psychological trauma that the tortured person would experience, they would somehow be rewarded.  

This is No Clone! They are Different!

You could, using cloning, create a genetic clone of a child that you lost in a car accident or something, but chances are that the new child would not be the same. Almost undoubtedly, parents will expect someone that looks like their child and is genetically the same as their dead child to act the same as their dead child. Though nature determines much of what any particular human is like, another significant part is the circumstance and upbringing. There is absolutely no way to raise the child in the exact same way. The world is different, and the parents are different, therefore the child, even if genetically the same, would be different. There is also research which suggests that hormone washes help to determine the gender of a child, so it could be that you genetically clone a male child, and receive a biological male child with a female gender. Addition there are the worries of cloning a child but having a mutation when the genes are multiplying; the clone a perfectly healthy child with no abnormalities could end up having a deleted, duplicated, or inverted chromosome 15 which would give them autism.

It would also be unhealthy for the parents and the child for the parents to pretend that this clone was to serve to replace their dead child. I can certainly see parents doing this; I can see parents forcing the clone to wear the same clothes, like the same food, sleep in the same bed, and so on, of the dead child.

Waste of Our Time

While I do not think that cloning is particularly unethical provided that the process to producing humans does not involve harming sentient beings, I do think that cloning is simply a waste of time. The benefits of cloning an actual human are pathetic in comparison to other technological and more practical advancements. For instance, growing babies in large tubes or vats instead of inside of the womb would have a substantial effect on a natural biological humans. It would allow for increased brain size and thereby increased brain capacity. This is something that we should look into instead of looking into instead of cloning. Additionally, stem cell research would be a much wiser investment of time and resources; since it perpetuates good genes and can artificially filter out the bad ones. These sorts of projects would work much better to improve the human condition. Cloning is pale in comparison to other things that we are capable of. As such, I don't think that we should waste our time with cloning after we figure out how to clone meat (for ethical reasons mentioned in the previous post).

Cloned Meat

Would the technology used to clone children have any worthwhile benefits other than cloning?

I think so, yes. Actually, I think this technology could come along much sooner than the technology for cloning living things. In fact, it's starting to come into existence now. I think that the technology for cloned meat, when we perfect it, will be a substantial benefit to the world. It will many of the problems with meat-eating. Eating meat would become more ethical, since no animals get harmed in the process. The environmental effects would not be as significant since it does not take 12 pounds of grain to produce one pound of cloned meat; additionally, the cows would not produce as much methane. Cloning technology is certainly good for something, luckily for us this technology will probably soon be sufficient to produce meat.

As an interesting note, generally humans find that the closer the animal's physiology is to human physiology, the better the meat tastes. As such, if we could clone human flesh (no different from other animal flesh and it would be ethically obtained) meat-eating could eat it and it would presumably  taste better than many other kinds of meats. Many people would probably find this creepy, but I'm sure some people would develop a taste for it.

Advantages of Cloning?

What advantages would cloning have over regular reproduction and vice versa?

The first, as usually obvious advantage of cloning over regular reproduction is that you can perpetuate good genes. If the parent has no bad genes, no bad genes will carry over to the clone. The obvious disadvantage of this is the opposite problem; if the parent has a bad gene, the bad gene would be passed on to clone. Cloning, reduces genetic variance, which is, all in all, a very bad thing; if a single disease or illness infects one person with a bad gene, it will likely effect many more because this bad gene exists in many people. Cloning also may interfere with natural evolution, given that we are not working to eliminate bad genes, and are decreasing genetic variance. I do not think that this is particularly a problem for humans because I think we have the ability to be the end of natural evolution. I do, however, think that this would be a problem if we decided to clone non-animals. We should certainly allow non-human animals to continue to evolve through evolution.

Michael Levin: Not a Woman; Not of African Decent; Not Homosexual - Surprised?

While I think it's not fair to incorporate bias into philosophical conversations about the treatment of various groups, I think it is important to take the other point into perspective. What I mean to say is that I think ad hominem circumstantial fallacies have no place in serious philosophical conversation; I don't think that you can rightfully accuse people as such: "you are only saying that against blacks because you are white" or something of the sort. I do think that often times people do unintentionally fall into that mindset. I think that it's not fair to say "well if you were black, you'd think differently" but honestly that is likely very true for many people. I think that it is very important to consider the other side when taking a side in debate. I think it would have been very good for Michael Levin to have the opportunity to become a black homosexual woman for a day, and have everyone run away from him. In his specific case, he would be very inclined to think differently if he were part of the minority that he wants to oppress and ostracise from society.

Levin: Genius of the Times

What sort of psychological effects might racial profiling have on those targeted individuals?

This sort of racial profiling that Levin is suggesting could cause, I think, a substantial amount of psychological trauma to any given individual. Though it's true that if your life is depend on  being offensive, it is appropriate to be offensive. However, I think that firstly; Levin fabricated statistics to the extent that the actual statistics make his point moot. Secondly, I think that all people are prone to various emotional problems: If everyone started to avoid a single person based on appearance, that person being target may very well develop image issues and become unhealthy. Alternately, there could be many people who are simply having a horrendous day and, after seeing someone sprint away from them because of their appearance,  may choose to go home and kill themselves. Additionally this sort of behaviour does not inspire any sort of change, and in fact, it would likely incite aggression and violent anger from those being profiled against those who profile against them

Fabrication

What are the ethical implications of utilising fabricated or distorted statistics in philosophical argumentation?

Well, I wish I could ask Michael Levin about this question to see what he thought of the issue. I can't imagine he would very much like it if people fabricated statistics against his arguments. Though there is of course the possibility that he simply glossed over the obviously incorrect statistic that one in four people with dark skin commit felonies. This is blatantly untrue and makes Levin look like a jerk, if anyone bothered to look up the statistics.

I think it is highly unethical to fabricate or distort statistics to support a philosophical point. The point, after you do that, is no longer philosophical because its hardly based on valid reasons. Though it's not always likely, people could very well end up taking any given statistic to be true, and in fact, people probably do that fairly often, so choosing the fabricate or distort a statistic could lead many people to a side of an argument that otherwise they would have never supported. In the worse can scenario someone could be seriously harmed or even killed based off of belief in some erroneous statistic. Even small scale, as Levin's argument is, it could cause slightly or possibly significant psychological trauma to the innocent people who are victims of racial profiling.

That's Awkward

In response to Avery - full post here

I think we are sort of at an awkward point in our history wherein the negative parts of this contemporary society seems to weigh heavier than the negatives of society past. This is, of course, because the negatives of this society do, in fact, weigh heavier than the problems of the past. For instance, the problem of not being able to travel further than 50 miles from home without dying seems like only a minor inconvenience to most people compared to the detrimental effects of destroying the atmosphere because of our fossil fuels. I guess the problem is that it affects a larger number of people, of course, as we've talked about before, the problems of the past are no worse to each individual, it's simply less bad for the entire species.

I agree with you regarding the fact that regressing is not better than progressing. I think that, our problems now could be addressed and that a change in mindset will allow us to prevent or respond more quickly to problems that come up in the future. Regarding transportation in the past, transportation was far less advanced; people were not able to travel very far. In our society people can travel around the world with relative ease, this comes at the expense of possibly destroying the atmosphere. I think that we can progress, however, to finding alternate means to power vehicles in a manner that does not destroy that atmosphere. I think many of our problems have solutions that we need to embrace.

I think this is comparable to driving next to an 18 wheeler. Driving next to one seems really bad and you want to get away from it. Currently we are next to it, and we know that being behind it isn't very safe either. The only thing to do, then, is to drive forward as fast as we can (still at risk) until we are ahead of the truck.

Affirmative Action

Question: Is affirmative action wrong?

My answer is as follows: No, and yet, yes.

It is not wrong in that if someone is required to make an arbitrary choice based between two candidates, choosing based on race is not more wrong (on it's face) than choosing someone based on their height, hair colour, number of pimples and so on. The colour of someone's skin is a trait not different from other attributes of people. It is useful in identifying people. For example, we could readily identify people by their hair colour, and it would not be wrong (unless we systematically oppressed them).

It is wrong in the sense that it supports an arbitrary distinction between the "races" and sexes which supports racism and sexism. So, choosing to select one person to work for you based on race or sex is, again, only supporting the institutions of discrimination. Not only does it support those institutions, but if it were to achieve success, it would only cause racism and sexism in the opposite direction. Races don't actually exist. As I mentioned above, skin colour is no different from other characteristics. Skin is a certain colour based on the place where ancestors lived, and the mixing of character traits. People who live farther north have lighter skin and hair. These traits, however, are not characteristics that make up different "races." If that were the case, we would have the "races" of green-eyed people, blue-eyed people, fat people, thin people, freckled people, long-haired people, short-haired people, asthmatic people, attached-earlobe people, free-earlobe people, and so on. Phenotypic characteristics do not constitute different "races/species" of people. Choosing to pretend like there are different races only reinforces the idea that there is. All in all, I would say that it would be best to choose from candidates based on a variety of changing reasons.

Begging for a Place

Question (not actually on my Q & A because I have no copy of it, the only digital copy is on the computer at work as such, I will substitute a more generic question): Does society actually want equality?

In our contemporary society, we do not actually support equality. Equal rights, in fact, hardly exist and most equality that we think that we have is only feigned to be so. Our society still supports racism and sexism. Our idea of giving someone equal rights is to force them into assimilation. You can be equal with us as long as you agree to conform to our societal rules. Unfortunately, the minorities often agree to this, and then battle and unify in order to keep their culture.  Equal rights should equate to being able to be different, act different and so on, with that having no apparent effect on how well you can live. You should not be forced into assimilating to the rules of the society that is currently in control.

Equal rights for gays, for instance, in the minds of many equates to allowing them to join the institution of marriage previously preserved for heterosexual/heteroromantic couples. I, personally, think that this is the wrong sort of move, though I have no better suggestions.

Most fights for equal rights equate to the minority begging for a place in the majority society. The majority society eventually grudgingly accepts the minority into the society but moves on to subtly make the distinction apparent. So that they will never actually be treated equal.

Effects of Unifying Minorities

In response to Brian (again) - full post here

Actually, it just occurred to me that this is not necessarily a problem with minorities; it might be that this was intentionally set up to continue racism and sexism. This sort of separation makes people happy because it is marking the distinction between groups it is not changing anything in reality. So essentially, because this is recognizing the distinction between groups, people are satisfied.

As I mentioned before, it occurred to me that there is also a Christian fellowship on campus. If we tried to start a Muslim Fellowship called al-qelbu (the dog) there would be crazy dissension. Basically, all these clubs and organizations stand to continue and strengthen societal issue under the shroud of progress.

How to Not Fix Racism

In response to Brian - full post here

Actually, I was considering mentioning this in the post. I was thinking that on this campus there are several minority groups, the Black Student Union, Latin American Society, and the Asian Club are examples. As you pointed out, this sort of mindset is only promoting segregation, it is only allowing people to pretend that race is something that actually exists.

It's easy to pretend that everyone has equal rights when the minorities have the ability to congregate together. It's like saying "look minorities are equal because they have a minority organisation. Okay, no racism here." It seems like this sort of segregation is excellent at sustaining the racism. Minorities get to group together and complain about majorities, even though nothing is actually done about those problems, because they are gathering together, excluding majorities, in order to complain about majorities.

The Men's Center

Now, as most of us know, there is a Women's Center on campus. Avery and I were conversing earlier this week about the possibility of starting a Men's Center. We realized, of course, that this would be considered terribly sexist.

 The goals of the Women's center are allegedly to empower women and to promote equality between sexes. I thought that maybe we could start a Men's Center and give it the goals/mission statement of promoting equality between sexes and/or genders. Sadly, however, we both realized that this would still be considered sexist because it's called "The Men's Center." If that is indeed sexist, then shouldn't the women's center be considered sexist, as it excludes men? Sadly, we seem to think that all majorities are out to target minorities. This, of course, is not actually true.

I think that we should do one of two things. If there is a minority group with the goal of creating equality, then their should be a majority group dedicated to the same cause. Alternately, and more preferably, is simply starting an equality group where all minorities and majorities can join together to empower everybody equally and support equality for all people.

Do you think it would be possible to start a Men's Center/Club on campus?

Why Don't You Just Leave

In response to Will Jones because I cannot respond to post in CMI because there is very little effort going into blogging and I have little more to say about affirmative action and so on. - let this post count as a CMI blog - full post here

I often get the same response from people: Well, if you don't like it, then leave! My response is usually something along the lines of your advice to Jensen: I will, as soon as I may. Honestly, you would be hard-pressed to argue with a harsh conservative on the ethics of certain policies. America is unlikely to change; though it is a noble goal to try to change America from within. It is for that reason that I think that progress could be better founded in other countries. You can always lead by example which I think is usually the best way to do it. So, I think it would be reasonable for him to leave.

On the other hand, I think it is also completely unfair to tell him to leave. America needs to see some obvious changes and trying to suggest that those opposed to America should leaveis essentially forfeiting freedom. Those people who choose to stay here are reinforcing freedom. Freedom is measured not in assent, but is measured in dissent because if everyone agreed all the time, there would be no need to have freedom. If Jensen wants to stay here, he should be able to stay. If he wants to leave, he should be able to leave. Nobody should tell him to do either. They can suggest it nicely, but in the end, his choice is his alone.

Two Sides

This is in response to Justine's Nature of Human Nature post - wanted to post this here because is relevant and because the number of posts that I could respond to from bloggers in this class is very small - full post here

Sometimes we forget that war is two sided. We think about war with the mindset that only Americans participate in war and that the opposition is shrouded in darkness or something. We think about our poor American soldiers and their poor American families. We think about how sad it would be if our poor American soldiers die. We neglect, however, to think about the opposition. We neglect to think that our poor American soldiers are killing their alleged enemies. Enemies who also have families and children, families and children who believe that their loved ones are fighting for the right cause.

To answer your question about how I would feel if someone I loved went off to fight overseas, I would feel terrible that they thought joining the army was a good option, or feel terrible that they were misled into thinking that it would be fighting for freedom, when instead they were simply killing others because they were told to. I would miss them, and I would want with all of my heart to rewind time so that I could tell them not to be so foolish. I would always support them as people, but not as soldiers, unless there was a seriously justified cause.

Title

In response to Tyler - full post here

I think you may have misunderstood the metaphor. As a small point, the house is not just a metaphor for upbringing, it's a metaphor for the gift and quality of life. Additionally, the house is not free. The house cost $200,000 and 18 years to build; though the people building the house wanted to for their own benefit. If they build a quality house, you will probably want to thank them.However, they CHOSE to build it and FORCED it upon you, they cannot expect gratitude. If they expected gratitude, they are having a child for the wrong reason. You cannot trade away your broken down house(life) for another one, your parents have given you a crappy house(life) and you are forced to fix it by yourself or with the help of others. The parents wanted to give you life, they signed a contract with the law saying that they would be obligated to take care of you. So long as you didn't ask for life, you do not owe them a debt of gratitude or otherwise for your life. If they treated you well then you owe them as much as you owe a friend.

Conclusion for CRITO Essay I

My conclusion for the first CRITO essay is something akin to the following: as long as we do nothing to hinder the progress of those who are unwilling to join the pursuit progress, it is morally acceptable to leave them behind.

I think that this is certainly true. Many people object to progress on the basis that they would rather have the past, or would rather stay where they are. I think that people have the right to make that choice if they want to, but I do not think that they should have they ability to hinder other people with conservative ideas. For example, many people object to the idea of a mechanical heart because it is 'unnatural' or something like that. These people, I think, should have the right to refuse mechanical hearts for themselves, but with no clear risk in replacing a natural circulatory system with a better functioning artificial circulatory system, they should not have the ability to demand that others reject the idea. Additionally, rather than wasting time and resources arguing with these people we should simply lead by example. When the people who want to stay behind see that people in the progressing countries live to be 300 years old, they will likely decide that they were being unreasonable. I think the realization would be comparable to those who realized that they were being unreasonable with slavery or women's rights.

Is Nothing Sacred?

Is there nothing safe from the pull of capitalism? Is nothing sacred any more? The answer is no. In a capitalist society, people have to do whatever they can in order to survive. If there is money to be made, people will attach to whatever it is that makes money. If you are going to embrace capitalism, you have to embrace all that capitalism welcomes.

Some people argue that it is not fair that a women is forced into surrogate motherhood or prostitution in order to survive. I think that it is sad that women are forced into prostitution and surrogate motherhood. However, within the confines of a capitalist society, the alleged choice to become a prostitute or a surrogate mother is just as valid as the alleged choice to become a sales clerk at McDonald's or the choice to become a janitor at a salt mill; these people are essentially slaves as well. There is little difference between these professions, so long as a person is fully aware of the conditions of the job and 'willingly' seeks employment  in that manner (this is why I don't currently support prostitution; prostitutes are forced into prostitution, which is a bad thing). The problem then, is not with prostitution, the problem is with capitalism.

Surrogate Motherhood

Surrogate motherhood, I think, is something that should be completely legal. There are certain problems with the system as it is now. It seems like the current system doesn't properly inform women who chose to be surrogate mothers of what they are signing up for, so they end up wanting to keep the child or some other thing which would negatively affect those who are paying them to have the child.  However, I think that with modification to the system, it should be completely legal. I think that the system should be modified so that the surrogate mother is more completely aware of what she is signing up for.

There is another modification that I think should be made to the system; I think that people signing up to have a surrogate mother should not have access to the physical characteristics of the surrogate mother. It seems like those who want children should not be afforded the ability to choose the physical characteristics of their child. It places an emphasis on appearance which should not be there. Parents should like their child for what the child is/how the child acts/the child's sense of morality, not on their hair or skin colour. Parents and children alike are put under large amounts of stress when they have expectations for a child, because those expectations are not always met. Parents get upset because their child isn't blonde, heterosexual, or the dream gender.

Potatoes v. Dogs

I thought this was relevant to a discussion that we had earlier in the class, so I figured I'd first post it here.
This is a response to Andrew Nelson's (Nature of Human Nature) post - full post found here

The ethics of vegetarianism are not accurately described as "not killing a living thing." The ethics of vegetarianism is more accurately described as "not causing other things to suffer." Plants, unlike animals, lack a nervous system, so they are unable to experience pain, to our knowledge.

While I understand the feelings behind not wanting or liking the sliding scale, it is very useful and practical. For instance, would you rather, if you were forced to, stab either a potato or a dog? If you had to choose one, would you rather stab a cow or a chimpanzee? Again, if forced to choose, would you rather kill a 80 year old man with brain damage or a highly intelligent 16 year old? If you made a choice between any of those, then you agree about the value of one living thing over another. If you did not distinguished between the options, then would you kill humans and eat them, since they have the same worth as a cow or potato.

We must kill living things to eat, I agree. I think, however, that we may as well only eat the things which we think cannot experience pain. Even if all life is equal in worth, wouldn't it be best to not cause pain to things which we know have the capacity to suffer?

The Joy and A Slap

Parents, what do your children owe you, how should they repay you? Surely the owe you everything that you have given to them, after all, without life they would not have anything. In which case, they owe you all the happiness which you have given to them, and all the respect you have given to them. To be fair now, we'll have to recognize that a large portion of their happiness did not, in fact, come from you. Additionally, if you want to be repaid for all the good things, it would be fair if you also received payment for all of the bad things; any sort of emotional trauma which you have dealt them, should be dealt to you, given that without you they could not have had that experience.

Wow, there is something seriously wrong with that above. Though I must confess, it is fairly strange and unfair to only focus on the positive aspects of a relationship. It's not really fair to say that someone owes you all that you've given them, except for everything bad. It's akin to demand someone pay you back, but refusing to pay your debt to that person. Still, I do not think that children owe their parents anything, negative or positive.

Donating Money to Cure Terminal Diseases

Is it appropriate to donate money to organizations whose goals are "to find a cure for (enter any terminal illness here)"?

This is a very tricky question, and here, I would have to answer with a sound no. So long as we are supporting a capitalist system and the insurance companies can benefit, donating to such organizations is not worth it. As long as some company stands to benefit, no actually solution or cure will be created for public use. Simply, if the insurance companies stand to benefit, the organization set to find a cure will instead start producing drugs which temporarily remedy the illness. The industries, I think, instead of finding a cure, will almost undoubtedly create a drug which forces the ailed individual to live with the disease at the cost of continuous expensive medication.

Building a House

Suppose that I gave you a deed to the house which has not yet been built but had arranged paperwork in such a manner as to make me legally responsible for building the house over a span of 18 years at a cost of my time and approximately $200,000. I had no reason to do this other than my wanting to build a house for you; I WANT to be successful at building a house, and I want a house to be built for you; again, this cost is an obligation which I am taking upon myself by my own volition.

Assuming that I successfully build the house, I can be proud of the fact that I have built it, after all, I set out to build it because I wanted to; even if you didn't thank me for it, I know that I completed it in a satisfactory manner. If I am expecting some manner of gratitude or respect for my being kind to you or building a house for you, I may as well not undertake that labour or obligation, because there is no way to know if you will be grateful anyhow. It would certainly be nice if you did thank me and you probably would if I did a nice job, but you are required to, because I built the house due to my desire to build one for you. If I set out to build a house, I ought to do so under the assumption that I will not be receiving any gratitude, that way I will not be disappointed if I receive none, because none is owed to me, or I will be happy because I've receive gratitude, though non was owed to me. Additionally, it would be highly pleasing to me if you did live in, which is to say, didn't destroy, the house which I built for you.

This is comparable to parent having children. If they have set out to have children because they find it rewarding to raise children or because, for some other reason, they want to, they have received their reward by being able to successfully raise a child; the child owes nothing to them. The only thing that I think a parent could request is that a child keep their own life, even so, the child has no obligation to do so; presumably, if the parent does a good job, the child choose to keep their own life anyway. If I choose to have a child because I want it to respect me, I should reconsider the option because my motivations are cloudy and will likely result in the sub-par parenting.

You Have A Bias And I Do Not

While discussing the issue of what children owe to their parents, parents often feel inclined to suggest that children who think that they do not owe their parents are simply thinking in that way because they have had a bad experience with their parents.Essentially, it's an attempt to render the opposition invalid by suggesting that they cannot separate their personal connections and attitudes towards their bad parents from an objective view of the situation; essentially, you can only take part in this debate if you have had good parents, because if you've had bad parents you will be biased and you won't be able to look past that when discussing the issue.

Personally, I think that children should be able to and ought to look past their own biases as it makes their argument more rational and agreeable. Similarly, however, because I think they are able to, I invite parents to put aside their biases in thinking that their labour and effort automatically equate to some of like debt which the children owe to the parents. The common view on debt to parents is that parents have laboured for so long and thereby deserve reward. This mindset is often witnessed in people; people think that hard work in the workplace should result in the reward of a raise; that situation, however, is substantially different.

His Eye for Hers

A person who has trouble constructing a vehicle with his bare hands should read the instruction manual. If he is still unable to construct the vehicle he should call his physician. His physician will tell him that he much far more intelligent than his female counterparts, so he shouldn't feel bad.

OH NO! THAT'S SEXIST! YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE USED GENDER SPECIFIC PRONOUNS LIKE THAT! DO YOU HATE WOMEN? YOU MUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A MAN AND YOU USED MALE PRONOUNS! YOU ARE A TERRIBLE SEXIST PERSON! THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD HAVE WORDED IT TO AVOID GENDER SPECIFIC PRONOUNS!

A person who has trouble constructing a vehicle with her bare hands should read the instruction manual. If she is still unable to construct the vehicle she should call her physician. Her physician will tell her that she much far more intelligent than her male counterparts, so she shouldn't feel bad.

Wow, that was crazy. You know, recently there has been a gigantic fuss about the gender specificity of language. I often agree with the fact that gender specific language is not a good thing. I think it is very strange, however, to complain about gender specific language and to draft up a solution which is simply gender specific for the opposite gender. It's basically following the eye for an eye principle, which will never result in equality.

 Whenever I can, I use gender neutral words. Often times, I try to reword sentences. Recently, however, I have started to use the pronoun 'they' as a singular pronoun. As it is now, people object to using 'they' because it is not grammatically correct. I think that it could become grammatically correct if people used it more frequently. It's not commonplace, but hopefully it will become so soon; if it does, we will be able to avoid being gender specific for either gender without having to work to reword sentences. 

Imamurkan

It's my right as a Murkan! I can say what I want on account of i'm a murkan.

Hmm... This is peculiar to me. Why is it that people who live in America tend think that only they are free? They often scream the above lines, which indicates that they are somehow mislead into thinking that only they deserve the freedom to say what they want. Quite frankly, I think it's your right as a person to be able to say what you want. The chance of your birthplace has no relevance to your freedom of speech. In fact, every person is born with the ability to speak their mind. The difference, however, is that the American government simply takes away less freedoms than some, but not all, other governments. The American government does not grant freedom/

Just My Feelings

A: I feel that it's morally acceptable to kill five year old children.
B: Oh my wizard-god! That's terrible! Let me explain why that is wrong.
A: Oh no, don't bother. It's just something that I feel intuitively.
B: Still, I think that maybe you are thinking the wrong thing.
A: I AM NOT THINKING! THESE ARE MY FEELINGS!!! LEAVE ME ALONE!!!
B: (Stage goes dark and A freezes. Light shines on B) It seems that A is communicating their thoughts as feelings in order to prevent other people from challenging their thoughts. Either that or they are lacking any confidence in their own answer, so they try to communicate it in the weakest way they can. What sad times are these when a growing number of people seek to replace 'think' with 'feel;' I wonder why it is that people no longer want to face having their thoughts questioned. Especially as philosophers, they should seek to put their ideas out to the public not hide their thoughts behind the shroud of private and personal emotions and intuitions. Some great philosophy teachers once co-authored a writing checklist (rule 20) where they expressed that people should "never use 'feel' where 'think' will do. I think we ought to follow this wonderful piece of advice. Notice that I do not think we should try to do this; there is do and do not, there is no try.

Disease and Symptom

I think that you are confusing the disease with the symptom again. The disease is the current political (democracy) and economic (capitalism) system; which cannot be treated by operating within the realm of the disease. One of the symptoms of this kind of system is poverty in many places around the world. Micro-financing is working with the current system of capitalism and thus would prove ineffective in curing the disease which, again, is capitalism. This kind of poverty needs democracy and capitalism in order to exist; working within capitalism allows the disease to continue. As an analogy, if a person becomes ill due to exposure to mold, expose to mold will continue his illness.

The disease cannot easily be removed by any short process. It would require most of the world's denizen to come to terms with many concepts which they have been rejecting for their entire lives. One of which is that they deserve to have luxury at the expense of others, and that others who are not great simply are not trying hard enough.

Not Using = Misusing?

Is not using the same as misusing?

Asexuals, those who are not interested in sex with anyone regardless of gender, according to Levin, could be accused of misusing their body parts. It is highly probable that asexuals will not be using their sex organs at all. If those parts were intended for a purpose, then not using them must surely be a misuse. I do wonder if Levin would contend that not using is better than, equal to, or worse than using a body part for something it's not 'intended to be used for.' I would imagine that he may not argue that it was worse, but that is equal in that would cause an equal amount of unhappiness for the asexual, because there is absolutely no way that a human being could not want to do the nasty business, if you will.

Surely, it's not unnatural and abnormal to not use something for what it was designed to do. A lamp, for instance, was designed to produce light; it provides an evolutionary advantage of scaring away potential predators and allows us to see in the darkness. Not using a lamp, however, is not unnatural or abnormal. I also hope that Levin has never used an item as a makeshift fix (like using a brick to hold a door open).

Don't Shave Your Beard (It's of No Evolutionary Advantage)

Question: If you accept Levin's premise, wouldn't any use of a body part, if that use had no evolutionary advantage, be abnormal?

While I don't think that Michael Levin would contend with the conclusions of this argument, I think that his argument would eventually lead to the conclusion that any non-evolutionary advantageous use of a body part would be unnatural. Given that Michael Levin probably has had his hair cut, and shaved his beard, I can assume that he wouldn't agree with that conclusion, so he would probably try to explain it away. Playing the piano certainly has no evolutionary advantage, so by Levin's standards that is out. In addition to that, based of of Levin's conclusion, I would have to assume that the only natural and normal sex is the bare minimum that is needed for child-having. So I certainly hope that nobody, not excluding Levin, has every done anything outside of that minimum. He seems to forget that there is only one thing that heterosexuals do that homosexuals cannot. He also seems to forget that those sexual organs are also there for pleasure, for most people at least.

Authority Relationships

There are numerous problems that many people identify with various kinds of relationships. It seems that the only thing this is morally acceptable is a heterosexual relationship between men and women who are no more than 10 years of age apart. To general society, one of the largest and probably one of the longest held negative views on a relationship is the ever-questioned relationship involving one person of authority. Whether it is a politician, religious figure, higher ranked person in the military, teacher, or a police officer, society often objects to relationships where one person has some authority. I do not object to it on it's face. If someone happens to bear some position of power, he or she should not be punished with the inability to have a romantic relationship with somebody whom happens to be a subordinate. It would be terribly unfair to say otherwise.

The dynamic of this relationship can be interesting, I'd assume. I do wonder how often it is that someone falls for an authority figure just because of their power. That would explain some of the problems with politicians and affairs. Well, that doesn't matter much; each party in the relationship should understand the dynamic for themselves. The relationship has no terribly inexcusable aspect which differs from other relationships.

Unnatural v. Abnormal

Question: When people argue that homosexuality is unnatural, do they mean something different?


There are people who argue that homosexuality is not natural. If something is unnatural, then it is contrary to the laws of nature. Nothing which can be done in this universe can ever be unnatural; everything that exists or that can be done in this universe is natural. These people are confusing unnatural with abnormal.


Abnormality is the state of being in a marked category, which is to say, not being a part of the majority. Triangle glasses, for instance, would be abnormal and in the marked category; when we consider glasses, we consider rectangular or circular glasses to be in the unmarked category.


We do not generally meet abnormality with such incredible hostility. Minorities are often oppressed in society, however, after the minority's oppressors have relented, the general population tends to understand that the past was filled with poor choice. This movement for gay rights is essentially akin to the initial movement for the rights of women and of African descent

Question: What would be the consequences of enacting Peter Singer's "solution" to world poverty?

Enacting Singer's solution to world poverty would actually, I think, make the problem worse. Firstly, as a weak note, many people don't appreciate being treated like children - being 'babied' by other nations. I doubt that it applies to every country, but I'm sure that it makes us some small portion of people in these impoverished nations. More seriously, however, enacting Singer's plan would actually perpetuate the problem and make it worse.

Imagine this scenario; there is a community of two men and two women, the land that they live on can support only four people well. These men and women couple up and one has a male child and the other a female. There are now three couples, and two people that the land cannot support; either two people (one-third of the population) will be starving or the whole group will suffer with eating two-thirds of their needs. Imagine now that a nation sends enough money to feed all six of these people. They now no longer have to worry about food and can adjust there priorities on furthering the population. These three couples then have two female children and two male twins, making five couples or ten people on land that can only support four; either six people (three-fifths of the population) will be starving or each member in the group will have to eat forty percent what they require. The nation sending them food then has to sent three times as much food to feed the six people, whom will then create more children. They will continue to grow dependent on the supplying nations, and the supplying nation will be bound to continue giving a growing portion of it's food, or else watch the larger population, which the helped create, starve. In the above example, the supplying nation could either let two starve or let six starve. Additionally, the quality of life in the supplying nation is also decreasing because they will have less food to distribute.

I think it would be best to let them to their own devices, meaning not stealing their resources and not helping them with food or money. Educating them is a good idea too; if you could teach them how to live off of their land it would prevent all that non-sense; unless, of course, the land cannot actually support more than it's original quota.

Needs Excuse For Cause *Creates Advantageous Problem For Cause*

Question: There is a surplus of these animals that we eat, so why not take advantage of that fact?

Well, in short, I can say that the surplus is not a natural occurrence. We have removed ourselves from the food chain, and many of the extinctions and surpluses/over-populations are our fault, not nature's. Deer, for instance, are over-populated because we have killed natural predators like wolves. The case with farm animals is that there is only a surplus because those animals are bred specifically to be eaten. Without us, they would resume a normal population, additionally we would give other predators another food source, because as it is now, these animals, to are brought into the realm of exemption from the food chain; which also hinders evolutionary development. Its not exactly commonplace morality to create huge problems and then take advantage of those things. We don't destroy houses and say "well, there are no houses here, we may as well build that amusement park that we had no room for." So why do we create surpluses of animals and then use that as an excuse to eat them?

On that note, there is a human surplus, so we should probably get to eating them, since humans are animals too. the only difference there is the sentimental value.

Pet Owning and So On.

In response to Chris - full post here

While I think that I mostly agree here, I think that it is important to recognize that the only reason that domesticate dogs cannot properly survive in the wilderness, is because we have domesticated them for so long. If they were back in nature for a significant length of time, the dogs best at adapting would learn survive.

You argue here that bird's were not meant to be in cages; what do you mean by meant? Bodily functions and features do not indicate that a dog should be inside a house most of the day.

Also, I think what you are trying to say is that it is unethical to domesticate animals and that in the event that you have domesticated an animal, it would be unethical to not own domesticated animals.

In Defense of the Vatican (Never Thought I Would)

In response to Tyler - full post here

There are a few problems with this argument. Firstly, I think it would bad to incorrectly assume that allotting a large sum of money to impoverished nations would solve all of the poverty problems. In fact, I think that quite the opposite is the case. Any redistribution of money only perpetuates the problem. The problem with poverty is a symptom of our society and its economic system; sending money to the impoverished nations is treating a symptom and not treating the disease that hides behind it.

Secondly, it would be an incredibly poor choice to threaten the Vatican given that the largest denomination of Christianity is Catholicism (comprising of almost 50%). Catholics exist all over the world and attacking the Vatican would undoubtedly cause World War III; it would be war between all countries and religions, and that, sir, would help absolutely nobody. I do not think that it is possible to take up arms against the Vatican without the consequence of starting a war, which would make this method the least effective when we are forced to spend large sums of money on supporting an army.

Thirdly, I do not think that it would at all be a morally correct to attack or threaten to attack the Vatican, because, again, it will probably result in many deaths. Additionally, threatening the lives of many people who are not actively contributing to the poverty problem (not the most responsible), is not moral. The Vatican is simply retaining wealth, meaning that it does not spend it often. The United States, however, along with other European nations are actively stealing resources from impoverished nations. They then try to cloud that up by donating a portion of their profits back to the people from whom they stole resources.

Finally, the Vatican receives it's money through tourism and from the donations of those who consider the catholic church to be more worth of their money than a poverty relief organization. The Vatican cannot be blamed because a large number of people continue to give them money. Granted, they do ask for it, but people do not have to act according to the Pope's requisition. If people gave their money to those organizations rather than the catholic church, it would accomplish a similar goal to what you are suggesting, without causing World War III. Not that I think the goal of your plan actually does any good.

A Creative Title

Question: who or what can be held accountable for moral injustices?

Answer: I contend along with contemporary society that the perpetrators of a moral injustice are to be held accountable. I would also add that we can only hold another thing responsible if we know that thing can reflect on the sentience of other creatures. So essentially, we can only hold other normal humans responsible, that is to say humans free from mental defects that prevent them from thinking about the sentience of those that they commit injustices against. I am not suggesting that we do not take any action against said people with mental defects. If a person is unable to reflect on the sentience of another person and kills that person, I think we can justly prevent that person from killing someone else.

Avian Intelligence and Non-Sentient Defense Mechanisms

In response to Tyler's post here or the February 11th post.

Interestingly, there are plants that, despite lack of nervous system, have developed the ability to defend themselves by using semiochemicals to attract the higher trophic  predators of the herbivores that are feeding on them. A fairly cool ability, I must say. While it could be so that a fungi or plant may have communicative abilities that are unfathomable to us, we do in fact need to eat something. So it's best that we eat those things which have no central nervous system, and thus experience no pain, that we know of. If it turns out that they do experience pain, we may need to modify our view, but given that this conclusion seems, at the very least, a long time away, we should operate off of our best knowledge.

Also, it surprise you to find out that birds can be far more intelligent than most people believe. Members of the Corvidae family (crows, magpies, and ravens), Psittacidae family (parrots, macaws, and parakeets), and the Columbidae family (Pigeons, and doves) are incredibly intelligent, most of them are far more intelligent than cows, in fact. I would recommend seeing the link on David Johnson's blog (http://critojazz.blogspot.com/2011/09/pm-bird-brains.html). Additionally, I would probably ask you to reconsider your view here. I agree that sentience isn't the only important thing. I think that the capacity to experience pain is very important.  And chickens and turkeys, in that sense, aren't any worse off, or better off than cows. They go through incredible pain, and usually go mad before they are killed. They have their beaks seared off so that they won't be able to kill each other after long confinement periods.

Practice What You Preach

In response to Brian - Full post here

Question: Is it morally permissable for a autocrat to hold his position as king but try to spread democracy?

I would say, firstly, that it's a bit unfair to assume that democracy is a good thing, because I don't really think it is. The whole 51% trumps all policy is rather lousy. But apart from that, I would say that it is a moral thing to do, if the king knows it will have the largest effect. It may not, however, be the most fair, or the least hypocritical thing to do. I feel that it would be less hypocritical and probably more effective if he lead by example. I am guessing that most people would call him out for his hypocrisy and then refuse to change themselves, because of that.

I think that becoming a democracy and attempting to spread it could cause a country to become like America and vote to force democracy on other nations or cause it to vote not to spread it at all - not that I think the latter is a bad thing.

Worth of Hermit v. Infant

Once again, like my last post - in response to Tyler - Full post here or the Feb 5th 2012 post

1.) The true injustice of murder does not lie in the pain of those left behind, instead it is simply the fact that someone has unjustly ended someone else's life. One consequence of murder which always results from murder is that another person has died. There is no other consequence that always follows from a murder. Given the pain in those left behind doesn't always follow, I would say it's not the worst part of murder. Additionally, their grief is completely dependent on that person's death, making it a unfortunate part of murder, not immoral in itself, and certainly not the foundation of it's immorality.

2.) I suppose I used child in place of infant. An infant is largely dependent on other people and does not have the mobility to do what it wants, and it won't be able to remember, generally what it did during that time frame (given that infants forget things almost immediately). Even if it could, it still has far less memories based on it having lived less. I do still think it's immoral to kill an infant, though.

3.) I don't necessarily pity the hermit, I simply wanted to show that a hermit can certainly have a life that is, overall, 'worth' more even if they don't have people that care about them. A hermit could very well choose to become such on their own but still partake in those activities above - I think it would be a worse shame if the hermit's life was lost. I do agree that if neither has a person that likes them, the murder of the hermit would be worse.

Potential and Memories v. Potential

In response to Tyler - Full post here - or the February 5th post, if that doesn't work.

I don't think we can contend that the 'true injustice of unjust killing lies in the pain of those left behind. If we remove the aspects of other people caring for someone, we will probably reach the same conclusion that Avery did, which is to say that both the adult and the child have potential, but that they adult would have lost his memories, and the joy that he gets from doing things that he likes to do, the child doesn't really have this.

You stated here that killing a hermit in hes sleep is far less immoral than killing an infant that dozens of people care about. I disagree wholeheartedly - I cannot help but think of a poor hermit who has been abandoned by his family, and has a disorder which prevents him from having good social interactions, but because of that he lurks in a cave, providing his own sustenance, and creating beautiful music, literature, art, and maybe making some scientific advancements. Though nobody cares for him right now, i think the loss of his life - potential and memories - would be a much worse tragedy than the loss of an infant's life, even though people care about the infant much more. Additionally, I have a question - what would be a worse event, the murder of an infant orphan that nobody cares about or a hermit?

Justified Self Defense In War - Two Way Street

The book being used for my Contemporary Moral Issues class tried to use a hypothetical situation to express that killing in war is justified, because it is like self-defense in nature. I do agree that it can be self defense in nature, or at least similar to self-defense. The difference is, in self defense, the aggressor usually has some active intent to harm the other for no reason. However, in the case of war, the alleged aggressor, is also only acting in 'self-defense.' It's important to recognize that in the case of war, if one side of combatants is justified in killing in 'self defense,' the other side is too. If both sides would realize that, war wouldn't be (or at least not quite as bad). Both sides kill the other because they are convinced that the other will kill them if they do not. So, if both sides of fighters would realize that, they could all go peacefully back to their families and friends.

It would probably be best to let the political 'leaders' fight on their own, rather than having men that don't want to kill each other fight for them. It's sad, to know that people kill each other because they are told to. They go out and kill people that otherwise could be their friends.

Animal Abuse - Small and Large - Difference

I haven't actually done the reading for my Contemporary Moral Issues class, so I'm basically just blogging related to one of my cousins posts on facebook. Essentially, she posted a picture which is allegedly (which I say because I cannot tell if it is photo-shopped or not) a picture of two men having just killed two dogs by hanging them - the men are smiling in the picture. Apparently, this is a horrendously immoral act, and not excusable by any means.

While I agree that this is a horrible thing to do, this, I feel, should be carried into other subjects. When I informed her that animals were treated far worse in slaughterhouses, and sent her a video, she acknowledged that what is done to those animals is horrible and said that those who cause any animals to suffer should suffer in the same way (which is to say, though she didn't say it - being hung upside-down, dipped into a vat of boiling water, and having their throat cut so that they bleed slowly death). When I proceeded to tell her that anyone who eats animals is causing the suffering, she recanted and said that those animals are raised for food so it's okay to kill them.

So, apparently, animals raised for food are less valuable or have less feelings than those who are domesticated (even if pigs are more intelligent than dogs). It seems to me like some animals, like pigs, are domesticate in other parts of the world, and Indian's don't kill cows. Conversely,  in some parts of the world dogs are raised to be slaughtered for human consumption. To me, this seems very subjective to the society. It doesn't seem like the logic follows. If you are against animal abuse, you should probably not consume animals based on the fact that animals raised for food are abused in horrible ways and in horrible numbers. Can someone enlighten me if they have any insight into an opposing view?

Response: Bare Difference - Barely Changing Scenario

In response to Brian - Full post can be found here - http://onpunchingpuppies.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-there-significant-moral-difference.html


The bare difference theory requires that all else in the scenario be equal.
In the first scenario; A man kills the starving man (SM) with a gun - we can agree that he is guilty of the SM's death.
In the second scenario; Hundred of people walk down the street neglecting to feed the SM, this results in his death.


The difference between the first and the second scenario is that the second scenario welcomes other people. In order to show the lack of difference between killing and letting die, you would have to isolate those two characters again. If the first man came across the starving man and had the ability to help this person, but chose not to, I would argue that he is just as guilty of the starving man's death, as the person who kills with the gun.


To entertain the question of would all the people who, walking in a busy city, pass by the starving man be murders; I would say that they are not quite murders, in that there is the chance that someone else could help the person. If, however, each person could read every other person's mind and know that nobody else would help him, then each one of them, given they had the ability to help, would be just as guilty of his death. *Additionally, when one takes self interests into account, you are varying the scenario beyond repair

Unwanted Gifts That You Cannot Return

This is a response to Avery's post. Full posting here - http://asfcmi2012s.blogspot.com/2012/01/glancing-ahead-obligations-to-parents.html

Children do not owe their parents a single thing. Parents have children completely of their own volition, they, usually enjoy the acts that creates the child. The child has their own life thrust upon them, and by the time they are aware of the fact that they had no choice in their creation, they can't do anything about it. Well, they can, but it would likely involve a large amount of pain and cause severe amounts of emotional trauma to those who know them. They are pressured into thinking that they have a gift, even if they don't want it, and that ending that would be a terrible thing to do - some even invoke religion, suggesting that God will send them to eternal punishment if they try to get rid of their 'gift.' I don't think anyone should be expected to repay someone for a gift that was forced upon them since before they were remotely conscious.

Imagine it this way - imagine that Person A are the Parents, and that person B is the child


A, because he wanted to, put a book in your house, unbeknownst to you. When you finally discover the book, you start to read it. The book is, in general, uneventful (kind of monotonous), though some parts in it made you laugh, other parts make you cry out of sadness, and some parts, yet, fill you with rage or disappointment. Person A, then, demands, not only that you keep the book which he wanted to give to you, but also that you pay him back for having given you the book in the first place. Though you enjoyed a few passages from it, or even if you enjoyed all of it, why should you have to pay him for slipping a book, that you didn't ask for, into your house?

Not The Best Comparison

Question: Is there a better way to represent the self-defense principle as it relates to war?

I was recently reading from my contemporary moral issues book and saw a simplified representation of war. It was simplified in order to show how killing in war is justified (using the principle of self-defense). While I do not deny that it is justifiable to kill another person is self defense, I feel that the book inadequate represent a war like scenario; it failed to take into account the other side. Basically, it was simplified as such, S (Smith) and J (John) have just encountered each other, S is enlisted by W (Wife), who says that J has done her some wrong, to kill J. Believing W, S sets out to kill J. J, in response, is justified in killing S because S was of immediate threat to him. He is also justified in killing W, under the assumption that Killing W will cause S to relent or in someway become easier to subdue. It is important to recognize that S has done nothing to deserve killing other than attempt to kill J based off of W's assertion of J's misdoings.

I also think that P1(People 1) tend to think of their side as being the J of war, killing in self defense, but P1 refuse to recognize that P2 consider themselves as J as well. I will draft a more adequate, in my opinion, model for class and then post that here.

Eligibility for Euthanasia

Question: What conditions, if any, must a person satisfy in order to be considered eligible for euthanasia?

When thinking abstractly about euthanasia, most people tend to associate it with someone who is in serious pain caused by, or related to, a terminal illness and thereby wants to remove their life support. When someone someone associates this sort of patient with euthanasia are they implying that these are the necessary or sufficient conditions for candidacy for euthanasia? Well, I hope not.

Euthanasia should be a legal option for everybody who wants it. Of course, if where authorized for every person who wants it at any point in their lives, there would be an obscene number of people who euthanized themselves due to minor problems which caused them to act/think irrationally (imagine the emotionally unstable teen after a break-up, or the parent who threatens to euthanize themselves if their child doesn't 'quit being a homosexual').

There should be a few steps and considerations made before a person becomes eligible for euthanasia. I think  that there should be a waiting period (probably no more than several months), during which a person can reconsider their decision and consult with a number of psychologists. The length of the waiting period and the number of concurring psychologists required should be adjusted per the person's age/anticipated (adjusted) life expectancy, and the pain/suffering that they feel. In general, the amount of pain.suffering a person is going through should have a negative correlation with the waiting period and number of psychological evaluations, meaning that more pain equates to smaller waiting period and less evaluations required. Conversely, the correlation between life expectancy and the waiting period and number of evaluations should be positive, in that a longer expectancy should equate to a longer wait and more psychological evaluations. Though the pain should have a heavier weight due to the fact that a person could very well end up living fifty years in terrible pain.

S.C.T.M. -- Semi-Condensed Textual Me

Hello, my name is Brandon Gerard Gaudet, or at least that's what people call me as a result of my parents having named me so (anyhow, I'll have another post about this later). I am a freshman at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, abbreviated MCLA, which I like to call Muh-klah. I am majoring in philosophy - and I have found myself among only a few others doing the same. All this information here and information similar to it, such as the location from which I hail and my age, are completely unimportant. I don't know why precisely, however, I apparently felt especially inclined to include what I did while leaving out the rest.

 I am a vegetarian primarily for biological and ethical reasons, though environmental reasons are also important to me (additionally, there are micro and macroeconomic reasons that can contribute towards vegetarianism, though I do not particularly care about those). I am an agnostic or something of that sort, in that I recognize that we cannot 'know' that a deity does not exist with any more certainty than we can 'know' that one does. Practically speaking, I live as though no deity exists but from time to time I enjoy reading various religious text, namely the bible (my favourite part is Leviticus 26:14-46 (alternately Deuteronomy 28:15-68), READ IT!!!). I have an apparently innate pacificism (different from pacifism), which I find pretty cool.

My taste in music is fairly expansive Some of the artists that I listen to are - Ben Folds, The Beatles, Nightwish, Rise Against, Beethoven, Koji Kondo (composer of Legend of Zelda music) and other video game music composers. Wow, this is incredibly convenient. Look at this here; by pure coincidence, the perfect segue. This is a true miracle to behold. I was just type-typing away, and lo, my post happened to mention Legend of Zelda - what an amazing happenstance. I happen to have a minor obsession with The Legend of Zelda. This explains why I chose the names and URLs for my 3 blogs. The URLs are the names of the Golden Goddesses from Zelda, the first letters of various things associated with those goddesses, and philoso-(name of the element (and thereby color) associated with them). The blog titles are the aforementioned associations.

That's me :-) in a semi-condensed textual form.