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.