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?
Saturday, February 4, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
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?
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?
Monday, January 30, 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)