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.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
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.
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.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)