Blog 6

The third contemporary issue was on capital punishment and I feel as though this issue affected all of my principles, both social and personal. It affected my belief in John Locke's writings about equality for all because I don't believe somebody should be killed because it's not giving them an equal opportunity to life. It affected my belief in Sartre's existentialism because he believes in how every individual's actions are responsible for all humanity, which makes me believe that by enforcing capital punishment it is setting a bad example for all humanity. It also affected my personal principle of treating others how you wished to be treated because I know for certain that is it was me facing the capital punishment then I wouldn't want to be killed.

I believed more in Hook's views on capital punishment, he wanted to abolish it but he thought it was okay for repeat offenders because they obviously had not learnt there lesson from before. I'm not sure how to feel about the conviction of repeat offenders but it does seem more justified that being a one time offender.

Out of all of the contemporary issues, this one did not sway my believes at all like the other two did. It completely went against what I believed in. However, it made it seem like I'm just following those few guidelines so to speak, just because they're the ones I most believed in when we learnt them in class.

I think that for me to become a more effective ethical being I must consider my own principles thoroughly and to read more on other philosophers, rather than just a select few. I also think it would be good for me to speak to people that actually have the complete opposite principles as I do because in doing so I can see how strong my beliefs are by trying to prove them to somebody that completely disapproves.

This week I commented on http://jessbiondi.blogspot.com/ and http://ashantijones.blogspot.com/

Blog 5

The secondary principles didn't really effect my principles but it definitely opened my eyes up to both sides of the argument. I don't really know which one I would be more comfortable with saying is my principle towards abortion because both Warren and Noonan makes very good arguments.

However, if I thought about if I were to put myself in that situation where abortion was an option, I thought that 'yes' I would go along with it and it's because I feel it is my body and I would want to be able to do what I want with it whether the fetus is considered a human being or not. Which goes along with what Warren said about a woman's body is their property and they should be allowed to do what they want with it.

I think the theory that was least consistent with my personal beliefs on abortion were Noonan's beliefs. Especially when he says that the fetus has the inability to speak for itself so that makes it wrong. Well, of course it hasn't got the ability to speak for itself, it hasn't even been welcomed into society or knows where it is for that matter.

The one thing that did correlate with my beliefs however was that at the end of Noonan's piece he mentions that Christians believe that we should love thy neighbor as we love ourselves. This shows that my personal principles way need some adjusting because it's hypocritical of me to say that I believe everyone should be treated as we ourselves wish to be treated but be okay with abortion.

This week I commented on:  http://ashantijones.blogspot.com/ and  http://ndeahterry.blogspot.com/

Blog number four

When it comes to the first contemporary issue human cloning it did in fact clash with the social issues that I thought to be fair, that being the writings of John Locke. John Locke believed in equality for all, equal opportunity and the protection of individual rights. However, I don't believe in cloning humans and I don't believe they should be entitled to more than any naturally born person. I do not have a reasoning for this, it's just my natural reaction towards it.

I believe cloning should only go to the extent where organs can be reproduced, but not a whole human being. My own principles didn't really help in working out my own response to the issue, because my issues tend to be about fairness, as I mentioned in the first blog I believe in treating people how I wish to be treated, but I just wouldn't be able to treat a clone the same, knowing it's just the second edition of somebody else.

I definitely feel as though Kass' opinion towards human cloning coincided with my issues the most in comparison with Tooley. He speaks of repugnance, which is having a automatic aversion to something and that's how I feel at the thought of cloning a full human being, I just don't think it is right. I think it takes away from what it means to be unique as a human being and creates a selfish desire to survive your own death.

This week I commented on:

http://jessbiondi.blogspot.com/

http://javiluq.blogspot.com/

Blog number three

I find the principles of Sartre’s existentialism quite compelling because he speaks in a very brutally honest way, saying we must act without hope because there is no final truth. I personally have no idea what happens when we die and don’t believe in looking for an answer because I truly won’t know until I do die. So I suppose my ideals go against his because he makes it sound like there’s not really any point because we’re all going to just die in the end. I think we should live as best we can until death.

In blog 2 I identified that I have a principle that we should treat others how we also wish to be treated. I suppose it fits with Sartre when he says that every individual is responsible for all humanity because I feel that by me being nice to people even if they are cruel to me it sets a good example for others, which in part shows I’m being considerate for everybody else.

I wouldn’t say it conflicts with my principles because I actually agree with a lot of his writings, for example that man is responsible for his own passions and that every act contributes to what it means to be human.

I definitely think I could live according to both because it is a very “live in the moment” kind of philosophy and it’s not extreme. I would do so by practicing how to take full responsibility for all of my actions, by not arguing when something is blatantly my fault. Also by taking advantage of everything it means to be human like our ability to think beyond and create, I could do this through my art work.


This week I commented on  http://dallaslrsmith.blogspot.com/ and  http://lukedemuro.blogspot.com/

Blog #2

Before I entered this course I always followed by the principle of always treating others how you wish to be treated yourself and I still follow it now. This principle was something my mum always told me to stick by as she herself had learned that good things came to those who adhere to it. I had trouble with it as I got older because I couldn't understand how you could treat somebody who does horrible things to others nicely. However, I tried putting myself in their shoes and I'm sure they too don't expect people to be nasty to them. From following this principle I never feel bad when people do bad things against me because at the end of the day I know myself that I was the good person. The readings in class haven't so much changed or affected this principle but they have opened my eyes to new ways of living and I find it very interesting to see how other people live by certain principles. Out of the principles we've learned so far Aristotle's view is the one that I'm most drawn to. I like how he describes how he describes happiness as being self-sufficient and is final of any action. He also describes a good life as having some sort of human excellence so having a talent or passion for something. When his text is really analyzed and interpreted I think his theory is probably one of the easiest to live by.

This week I have commented on http://illybueno.blogspot.com/ and  http://dallaslrsmith.blogspot.com/