Ethics Final Examintation

Shawn Cummings

theshawn8

12 Posts

Post 1 – Aristotle 7-5-07
Post 2- Epicurus and Epictetus 7-5-07
Post 3- Spinoza 7-08-07
Post 4- Right or Wrong 7-09-07
Post 5- Kierkegaard 7-09-07
Post 6- Marx 7-15-07
Post 7- Nietzsche 7-15-07
Post 8- Singer 07-23-07
Post 9- Abortion, Poverty, Euthanasia 7-23-07
Post 10- Cloning 7-30-07
Post 11- Evolutionary Psychology 7-30-07
Post12-Gandhi- 8-03-07

I have done both research projects, visited the Museum of Tolerance, and I did the second project on Capitol Punishment.

The grade that I received was a between an A- and B+


Reading for the term was all completed:
All ten theorist were read in the first three weeks
Read all material by Nietzsche and liked it
All Singer material was read
That was a lot of Gandhi material
Read all material for cloning and stem cell research
Read everything for Evolutionary Psychology

All of the reading was good although there was a lot of it and I felt as if it would never end but in the end it is well worth what I have learned. After looking back I can not think of much that you would need to take out or change I think that it is good the way it is. Worked out really well not having a book, saved a lot of money, and I liked the online reading for I was able to sit comfortably at home or at work, and read with out the book. I think you should stick with the online for it provided more information while a book can have chapters that would never be read. Online was able to cut to the meat of the information and was to me better to understand and comprehend. Over all don’t change anything I like it the way it is.

The extra credit that I completed is:
The first on What is Ethics
The second on Religion Roman Catholic
The one on where I think meat comes from


Ethics Final Examination

1. For Gandhi ethics were vital. He was raised in a stringent religion, where rules must be adhered to or the consequences would be severe. Gandhi new nothing else but to follow his religion, engrained in him since infancy was the practice of Vaishnava (vegetarianism) which proved to be one of the hardest things for Gandhi to remain faithful to. Lying was looked down upon most by Gandhi. Even as a young boy he couldn’t imagine telling untruths. Although he did falter from time to time, making more of omissions then lies, he always felt so much guilt the truth would always come out. Honoring his parents was also one of the main points he lived his life by. He looked up to them as icons, and wanted nothing more than to please them. This is why he found it so hard to lie; he couldn’t imagine doing something that would disappoint them in anyway. One way he honored his parents was by staying true to his religion. He wasn’t always perfect. He made his mistakes but regretted them fully and repented them often. When Gandhi went to school in England, eating meat, drinking, and smoking were the way of the world. Anyone unfamiliar with Gandhi’s background figured him mad when he refused to eat and drink with them. Many predicted that his heath would suffer without any sustenance in his diet. But he stayed true to his religion, and true to the vow that he had made to his mother to not stray from the practice of Vaishnava. He also considered it vital to always stay faithful to his wife. Gandhi was a jealous husband, and his wife tested him, but they were young. Even when temptation arose he was able to resist and return to his young bride. Helping friends, although valiant, turned out to be one of the downfalls of Gandhi’s ethics. In high school Gandhi befriended one of his older brother’s acquaintances, an acquaintance that was more often then not bad news. Although warned by his brother, mother, and wife that his new buddy was only going to get him into trouble, Gandhi persisted to help him. This friend challenged his religion, fidelity, and devotion to his parents, but no matter what Gandhi was pressured into doing his ethics still reined true. All of these traits encompassed Gandhi’s world views. Honoring your parents, religion, friends, and family at all costs were of up most importance to him. He believed that everyone should abide by those basic regulations, and practiced them staunchly himself. Gandhi always stood by his beliefs, never straying; he was a concrete, solid example of the way he believed life should be lived. This is why he is considered a moral hero because in the face of opposition and ridicule he remained faithful to his ideals where others would have faltered. Society today might want to take a good hard look at the way Gandhi lived his life. His concrete determination to live, as he believed, the way that life should be lived is something that most people would forsake at the first sign of temptation. Ask your self this question. If you were in that big fancy restaurant in England, half starving to death because of the lack of vegetarian cuisine, and that restricted soup was laid before you, would you take a bite? Or would you walk out and starve for the sake or your morals? The vast majority, including myself would gobble up that food barely thinking twice about the consequences, throwing inhibitions to the wind. Gandhi’s life is an inspiration for today, and time to come. No matter what the time period the values, morals, and ethics of Gandhi’s story will always apply to life. I could even apply Gandhi’s ethics to my life. His steadfast devotion to his values is something that I should incorporate in every aspect of my life. Now will I actually practice those values? Or will I give up when the road gets rough? That’s where the incredulity of Gandhi’s life comes in; I would falter where he would not.

2. I believe from what I read that Gandhi and Singer are very much alike. Both men are for the change and peace and unity, and both go about it in the same fashion for both men, Singer and Gandhi don’t fight or yell, but both have presented there arguments and ideas in a very peaceful, nonviolent, and a way for people to understand. Although both men had very different backgrounds and lifestyles both men have many of the same morals. As we can see both men are to a point have utilitarian views for they both see and want the best for the society, by having peaceful protest and nonviolence, for no once did Gandhi ever fight or break our yelling and the same for Singer he made many of his changes through peaceful ways and teachings. Both men are for the rights of people, as Gandhi demonstrated in his fight for the people of India, and even Singer showed it in his support in that if a woman wants to have an abortion it is her right to have it for you cant violate a woman’s rights. Both men even shared the same views on animal rights for Gandhi did not eat meat, while Singer is for animal rights and is a vegetarian and does not want to harm the animals for they have rights. It is surprising to see how both men grew up in different countries and different times and different cultures but yet they have both achieved great things by following peaceful nonviolent demonstrations and teachings. I think Singer learned much of his ways from Gandhi and I think that Gandhi would be very much proud of him and would help Singer with some of his view, but not all of them for I don’t think that Gandhi would totally agree with Singer on abortions, but the way that both men have taught and brought there message across has shown that they are very similar and very influential and very intelligent and we need to learn from there example of peace in order to obtain what needs to be obtained for the betterment of society.

3. I had never really occurred to me that Einstein was an ethical theorist. I had always thought and read until now that he was a physicist who brought many changes to the scientific community and to the world. After reading about him and his ethics it has really changed what you think and how you think about him, for he was really a brilliant man both in the lab and classroom, but also in the world as well. As seen Einstein was a refugee for he was a Jew, so Einstein knew about persecution for it had happened to him. In Einstein’s early years that was when he came up with his theory of relativity and his contribution to nuclear fission. It was later in his life where he made big impact ethically. When Einstein was approached by the government to confirm about nuclear fission he said he was faced with one of the biggest challenges of his life. Einstein was a very passive person much like Gandhi, however the difference between the two is that Gandhi was not promote any violence of any sort, and Einstein said that the only reason he confirmed his belief to Roosevelt was to protect people, for he thought Germany had and was going to use an atomic bomb, which they never did. Einstein was always on the look out for the betterment of people, even though he was looked down upon by some of the Jewish society he helped many of them come to live in America. While in America Einstein spook out about the discrimination and segregation that was going on in the country. He said that the time for discrimination was over for that was the past and it would only hurt the future, for no person is lower than any other person. As it is seen much of Einstein’s thought process that he used in his studies was also used in his ethics. I would have to say that all in all I had never thought about Einstein being an Ethical theorist, one of things that I now admire about him is, for I was taught he created the atomic bomb, that he regretted any thing to do with nuclear fission for it would hurt people, which shows that Einstein cared about everyone. I would say I admire how Einstein would stand up for those that no one else would stand up for; even thought people hated him for it. I believe that Einstein’s ethics can be brought into the twenty first century for I believe that Einstein cared about everyone and was out to help everyone in the best way possible. Einstein says no matter how intelligent or unintelligent rich or poor you are no one should be inferior everyone is equal. Einstein was out for the equality of people no matter the race or gender or ethnicity everyone was the same.

4. Singer said that he believes that animals are no different than humans for they have feelings and emotions just as we do. Singer said that the only difference is the species, but according to Darwin our species is an evolved species from others. So Darwin said that our species evolved and became humans and according to Singer how is it since we just an evolved species does that give us the right to kill animals. Singer says that animals are just as equal as we are for he said that there should not be a line between species. Singer says that the movement for animal rights will one day be fully fulfilled for he points out the recent movements that have happened, the women’s movement, black movement, and slave movement. And Singer says that animals are the same as us, just cause they don’t speak the same language as we do does not mean they are no different, for other cultures and people speak different languages, and that is why the slavery started. Singer says that animals can talk, hear, feel, and have the same emotions, pain, and pleasures as humans. So there is no need to treat them with cruelty and as if they are inferior. For we need to treat animals fairly with respect and the same way that we would want to be treated. Singer has a very good view on animal rights for they are living things to who feel pain and death and happiness just as humans. After seeing and reading about how people treat and abuse animals it is very sickening for the animals have no way to defend themselves and they need someone to do it and it will have to be humans. I believe that animals should have rights and that they should not be treated so harshly and badly. They need to be able to live a happy life just as humans do.

5. Peter Singer views abortion in a very different way than I had thought he would. At first I thought he would be against it and be for saving the baby. However when I read Signers views I realized that I was not correct. Singers position on abortion is not for or against it but rather he says that it is the woman’s right to choice to either have the baby or have an abortion. He says that you can not violate a woman’s right by telling her she can or cannot have an abortion. For rights are one thing that should not be taken away. So then where does the fetuses rights come in to being human. That has been a question that many people have been arguing for many years as to when a fetus has finally become human. Singer says that to kill a human being is wrong and a human fetus is a human being so to kill a human fetus is wrong. Those that are for abortion, say that a human fetus is not a human being yet so it is ok to kill fetus. That leaves the argument as to when does a human life being. Singer goes on to say that some have said that life beings when the child or fetus is a viable life form for you can’t say when the child is born for a premature child could be less developed than a fetus. So it is when a child is viable. However the viability is different to many people and many countries, so it is hard to say when a fetus is viable and when human life truly begins. Those that are for abortion says that a fetus is not a living being and those that are against abortion say when the child is viable which is hard to say. Signer points out that no person can command a woman to do anything for it is her right, he says, for the woman to decide whether to have the child or not, for you can not force her to have it or not for that violets her rights. Over all Singer says that a woman has to choose what she feels is right both morally and ethically and Singer also states that it is wrong to kill but the main question is when is a fetus a viable life form, and that is up to the persons morals and ethics.

6. Singer’s stance on euthanasia has made some controversy in the world. Singer has three types of euthanasia the first is voluntary, which is were the person request to die, the second is involuntary where the person is able to give constant but does not or is not listened to, which some could say is murder if the person asked to keep living. The last form of euthanasia is non voluntary which is were the person is not able to tell the difference of life and death and some one else has to make the choice. Singer agrees with voluntary euthanasia for you have the choice to live or die and it is your own choice and if you are in extreme pain or terminal illness it does not classify as suicide. The involuntary euthanasia is as Singer says not ethical and moral for someone is making the choice for you when you are capable of making the choice and some say that it could be murder if you don’t want to die but they decide other wise. The third euthanasia is non voluntary and Singer says that is all comes down to a person choice and morals according to Singer if the person is terminally ill cant decide or is sick or and infant baby and is in much physical pain then if it is good then it is ok. Over all Singer says that euthanasia is both good and bad for it will take away much pain that a person has, but it has to be done willingly and both morally and ethically. I believe that if a person is in much pain and wants to die they should be at peace for it wont help to one see them in pain and two to let them live in pain for they should have a good after life. I think euthanasia can be used as long as people do it both ethically and morally, if they don’t want pain any more you need to honor there wish, and if they want to live that is there choice, as far as choosing to let them live or die, that would be a very hard situation to chose. I hope I am never faced with that for it will be hard morally to let someone die. As in the case with Terri Schiavo she had very bad brain damage and was sustaining respiratory and other problems was it ok to let her die, that was a long case for the family. It is hard to say weather it is justified or not for if she was alive she had to be in much pain, and if she was brain dead it was hurting many people for she would never be better. I would say that this case fell in the third type of euthanasia for it was up to the family to decide and the only the only thing I think Singer would say is can you live with it morally for the rest of your life, and I would have to agree.

7. Stem cell research is said not to be cloning but to copy certain cells in a body to recreate them. For example if you are infected with a disease or have a organ failure they will be able to take stem cells from other living things to be put on other living things to reproduce and grow. Some say this is a very good thing for it will help stop many diseases that we now face, while others say it is a form of cloning. There are three types of stem cell research embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, and cord blood stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research is unliked by many people for you need an embryo in order to take the stem cells out, which some people would call killing. Adult stem cell research is as it say taking cell from grown living organism which already can multiply and divide. More people favor adult stem cell research for you do not need an embryo to die, in adult stem cell research the cells multiply and divide so if placed in a falling organ the stem cells will be able to give the organ new cells and make the organ more capable to survive. Cord blood research is very simple for it is just the umbilical cord of a new born baby that is stored in blood banks over the country to help with blood disease and bone marrow transplant. Although it can be costly at times it could be very helpful. With all of the stem cells research it is hard to say weather it would be good to have. In a religious point of view embryonic stem cell research is wrong for you are killing an embryo. Over all is stem cell research wrong. I believe that used right and properly stem cell research could eliminate many disease that has destroyed many lives and it could help make people better. But that being said people could use it to make them selves more than human. To a point stem cell research is good but then there is a line moral and ethic no longer matter. To me as long as stem cell research is used to help disease and people as a whole and not to create things and over use it, stem cell research could help out in the end.

8. This is the one question that I would say is the hardest one to answer. What had the most impact on my mind? That is hard to say. For in the whole scheme of things everything that I have read had an and probably will have an impact on me. Even thought the course was only six weeks long, it seemed a lot longer than that, it has really changed the way I am thinking. I have finally realized that after reading the first few ethical theorist what question I have been looking for, and they said it, everyone wants to be happy in life, for that is the ultimate goal of everyone, to be happy, now how you attain that happiness is a different story which is where some of the other theorist came in. For you have to use your morals and ethics in order to be happy as long as no one else is harmed in the process. After looking back I would have to say that surprisingly Nietzsche for after reviewing what he has said and talked about, I see that if I had to live the same life over and over again I would want it to be a good life and I would want to tell the demon he was a saint. Although there are many of the other people that we studied that have also made an impact on me. I believe that Singer’s works made an impact on how I look at certain issues now. I still favor a lot of Karl Marx’s writings for he was a very profound thinker, looking at the betterment of society I would have to say though after reading and looking at Nietzsche it has changed how I look at the world and I believe that if you apply a lot the theorist ideas together you could make a very good and very promising society. I have now thought what if the life that I am living is being relived for all eternity do I want to make a difference on the world good or bad. I have realized that what I thought I had known about issues and people turned out to be different, Einstein for instance he made a big impact on the world with his ethics, and I am surprised at how Gandhi lived and how he was able to still stay a strong and proud person for what he was fighting for. Those are people that have made a change in the world not by swords but words which is what I would have to say is the most powerful thing a person has. I have, since I was young wanted to help people and make a difference in the world, and I am very pleased that I was able to learn about not only the theorist themselves but also there impact that they have made, and how I can take what they said and apply it to my life and to society and the whole world, I like the idea of how can you live if you don’t make the world a better place.