War, Terrorism, and Counter Terrorism--Michael

While studying war, terrorism, and counter terrorism I've learned a lot more than simple scare tactics and issues that take place within our government. What I've learned is that there are several different ways to approach war, terrorism, and counterterrorism than just simply acting rashly and sending countless lives into a firefight miles away from home.

I'm going to be frank with you. I'm completely against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. What this has led to is nothing more than innocent lives lost, countless American soldiers lost, and a discombobulated national defense here at home. With our efforts faced on solving those around the world, we forget that our primary mission is "to provide for the common defense." This means here in the United States. Sure, if you want to break it down morally, America is justified in their decision to invade Iraq and other areas overseas--but only when it involves them. Otherwise, we're left with the moral issue that keeps representing itself throughout the chapter--that a country has a right to be able to defend itself first and must do so for the betterment of the infrastructure and global image it projects. Basically, having someone come in and "fight your battles for you" doesn't bode well when you're already under attack. This only means that the warring nations will just pick out the situations where the "body guard country" is no longer protecting. It goes on forever.

Also, there is a huge portion of the chapter that discusses the morality of war and terrorism whatsoever. If we are to advance as a planet, towards an imminent peace, we must realize that countering a jarring attack with an equally jarring attack will evoke the same response. The moral issue suggests that war is a neverending cycle and until all opposing sides are killed off or silenced, it never ends. This makes me think--is war really worth it? Is there anything we can do or is it just an inevitable thing that we can't stop? To me, it seems like the best course of action would be to sit down and discuss differences, but the reality of that ever happening is a big fat zero percent. People are too stuck to their own values and too closed minded to realize that there's a BIG world out there and they're missing out.

World Hunger- Maya

When doing my research about World Hunger, I discovered the viewpoints of various different people on this topic. While reading the article “An Introduction to the Moral Issues,” they discussed both pros and cons on the situation. I was now reading the part where they were against helping other countries. The Liberation Article stated a quote that said, “no one is entitled to take my life from me, but no one is obligated to support my existence.” Then we would now proceed to the Particularity Argument that argued there is something suspicious about a moral theory that requires us to care so much about strangers that we diminish that quality of life for those nearest and dearest to us. This argues that we cannot put others before the people who are here in our own country, but in my opinion why not? There will always be someone willing to lend a helping hand, but most countries do not have that because everyone is doing just as bad there. So why be greedy? It kind of made me reflect on the video Michael presented for his Ethics in a Favorite Song. We today are so caught up in greed, which we forget to help others and the virtues that matter most.

Death Penalty

In Helen Prejean’s essay “Crime Victims on the Anvil of Pain”, she made a very good point that the death penalty is just another killing and that it clearly doesn’t do anything for the criminal and from her experience it doesn’t do anything for the victims families either. Only last year did I decide that I was definitely opposed to the death penalty, but I never really considered how the killing affected the families of the victim’s. I was originally opposed to it because it was another killing and almost an “easy” way out. However, Prejean made me also see that not only is it another killing, but it also doesn’t provide much comfort to the victim’s families. Helen Prejean attended a meeting for families who have lost their child and many of the families witnessed their child’s killer be put to death. What she saw is that even though their child’s murderer is now dead, they still grieve just as much for their child as they did before. The death of the murderer does nothing to bring back or even ease the pain of the loss of a child. 

Abortion:Sarah Day

I learned a lot of arguments supporting pro-life and pro-choice while reading my reading about abortion and the value of a person! The main idea in my reading was "what is the value of a person" and how do you choose between the rights of the mother and the little tiny baby inside! This is a very tough decision, deciding the importance of one person over another "person"and throughout this article many different arguments are made. One of the argument  I found really interested was a counter argument to the Pro-choice argument for the baby inside not being a person yet. The argument ties in the protection of animals. Saying that  even though animals  like dogs and cats aren't people and don't possess the same rights people do it still isn't right o torture them and hurt them and even kill them.They related this to the babies. Saying even if they aren't people it's still wrong to kill them! After reading all of these arguments I think when it comes down to abortion it can go either way. And it is hard to distinguish the value of one person over another. 

Abortion

An interesting fact I learned in my research of abortion is the argument that Jane English presents in "Abortion and the Concept of a Person."  She has a hypothetical situation where a mad scientist has hypnotized innocent people and is making them do whatever he wants. If the scientist then orders one of the hypnotees to kidnap a person who is a highly trained surgeon, and bring him back to the scientist who will block all his knowledge of medicine.  English argues that it would then be OK to kill the innocent hypnotized attacker because it presents harm your future.  She says this is the same thing as aborting a baby who may ruin your future, but I don't think so because a baby can be given up for adoption and does not have to be killed to protect your future.

Anna: Reproductive Technologies and Cloning

From the article "Parenting in the Age of Genetics," I learned that researchers are on track to discovering the gene that could possibly determine homosexuality. The moral issue is that, if manipulable, should parents be allowed to change the gene of their child? One argument is that the parents might want to change the gene so that their child has an "easier" life on earth, free from the controversy and drama found in the homosexual battle for rights. On the other hand, people who are against reproductive technologies argue that we should not be allowed to manipulate the genes of our children because it is unnatural, and could cause problems for the children later in life. I believe that we should not be allowed to manipulate the genes of our children because then, not only could children potentially become very sick from such tampering, most people would probably choose to have children that are "perfect." The problem with this is that parents would put too much pressure on their children to be perfect, and possibly take away the child's freedom.

Reproductive technologies and cloning

I was surprised by the view of this book. I thought this book was going to present both arguments equally but it seems that the entire book is one sided. For stem cell research most of it is against it but doesnt take into account the possible medical advantages of stem cell research. We can cure so many diseases that dont have a cure through stem cell research and cloning. I understand the advantages and disadvantages and moral issues of these problems. Then again I feel the book should present the evidence for and against each issue and let the reader decide on their own instead of trying to persuade the reader.

Polk: Capitol Punishment (Death Penalty)

  When I was reading our first article in the book Contemporary Moral Issues by Lawrence H.  Hinman,  I noticed one argument that I found surprising.  In the introduction, the section labeled The Empirical Findings said something that kind of shocked me.  It said that the death penalty deterred crime and studies have proved it.  Some studies suggest that it saves between 7-8 lives a year. Other studies show that states with the death penalty have less capitol offenses than the ones that do; North and South Dakota are perfect examples.  I was pretty skeptical about this argument.  In my opinion,  the last thing on a murderers mind is ohh I might get the death penalty so I wont do this.  When you murder someone, I believe most criminals are assuming that they will escape and have no consequences.  Who would murder if they knew it for sure meant life in prison or the death penalty?  I am very interested to do more research about what studies uncovered this info. While I am skeptical, I am certainly open to all arguments.

Marisa: Race and Diversity

The topic I'm focusing on is race and diversity. In the essay "Beyond Mestizaje: The Future of Race in America," written by Gregory Velazco y Trianosky, I was surprised by how he said Americans classify ourselves. Velazco argues that there are only white Americans and "nonwhite" Americans, more specifically usually white and black, and if you are American you are automatically classified into one of those two groups. I've never really thought about it, but it really is how I think. At first I disagreed, saying there are whites, blacks, Asians, Africans, Mexicans, etc., but then I realized I was just classifying all those other groups as "nonwhites." Velazco argued that people could change their classification, usually only by assimilating into white culture and leaving behind whatever culture they came from. One of the groups he focused on for this was the Irish immigrant group. They were previously considered "inside out" black people but now are seen as a type of white person.  He also said that people like him, those classified as Nuevo Mestizaje's, are currently considered black, but in future years may turn to be considered white. I think it's interesting how we just classify all Americans and immigrants into one of two groups, but how those opinions can change with some changed strategies. I think we should be more conscious of who we classify and what we classify them as, as our thinking may be about temporary issues, the times evolve, and people change their minds over classifications. This was really interesting to me and hopefully it interests you!
 

Using this class blog, read and respond to three of your classmates’ posts about their ethical topics. Make sure that every student’s posting has one or more responses, so favor writings that have no or few responses. I encourage you to respond to a student who has a different topic than your own. Make sure that your response:

• Is deeply thought and clearly written.
• Is respectful, but which questions any unsubstantiated assumptions and/or incomplete thinking by the student.
• Has examples and/or evidence of your own to substantiate your response.

 Post your responses on our class blog.

Homework assignment due Wednesday, November 7.

By this time, you should have read some introductory articles about your chosen ethical topic. Describe in detail one argument or idea from your readings that particularly surprised or impressed you. It can be an idea that you agree or disagree with, but it should be one that you hadn’t considered before, or that you hadn’t considered fully in your original opinions about this topic. Be sure that your writing:

• Attributes the person (cites the source) whose idea or argument this is.
• Explains clearly the idea or argument
• Uses some of the evidence and examples the original source used to make his or her case for this idea.
• Is sufficiently complex to warrant your attention.

Post your writing on our class blog.