DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
PHI1630 Contemporary Ethical Problems - Shanghai Summer 2019
HTML https://phi1630shanghai19.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1--------------------------------------------------
Welcome to CreateaForum.com
DIR By: Create A Forum
Date: July 2, 2019, 10:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Create A Forum!
We hope you enjoy using your forum. If you have any problems,
please feel free to visit
HTML https://support.createaforum.com
to
ask us for assistance.
Thanks!
Create A Forum
#Post#: 12--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
DIR By: libo
Date: July 5, 2019, 10:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Page 169-189, this is a short science-fiction story. There’s
couple questions I want to discuss. I know in those kind story
we are forced into doing some moral choice like this, so I have
get rid of any other possible solution, like the situation in
the “train” story.
As in utilitarianism approach, in order to maximizing the
benefit, the best choice for them is to throw the little girl
out the window, which would save other five’s life. And they
did, also they are following the conventionalism approach, they
are on a mission and no matter what it takes, they should follow
the command. Here is my question, what if that was not a little
girl, instead, it was an animal(dog/cat/bear), and captain has
huge connection to it. Does he still choose to throw it out the
window. I guess he could not make choices in that circumstance.
So the point is, anything , a living creature or a object, once
there’s relation or emotion associated with it, people tend to
hesitate, that is the virtue doing the work. In the end, they
throw the girl out the window, she does not have a connection to
the captain. That is why she got throw out in my opinion.
Libo cheng
#Post#: 15--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
DIR By: Lingxiu Ji
Date: July 11, 2019, 8:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“A U.S. tourist, driving through a central American country
ruled by a cruel dictator, stops in a village where twenty
rebellious peasants are lined up against a wall, facing a firing
squad. The commanding officer approached the tourist and offers
to spare nineteen of the rebels if the tourist takes the
officer’s revolver and shoots one of the rebels. Compared to the
dilemma facing the pilot of the spaceship in “The Cold
Equations,” is the tourist’s moral dilemma more, less or equally
difficult to resolve morally? Defend your position as you
compare the two situations.”
------ p.188 Ethics for Modern Life, Raziel Friquegnon
The question is whether a U.S. tourist will go and execute one
of the rebels in a nation of the dictator in Central America in
order to save the other nineteen. First, if the tourist is
following Divine command. Majority of the Americans are
Christians. The Christian religion teaches people that they
should not kill people. So if the tourist is strictly following
the Divine command, he will not kill the man and save the other
19. However, a single U.S. tourist going to central American,
according to my stereotype, is more likely to come from a rather
liberal state, and holds liberal, non-religious view when making
their act.
If the tourist is a government official or a businessman, he or
she might follow the Utilitarianism, believing that he or she
should do the best for the greatest number. If he wants to the
best for the greatest number of Americans, he will shoot one and
save the others. American’s traditional value is liberal and
democratic, thus opposing any authoritarian states (with
exceptions of the cases that there are great benefits to be
gained). A state that is led by a dictator is by nature U.S.’s
enemy and assuming the enemy of an enemy is a friend because the
tourist doesn’t have enough time to investigate the reason those
20 people are rebelling for, the people rebelling is American’s
friends. And if the tourist shoots one of the rebels and saves
the other, that means saving 19 allies of America, who might
fight for freedom around the world and for American’s interests.
However, the tourist needs to take the credibility of the
commanding officer in an authoritarian nation. If he shoots the
man and the commanding officer ordered his firing squad to keep
shooting. That means that he didn’t save anyone, plus that he’s
now killed one himself. In this case, the cost outweighs the
benefits. He also needs to consider the identity of those twenty
rebels. If one of them is the head of the rebel, he should, when
following utilitarianism, shoot one of the other to save him.
If the tourist is following Kant’s duty theory. He should not
shoot the man and save the others. The act of killing something
is not going to pass CI. If killing something is normalized and
universalized, then the world will be in a state of suffering,
and chaos. So even though the consequence of him or her killing
one is good, he can not do that based on his goodwill, under
Kant’s duty theory.
#Post#: 17--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
DIR By: unmusedsr
Date: July 12, 2019, 2:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: libo link ---
>
> Page 169-189, this is a short science-fiction story. There’s
couple questions I want to discuss. I know in those kind story
we are forced into doing some moral choice like this, so I have
get rid of any other possible solution, like the situation in
the “train” story.
> As in utilitarianism approach, in order to maximizing the
benefit, the best choice for them is to throw the little girl
out the window, which would save other five’s life. And they
did, also they are following the conventionalism approach, they
are on a mission and no matter what it takes, they should follow
the command. Here is my question, what if that was not a little
girl, instead, it was an animal(dog/cat/bear), and captain has
huge connection to it. Does he still choose to throw it out the
window. I guess he could not make choices in that circumstance.
So the point is, anything , a living creature or a object, once
there’s relation or emotion associated with it, people tend to
hesitate, that is the virtue doing the work. In the end, they
throw the girl out the window, she does not have a connection to
the captain. That is why she got throw out in my opinion.
>
> shuran lin
>
>
> Libo cheng
>
--- End Quote ---
First of all, I think you have a very clear point for your
argument, it is easy to follow and make connections of. I
specifically agree with your point on utilitarianism, which
"kill one to save a hundred", valuing personal satisfactions and
cost-benefit worked as the main aim of this ethic theory.
However, in this case, I think the relationship between the
captain and the little girl is debatable. Although the little
girl is not related to the captain, the captain should not throw
her out of the window. If being flexible in different
circumstances is the captain's virtue, then throwing his loved
ones will also be equivalent because it is virtuous and he
should not hesitate. If he knows the negative feelings will come
to him if he decides to throw his loved ones out, then the
little girl should be treated the same. Moreover, humans have
feelings and too complicated to analyze every kind of it, in the
same time it is hard to follow the same standard all the time,
thus in my opinion I think the captain have made the tough
decision between throw the girl or not, but I think there is no
essential difference if the little girl was replaced by someone
or something that is associated with him based on utilitarian's
perspective. Different emotions will be attached to him if the
person is different, but the decision will be the same.
#Post#: 21--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
DIR By: Xuehuan Zhu
Date: July 12, 2019, 10:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
in，Davis.A.j.Richards, SEX, DRUGS, AND PRIVACY; it
mentioned that " To say, therefore, that people have a human
right to use drugs is not to conclude that everyone should
exercise this right." I think this is totally right and easily
understand. it means that every citizen do have right to use
drugs, but it does not mean, or strongly not suggest, that
everyone should use this right to take drugs to experience this.
many people when they begin to take drugs. it is hard for them
to get rid of it. They will be addicted to drugs and destroying
their lives.
in Qing dynasty, ancient China, government did bot forbidden
opium. Almost Everyone take it, because they did not have
correct recognition. Everyone, even officials take it, thus
there is the bad example. Besides, there is no law restriction.
Many people even do not want to take the drug. They are lured
into taking it. Once they taken, they cannot resist the
temptation, so they still taking it, then they get sick. Some
people wanted to take drugs to comfort the disappointment in
real life, so they takes it, this worsen the situation. Of
course, this bad situation might because many England wants to
invade China, so they did that. Also, the main reason is that
there is no law to forbid that. Thus, the situation is that
people in Qing becomes sicker and sicker, many people even died,
and the country becomes weaker. Thus, after that, Qing made a
activity to destroy the opium. The story is remembered by
others.
#Post#: 32--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
DIR By: Qi Wang
Date: July 17, 2019, 12:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Xuehuan Zhu's point. People have rights to use
drugs and they are not supposed to use that right at all. In
China, drugs are illegal and by the government. From my personal
experience, I was taught the disadvantages of taking drugs
overly and got a bad expression about drugs. I always saw the
people who took drugs were very thin and undernourished. Also,
they are more likely to be criminals for the simple reason that
they need to pay for the expensive drugs. Most of them do not
have the ability to earn enough money. Also, by taking the drug,
they are less likely to do difficult work. They just want to
make money quickly. In this way, they have to take some crimes.
Also, social pressure would also be the very important factor to
prevent people from taking drugs. People who take drugs are
considered to be bad and do not do anything at all. The
government also control drugs very strictly. In this way, it is
difficult for people to get drugs. The government have already
know the bad influence of drugs. It will destroy a person's body
and mind. However, it is very different from America. In
America, it’s legal to take drugs. People sometimes take drugs
to help themselves to relax.
#Post#: 40--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
DIR By: Xuehuan Zhu
Date: July 17, 2019, 11:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: libo link ---
>
> Page 169-189, this is a short science-fiction story. There’s
couple questions I want to discuss. I know in those kind story
we are forced into doing some moral choice like this, so I have
get rid of any other possible solution, like the situation in
the “train” story.
> As in utilitarianism approach, in order to maximizing the
benefit, the best choice for them is to throw the little girl
out the window, which would save other five’s life. And they
did, also they are following the conventionalism approach, they
are on a mission and no matter what it takes, they should follow
the command. Here is my question, what if that was not a little
girl, instead, it was an animal(dog/cat/bear), and captain has
huge connection to it. Does he still choose to throw it out the
window. I guess he could not make choices in that circumstance.
So the point is, anything , a living creature or a object, once
there’s relation or emotion associated with it, people tend to
hesitate, that is the virtue doing the work. In the end, they
throw the girl out the window, she does not have a connection to
the captain. That is why she got throw out in my opinion.
>
>
> Libo cheng
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree with lido's idea. in that situation,by utilitarianism
ethics, it is right to abandon that girl, because we needs to
get the most benefit in lowest cost. So there is no doubt that
he abandon the girl to save other people's life. However by
Kant's idea, it is wrong, we can not kill one's life to save
others, because it is immoral. Everyone is equal, it is unfair
that we did that. There is also another question that how we
measure the utility, we think that the girl's utility is
smaller, because there is only one person, and she is young.
what about there is another special situation that she can get
high achievement in the future, that it is higher even plus
other's achievement, then did we do wrong. it is hard because we
do not know the future. so is there a way to consider all
situation or did author consider this situation in this
question? Also, by other's idea, it is right because there can
be exception, and I think this is the special situation, and by
convention, we may be not do that, because we may not let a girl
died, we will let a not elder male die instead.
#Post#: 45--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
DIR By: yeqiyang
Date: July 17, 2019, 9:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this idea of equality with everyone. The value of
lives cannot be calculated by the number or age. A elder man has
equal weight with 5 young men. Sacrificing one elder for 5 young
men is not acceptable.
#Post#: 48--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
DIR By: yeqiyang
Date: July 17, 2019, 9:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Lingxiu Ji link ---
>
> “A U.S. tourist, driving through a central American country
ruled by a cruel dictator, stops in a village where twenty
rebellious peasants are lined up against a wall, facing a firing
squad. The commanding officer approached the tourist and offers
to spare nineteen of the rebels if the tourist takes the
officer’s revolver and shoots one of the rebels. Compared to the
dilemma facing the pilot of the spaceship in “The Cold
Equations,” is the tourist’s moral dilemma more, less or equally
difficult to resolve morally? Defend your position as you
compare the two situations.”
>
> ------ p.188 Ethics for Modern Life, Raziel Friquegnon
>
>
>
> The question is whether a U.S. tourist will go and execute one
of the rebels in a nation of the dictator in Central America in
order to save the other nineteen. First, if the tourist is
following Divine command. Majority of the Americans are
Christians. The Christian religion teaches people that they
should not kill people. So if the tourist is strictly following
the Divine command, he will not kill the man and save the other
19. However, a single U.S. tourist going to central American,
according to my stereotype, is more likely to come from a rather
liberal state, and holds liberal, non-religious view when making
their act.
>
> If the tourist is a government official or a businessman, he
or she might follow the Utilitarianism, believing that he or she
should do the best for the greatest number. If he wants to the
best for the greatest number of Americans, he will shoot one and
save the others. American’s traditional value is liberal and
democratic, thus opposing any authoritarian states (with
exceptions of the cases that there are great benefits to be
gained). A state that is led by a dictator is by nature U.S.’s
enemy and assuming the enemy of an enemy is a friend because the
tourist doesn’t have enough time to investigate the reason those
20 people are rebelling for, the people rebelling is American’s
friends. And if the tourist shoots one of the rebels and saves
the other, that means saving 19 allies of America, who might
fight for freedom around the world and for American’s interests.
However, the tourist needs to take the credibility of the
commanding officer in an authoritarian nation. If he shoots the
man and the commanding officer ordered his firing squad to keep
shooting. That means that he didn’t save anyone, plus that he’s
now killed one himself. In this case, the cost outweighs the
benefits. He also needs to consider the identity of those twenty
rebels. If one of them is the head of the rebel, he should, when
following utilitarianism, shoot one of the other to save him.
>
> If the tourist is following Kant’s duty theory. He should not
shoot the man and save the others. The act of killing something
is not going to pass CI. If killing something is normalized and
universalized, then the world will be in a state of suffering,
and chaos. So even though the consequence of him or her killing
one is good, he can not do that based on his goodwill, under
Kant’s duty theory.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree with the idea of utilitarian ethics since we have to
secure our own lives then we may pursue scoring others' lives.
Since we ar asked to shoot some rebellions, those people are
dead even we refuse to do so since they have been arrested by
the cruel dictator. The only way to pursue the greatest kind is
to follow the order of the dictator and manage to acquire his
trust. We may rescue others only by following that way. Thus,
shooting is not immoral
#Post#: 50--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
DIR By: fjontk
Date: July 18, 2019, 12:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Xuehuan Zhu link ---
>
> in，Davis.A.j.Richards, SEX, DRUGS, AND PRIVACY; it
mentioned that " To say, therefore, that people have a human
right to use drugs is not to conclude that everyone should
exercise this right." I think this is totally right and easily
understand. it means that every citizen do have right to use
drugs, but it does not mean, or strongly not suggest, that
everyone should use this right to take drugs to experience this.
many people when they begin to take drugs. it is hard for them
to get rid of it. They will be addicted to drugs and destroying
their lives.
> in Qing dynasty, ancient China, government did bot forbidden
opium. Almost Everyone take it, because they did not have
correct recognition. Everyone, even officials take it, thus
there is the bad example. Besides, there is no law restriction.
Many people even do not want to take the drug. They are lured
into taking it. Once they taken, they cannot resist the
temptation, so they still taking it, then they get sick. Some
people wanted to take drugs to comfort the disappointment in
real life, so they takes it, this worsen the situation. Of
course, this bad situation might because many England wants to
invade China, so they did that. Also, the main reason is that
there is no law to forbid that. Thus, the situation is that
people in Qing becomes sicker and sicker, many people even died,
and the country becomes weaker. Thus, after that, Qing made a
activity to destroy the opium. The story is remembered by
others.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree with Davis' argument of the rights to use drugs too, but
I still want to argue the feasibility of this moral standard.
This discussion can dig back to the definition of rights. The
question I have is that if a human right have negative effects
toward human society, should that right still consider to be a
right? Also, if the government agree with the idea of the right
of drugs, should the government make drugs legal? If not, what
is the meaning of agreeing humans' right of using drugs?
In my opinion, the reality meaning of discussing human rights to
protect human species and to protect people from hurting each
other. We human cannot always realize the result of our action,
therefore, we hurt others' feeling and even existence without
realizing it. The meaning of human right is to prevent these
unnecessary damages. Therefore, drug should be illegal and the
discussion of the rights of using drug is not that important in
determine its legality. The main problem of drugs is illusion.
After taking drugs, people lose their ability to control
themselves. Many criminals commit crime without intention since
they are high. Some people might sat that most drug users are
not criminals, but I believe that it is too late to prohibit
drug after it becomes the source of criminal.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1