DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
PHI1630 Contemporary Ethical Problems - Shanghai Summer 2019
HTML https://phi1630shanghai19.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18--------------------------------------------------
Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
DIR By: Xiaoyu Zhang
Date: July 12, 2019, 8:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, we can see a new world
that there is a high level of material civilization, and
everything is automated. People don't worry about food and
clothing and enjoy the most comfortable life. Every day after
work, they can take a private supersonic plane to travel around
the world for holidays. Economic prosperity and enjoyment of
life have become the only philosophy and religion of the whole
society. Henry Ford, the first pipelining producer, was regarded
as the new God. As science develops, people has realized the
enormous productivity brought by science, has enjoyed the rich
material products produced by the assembly line, at the same
time, found the vulnerability of this mode of life: various
unstable factors in human society, ranging from war to illness,
will affect production, which in turn will lead to chaos and
retrogression in society. Therefore, in order to ensure social
stability and prosperity, ensure that all kinds of materials can
be produced continuously, and realize human happiness, it is
necessary to eliminate these unstable factors. So the designer
of the Brave New World uses advanced science and technology to
transform human beings. The transformed human beings are
classified, they are loyal to their own ranks, they can not even
have their own ideas because the designer of "Brave New World"
understands that the key to social stability lies in controlling
people's mind. Freedom of thought is the greatest threat while
the emergence of new trends of thought is often the prelude to
social revolution. It will be very destructive to allow a person
to think freely. Everything in this world is set up: to make
people like what he/she has to do. The goal of all conditions is
to make people like the social destiny they can't escape.
As I read, I wondered: Can the human beings living in this world
really be called "human beings"? When a person's desire is
satisfied, but in exchange for his own thoughts and will, is
this equal to the satisfaction after the completion of the goal?
Let's imagine, the same people, the world without any emotional
fluctuations, all your ways of doing things, your ideas, have
already been conditioned. Are you really a "human"? You are just
a machine that has a human body and educated in batches. Just as
what Huxley says, the world without independent thoughts has no
freedom, the measure of life is not the human body, but the
existence of self-consciousness. Pursuing the satisfaction of
sensory desires blindly, the so-called ideological beliefs are
also inculcated by the rulers, having no self-will, such
existence can not really be called "human".
#Post#: 19--------------------------------------------------
Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
DIR By: Zhou Chang
Date: July 12, 2019, 9:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I disagree David’s view about drug and privacy. Firstly, he
argued that sometimes the power of criminal law exceed moral
constraints, which violates human rights. It is important to
keep the fairness of criminal law and making sure that it is
executed in right place, which is for the sake of our society.
When laws have extremely authority, the stability of society can
be guaranteed. Human is a complex animals, if we let human right
beyond everything, then government is hard to maintain the order
of the society. Also, laws are respect human rights if they are
legal. For example, if someone hide a murder in his house, and
he refused police’s searching request. It is true that the house
owner has the right to protect the privacy of his house,
however, if the police lets his right over laws, then they can’t
catch the criminal, and he may murder more person when he
escapes. So, when human rights and criminal laws have conflict,
the laws are should always be taken in first place. Secondly, he
argued that paternalism cannot be justified. The interference of
government is necessary because not everyone has the right moral
education. Without government’s supervision on drugs, those who
have wrong moral action may abuse drugs. Now we assume the right
of taking drugs without interference is promised by government,
then people who abuse drugs will hurt others and make a bad
influence on the society because drugster can’t control their
actions and moral standards are nothing for them. In conclusion,
I disagree David’s arguments for drugs and privacy.
#Post#: 20--------------------------------------------------
Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
DIR By: bobbyfangxingjie
Date: July 12, 2019, 10:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
On page 282-291, the author Jeffery Reiman talks about the
folly of capital punishment. He believes that since capital
punishment costs more than life in prison in America, by
rationality, people should all choose life long imprisonment
instead of death penalty. “Thus, his arguments goes, we must
follow common sense, which teaches that the higher the cost of
something, the fewer people would choose it.” (Abelson 282).
However, although life imprisonment costs less than capital
punishment, sometimes capital punishment are still needed for
certain people.
Recently, there was a famous news about a series killer in
China, that aroused a lot of public concerns. A few years ago,
he was put in prison because he raped a girl, who was abou ten
years old. For that, he was put in prison for ten years.
However, since he performed well inside the prison, he was
released after five years. Then, a few weeks later, he raped and
killed another young girl. After that, he confessed his crime to
the police. If he did not do that, he would be put a life long
imprisonment. However, since he confessed honestly, he received
a reduce in his penalty. After several years, he came out from
prison again and people think he would not do that kind of thing
again. Then, surprisingly, he raped another girl and kill her.
From this situation, we could find out that sometimes
death penalty is needed for some people like this. They do not
care about imprisonment, and they just want to do what they
want, and death penalty is for this kind people.
#Post#: 22--------------------------------------------------
Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
DIR By: haoruli
Date: July 12, 2019, 10:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would like talk about Paternalism. On Dworkin pp. 385-400, we
can know that paternalism is the interference of a state or an
individual with another person, against their will, and defended
or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be
better off or protected from harm. The issue of paternalism
arises with respect to restrictions by the law such as anti-drug
legislation, the compulsory wearing of seat-belts, and in
medical contexts by the withholding of relevant information
concerning a patient’s condition by physicians.
I think paternalism involves limitation on the freedom or
autonomy of some agent. Many government measures aimed at
changing the behavior of individuals entail some level of
coercion. That is, they require governments to restrict the
choices of their citizens in certain areas. It indicates that
the government is better able to make decisions in a person’s
interests than the person themselves which is contradicted with
the idea that the individual is best placed to know what is in
his or her interests.
In my opinion, it is better for individuals to be able to
exercise choice because this enables them to cultivate and
exercise moral autonomy. And, where the state does intervene in
people’s lives, taking away their ability to make their own
choices, undermines their ability to learn from their mistakes
and to develop as morally responsible citizens.
Haoru Li
#Post#: 23--------------------------------------------------
Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
DIR By: yeqiyang
Date: July 12, 2019, 10:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor
abuse. When a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes.
However, after a drug dealer is arrested, it remains unchanged
for the supply and demand of the market. The arrest only creates
an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who would like to take
the risk to create profits. It costs billions of dollars every
year from tax payers but drug become more widely used in these
years. By eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults, we
may focus on the crimes or violences in law enforcement which
may further establishing appropriate regulations. Such crimes
like murder, child abuse and aggravated assault may further
controlled and thus our communities will be safer. Non-violent
drug use destroy families and with better regulations, drugs
will be less accessible for children and safer for adults.
Placing drug abuse in the hands of doctors instead of criminal
justice system will reduces rates of addiction and deaths. With
the money in better purpose, black market and drug cartels will
be suppressed rather than benefit. Furthermore, the job
opportunity created by drug legalization gives way for potent
criminals and drug dealer a way to survive rather than taking
risk in committing crimes.
#Post#: 24--------------------------------------------------
Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
DIR By: libo
Date: July 12, 2019, 11:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Government like nazi and Japanese, their act was not a example
of death penalty, it’s rather called a race purification, since
their people did nothing wrong and they are just not qualify for
that supreme race. Even though I think death penalty should not
be murder, act of Nazi is.
#Post#: 25--------------------------------------------------
Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
DIR By: libo
Date: July 12, 2019, 11:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree that there’s not a thing called absolute free
will. Once you know what is happening and try to predict the
outcome, your decision was influenced by your prediction. Every
happens for a reason, and there was a chain effect, your
decision are the most logically suitable part of the chain
effect, thus, I agree there’s no free will exists.
#Post#: 26--------------------------------------------------
Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
DIR By: libo
Date: July 12, 2019, 11:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
First of all, I don’t think abortion is illegals or moral. The
unborn baby is part of your body, I I think once your part of
body got sick&, you deserve the right to deal with that part.
Either leaving it alone, or cut it off. However, that part of
yours could potentially being a human being. That makes us think
the part of body is unique and be more cautious. My point is, if
there’s andy thing we have to do with your own body, it’s their
own decison
#Post#: 27--------------------------------------------------
Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
DIR By: Qi Wang
Date: July 13, 2019, 8:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in
saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall
not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do
with it. It is from Mill in page 385. I think he is half right
and half wrong. It is true that parents are the first teachers
for kids. During this period, parents tell kids how to perform
in any situations. Kids always do what their parents tell them
to do. In this way, kids become the creature of ripe years. They
do not react by their wills or wishes. It’s the truth. In my
opinion, it is good for kids to follow their parents’ directions
in their early periods for the simple reason that they have no
idea what the morality is. They may act what they like. Most of
actions are impolite and may offend other people unconsciously.
For example, kids are likely to argue with other kids to get one
toy. They do not know how to share with others at all. In this
situation, it is necessary to be taught by adults for kids. By
learning, they could make fewer mistakes and act politely.
Sometimes they just have no idea to deal things in a more proper
way.
Also, kids could not make decisions by themselves wisely at all.
They are more likely to do things they like. They will be easily
attracted by the candy advertisement or some new toys. They are
very curious to all things when they are young and naïve.
However, when they grow up, they can make their own decisions by
themselves. I do not think things they learn when they are kids
will affect their decisions. If so, everyone would not be so
struggling when they need to make decisions. They have already
known how to deal with these situations. For example, Jobs, the
founder of Apple, quit the Stanford University. He must make the
decision for himself and his own benefits. He thought it was
useless to spend time in university. He wanted to do something
cool. I do not think parents will teach their kids to quit
university at all. In this way, he did it for his own benefits.
Ripe years only help people to know values and norms. However,
every individual must make their own decision by themselves.
#Post#: 28--------------------------------------------------
Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
DIR By: xzz0427
Date: July 14, 2019, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the idea that euthanasia cannot be consider as a
form of suicide. According to the definition, suicide refers to
the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and
intentionally. Voluntarily literally means without being forced.
For me, suicide is an consequence that is taken by oneself
during the whole process, including considering and acting.
Although that euthanasia should agree by patient himself or
herself, the final execution should be still done by medical
staff. We don’t know that if the patient still want to die until
the last second of the injection. Once people agree to get
euthanasia and sign the contract , the patient’s destiny become
fixed. Not like suicide, people still have a period of time
before they die. So the suicide and euthanasia are two different
idea.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page