DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
PHI1630 Contemporary Ethical Problems - Shanghai Summer 2019
HTML https://phi1630shanghai19.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 29--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Lingxiu Ji
Date: July 14, 2019, 7:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps because of the propaganda, I was convinced that drug is
something that can be so harmful to the society that it should
be banned 100%. However, I studied in America, where various
kinds of drugs are acceptable. Just a few years ago, New York
States, the state which I’m living in, allowed people to carry
100 g of weed on the street. After such a decision I’m not so
concerned. There are so many students in my university smoke
weed in the night the day before and go to the class seems
without any influence. I also leant from my psychology classes
that weed has actually less toxicity than alcohol. In fact,
marijuana is less addicted and less toxocarid than alcohol,
cigarette, and even cocaine. I used to believe that all drug
should be banned, and anyone who use drug is considered to be
immoral, until I heard the examples of Portuguese. Portuguese
use to have a huge drug problem and after it decriminalize all
the drug, the problem goes away. At 2000, every 104 people in a
million of its citizens died from drug usage. Now, it’s only 3
people compare to the average of EU, which is 10 people.
However, in China, this discussion is inappropriate, we need to
consider the the history of China, especially the history when
Chinese citizens are referred as
“东亚病夫”, and the recent history of
Chinese government’s strong regulation and prohibition of drugs.
Talking about decriminalizing drugs in China is inappropriate,
irresponsible and impossible.
#Post#: 30--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Chris Wang yipeng
Date: July 17, 2019, 12:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
About Abortion- Chris Wang (Yipeng)
Should abortion be legal. “open-textured and flexible… but
intolerable that a creature is not a person simply because it is
in the interest of others [to regard it so]” (Devine 243-244) in
page 234 Devine talked about why abortion should not be allowed,
as it is killing a fetus, same as killing a person. I would not
agree with that. abortion should be banned after a certain time
the woman got pregnant. the way of not given woman a choice to
keep or not keep the baby is not fair in certain situation. What
if the woman was being raped and get pregnant. What if the girl
was too young to have a baby. What if there is a very high risk
to for the mother to birth the fetus. Even now some of the
countries has the rule of illegal to do abortion after 20 weeks.
i would think when it risk the mother's life to birth the fetus.
The family should still have the choice to do abortion. Also
about Warren's idea: Abortion is “no different from cutting
one’s hair”, because a fetus is not a person. I would not agree
with him either. This idea is too heartless and cold blood. If
you choose to have a baby. just killing it with no reason would
be unaccepted for most people, which is inhumanity. Devine's
idea was too extreme as well. as my personal opinion, there was
no right, right are created by people's benefits. therefore we
should not have something affirmed. I mean what we have now the
law of abortion might be the best way for society's benefit,
even you are in a states in USA that is not allowed abortion can
still go to another state to do it. Things are always flexible
only if you reach the bottom line.
#Post#: 31--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Chris Wang yipeng
Date: July 17, 2019, 12:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
“Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in
saying to another human creature of ripe years, that shall not
do with his life for his own benefit what be choose to do with
it” - said Mill. I agree with Mill. Isn’t paternalism just a
way to force people. Given it a acceptable philosophy name? How
do you determine wether it is beneficial to that individual ?
Human are too persist in self benefit. Most people, to be
precise. As it says on Google, examples of paternalism in
everyday life are laws which require seat belts, wearing helmets
while riding a motorcycle, and banning certain drugs. but what I
think it is a way to restrict others, it should be belong to
some other idea, but not as a individual idea of philosophy.
letting other doing things is against individual's negative
right. A negative paternalistic explanation of slavery is one
that claims that slave holders held slaves because they believed
it was in the slaves best interest or an explanation that claims
that slaves viewed their masters in a manner similar to the way
children see their guardians. which is against human right. How
do you define if a person has the ability or not that they need
others to take care of them, and to determine for them. Everyone
is born free and equal. Society has made them different, and
society has conduct paternalism for the moral and utilitarian
purpose. I believe human don't even has the real right, right
only exist when people are together, there should not be any
positive right, only negative rights make sense under a society.
Therefore I agree with Mill that Paternalism shall not hold.
#Post#: 33--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Xiaoyu Zhang
Date: July 17, 2019, 1:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I kind of agree with Ricardo's ideas about Paternalism. The
purpose of paternalism is for the welfare, needs and interests
of the relative people. It can be divided into two situations:
one is to prevent people from self-harm, the other is to enhance
people's interests while its measures restrict the freedom or
rights of the relative people to varying degrees. However, some
laws or policies are public welfare from a social point of view
and paternalism from a personal point of view.
For Ricardo's idea about "it is better for individuals to be
able to exercise choice", I think because of the unreliability
of many human choices, we should not assume that the
instrumentalist view of free choice is persuasive in all
contexts. I think we do should respect personal choices, but can
individuals really know where their interests lie under any
circumstances? Or we can say, is it right that people make
decisions at least better than third parties do for themselves?
This claim is not supported in real life and we can't give a
clear answer. In the case of smokers, alcoholics and bulimics,
their choices cannot be rationally considered as the best way to
improve their good life, which is, in these circumstances,
people's choices cannot be considered the best choice to improve
their welfare.
Therefore, I cannot choose a specific side to say whether
Paternalism or self choice would be better, just as Dworkin says
at the end of the article: "If there is an alternative way of
accomplishing the desired end without restricting liberty
although it may involve great expense, inconvenience, etc. the
society must adopt it.".
#Post#: 34--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: haoruli
Date: July 17, 2019, 2:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree Xiaoyu’s opinion about Aldous Huxley's Brave New World:
a new world that there is a high level of material civilization,
and everything is automated, and people don't worry about food
and clothing and enjoy the most comfortable life. She points out
the question that can the human beings living in this world
really be called "human beings" when a person's desire is
satisfied. She quotes Huxley’s idea that 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 cannot really be called
"human".
It is true that people are just a machine that has a human body
and educated in batches without personal interest and self-will.
This can be related to paternalism. 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.
If the government makes all decisions for their citizens, it
will create a society just like Huxley's Brave New World which
human-beings will exist without meaning.
Haoru Li
#Post#: 35--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: bobbyfangxingjie
Date: July 17, 2019, 5:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I wan to reply to #14 by yeqiyang, which talks about the
prohibition of drugs. We can not deny the fact that sometimes
the prohibition of drugs of adults costs a lot, and it is kind
of useless when we see the result of drug prohibition. The fact
that it does not stop the usage of drugs kind of support that
government should put more funds at other things rather than put
so many money in to drug related movements. However, personally
I still believe that drug prohibition still needs to exist. The
main reason why I believe this is because if the law forbids
people from using drugs, it give out the kind of information
that drug is bad for people. If drugs are no longer illegal,
people will have the will of the temptation of drugs. People
would treat drugs as a less harmful and more attractive item.
The allure of drugs my attract more and more people to try and
then get addicted with it. Although the law that stops people
from drugs does not have a significant effect, it still sets a
wall for the majority of people to get in touch with drugs, and
this is very helpful, since it stops more people from addicting
within drugs.
#Post#: 36--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Zhou Chang
Date: July 17, 2019, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
“In order to state the argument of the opponent of assisted
suicide and euthanasia in its strongest form and to avoid
unnecessary complexity in exposition, I shall focus in this
section on euthanasia. The claim that any individual instance of
euthanasia is a case of deliberate killing of an innocent person
is, with only minor qualifications, correct. Unlike forgoing
life-sustaining treatment, commonly understood as allowing to
die, euthanasia is clearly killing,understood as depriving of
life or causing the death of a living being. While providing
morphine for pain relief at doses where the risk of respiratory
depression and an earlier death may be a foreseen but unintended
side effect of treating the patient's pain, in a case of
euthanasia the patient's death is deliberate or intended even if
in both the physician's ultimate end may be respecting the
patient's wishes If the deliberate killing of an innocent person
is wrong,euthanasia would be nearly always impermissible.
In the context of medicine, the ethical prohibition against
deliberately killing the innocent derives some of its
plausibility from the belief that nothing in the currently
accepted practice of medicine is deliberate killing. thus, in
commenting on the It's Over Debbie"case in which a resident
deliberately gave a patient a lethal dose of morphine, four
prominent physicians and bioethicists, led by Willard Gaylin,
could entitle their paper "Doctors Must No Kill. The belief that
doctors do not kill requires the corollary belief that forgoing
life-sustaining treatment, whether by not starting or by
stopping treatment, is allowing to die, not killing. Common
though this view is, I shall argue that it is confused and
mistaken. Typical cases of stopping life-sustaining treatment
are killing, not allowing to die, although they are cases of
ethically justified killing. But if so, that shows that an
unqualified ethical prohibition of the deliberate killing of
innocent persons is indefensible and must be revised.” Page 194,
“assisted suicide and euthanasia are deliberate killing of an
innocent person.”
Comment:
The writer claims “euthanasia is clearly killing, understood as
depriving of life or causing the death of a living being”. He
stands for the argument that euthanasia is deliberate killing of
an innocent person. Life is not so sacred that it must never be
taken. It depends on different situation. If a patient get a
unbearable suffering from a terminally ill, and he can't live
for a long time because it is incurable. He would like to choose
euthanasia, then euthanasia is not killing but an act or method
to end suffering painlessly. This is the patient’s own will. If
euthanasia is not permitted by the patient, then it is not
right. It also allows the patient to retain their dignity. It
gives greater weight to respecting the patient’s right of
control or self-determination regarding his or her own life.
Last year, a famous host in Tai Wan choose to end his life by
euthanasia. He asked both his families and doctors’ permission.
Then he drink the medicine with his families company and died in
peace. This news triggers a lot of attention in Tai Wan’s
society, got supporting from many people. It shows that people
have a great understanding on euthanasia. The host can't afford
the suffering and the huge money of medical care, and his ill is
incurable, so his family respected his decision to end his pain
by his own willing.
The writer also mentioned the case of “It’s over Debbie”. A
resident deliberately gave a patient a lethal dose of morphine
which caused death of Debbie. Using morphine is moral if the aim
of this resident is reliving the girl’s pain. But he knew that
over dose of morphine will cause death, it is killing on purpose
and against the girl’s will. Also her ill is curable. It’s
murder, not euthanasia.
In the case of euthanasia, the choice rests fully with the
patients and it will not take place without patients desire. But
in the case of Debbie, she didn't choose euthanasia and she
wasn’t told the truth.
#Post#: 37--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Zhou Chang
Date: July 17, 2019, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I want to take a comment on #1 reply from bobbyfangxingjie. I
share the same opinion with him about categorical imperative.
"imperative" is something that a person must do. For example: if
a person wants to stop being hungry, it is imperative that they
have to eat. Kant said an imperative is "categorical," when it
is true at all times, and in all situations. So Bobby’s examples
well explained the contradictory of Kant’s theory. By his
inspiration, I have some ideas. People make decisions based on
what is good or bad for society. It makes you obliged to
something that may not for your own good. For example, scarify
your life for saving someone else. An important part of Kant's
idea is that the morality of a choice is not based on what
happens after we make it. But he also thought that ethical
decisions needed to be based in logic and reason. Sacrificed
people’s own good is not follow the normal logic. So Kant’s
theory is hard to bring to reality.
#Post#: 38--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: unmusedsr
Date: July 17, 2019, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
-
In my own point of view, I think animals have rights and should
be treated equally as human. In the textbook, the author argues
that animals should have equal rights as human and being
vegetarian is not supererogatory, but obligatory (Raziel,452). I
personally think it is necessary for human to have this idea in
their minds since humans are animals too. Moreover, in the
textbook, the author stated that farm animals are not treated
with respects and farmers and consumers only view them as the
money source and food. The main point is to deliver this idea to
the society and let people be aware of this issue, although it
is impossible to wake up next morning and every meat industry
gets shut down and everyone becomes an vegetarian, the
relationship between humans and animals should be re-examined.
Furthermore, animal-testing is always a controversial topic in
today’s society, though scientist have sufficient evidences to
support their action, I think it is immoral to test anything on
animals. Transpositional consideration should be mentioned
during any testing, if fails, then it disobeys the morality of
nature. In addition, a lot of people may claim that it is the
natural law for animals to obey and follow the instructions of
human, but what if the farm animals are the ruler of the Earth?
What will us, the human, feel if they treat us the same way we
treat them? It is important for us to recognize this issue and
make changes.
shuran lin
#Post#: 39--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Baitianyu
Date: July 17, 2019, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do animals have rights
The author in “immoral and moral uses of animals” argue about
the moral questions about how human treat to animals. He asks
questions such as can we do immoral things to animals or do
animals have rights? He first tries to consider the problem from
rationality and ability to communicate. One opinion is
“rationality and the ability to communicate meaningfully with
others are the most commonly mentioned differentiating
characteristics.” Since human can think, talk and act rationally
which animals can’t, animals should not be considered as human
and have rights. Based on this argument, we can treat animals
like nonliving objects. However, the argument also has some
disadvantages. “The trouble is that not all human beings are
rational.” People who have mental problems, brain-damage human
and even three-year-old child all are irrational, and should we
treat them not as human beings?
The second argument is based on Aristotle which is “Man’s
tyranny over animals is natural because his superiority as an
animal determines for him the dominant position in the natural
scale of things.” Just like what write in the Bible, God
approves us to take control all living animals. If we give up
the dominance over animals, we will deny our nature. The problem
with this argument is that we avoid slavery and child labor, not
because they are unnatural, but because slaves and children have
their own will. So, do animals have their own will and our act
to them is immoral?
Baitianyu Johnny Bai
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page