On Monday, we began our discussion on nature vs. nurture. Nikki said that she thought it was a mix between both nature and nurture which I agree. I thought that I would be the only person who was indecisive with this issue, but I was wrong.
Also, we talked about the language determinant. Does it have an effect or not? When reading the readings we were given, I thought language was not a very important determinant. Although after our discussion, I am starting to think otherwise. The example of a "Happy Meal" swayed my opinion. To Americans and other countries we think McDonald's. However, countries that do not have McDonalds just think a meal that was happy/good.
I believe that to an extent language has an influence. Different languages have different interpretations of words. In fact, even some Spanish dialects have different meanings for the same words. I am looking forward to continuing our discussion today.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Primary Determinant Factor
What is our primary determinant factor? Well, I am not exactly sure. I cannot just choose one primary determinant. To me, each of the determinants alone does not have enough evidence to make it the primary determinant. However, I believe that nature and nurture are both the primary determinants of human nature.
I believe that nurture has validity because parents do shape who we become. Each of us has a personality trait from each of our parents; it is a given. They are the one's that raise up and help us to become the best people we can be. Also, I believe that nurture has its validity because science proves that. In the article from Wikipedia, "Nature vs. Nurture" it states that, "In many cases it has been found that genes may have a substantial contribution, including psychological traits such as intelligence and personality." ("Nature vs. Nurture 2). This statement proves to me that to an extent, nurture does influence us and that is why it should I believe it is part of the primary determinant of human nature.
Also, I believe that nature has equal validity. First of all, I believe that nature helps us become the individuals we are. Without nature, we would be carbon copies of our parents. Nature helps us explore and find ourselves. Nature is our "escape" for the mold our parents gave us. It helps form our "final mold" that helps us define ourselves. Nature is inevitability going to influence who we become. This is why I believe it is part of the primary determinant factor.
I look forward to hearing other people's views on this issue tomorrow.
I believe that nurture has validity because parents do shape who we become. Each of us has a personality trait from each of our parents; it is a given. They are the one's that raise up and help us to become the best people we can be. Also, I believe that nurture has its validity because science proves that. In the article from Wikipedia, "Nature vs. Nurture" it states that, "In many cases it has been found that genes may have a substantial contribution, including psychological traits such as intelligence and personality." ("Nature vs. Nurture 2). This statement proves to me that to an extent, nurture does influence us and that is why it should I believe it is part of the primary determinant of human nature.
Also, I believe that nature has equal validity. First of all, I believe that nature helps us become the individuals we are. Without nature, we would be carbon copies of our parents. Nature helps us explore and find ourselves. Nature is our "escape" for the mold our parents gave us. It helps form our "final mold" that helps us define ourselves. Nature is inevitability going to influence who we become. This is why I believe it is part of the primary determinant factor.
I look forward to hearing other people's views on this issue tomorrow.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Where are they now? (Faces of the Enemy version) and Questions
Yesterday, we discussed what the interviewees of "Faces of the Enemy" did after the documentary. It was very interesting to here what happened.
I was very surprised, yet relieved in a strange way that David Rice had not died. It was nice to hear that his sentencing was dropped for the death penalty to a life sentence without parole. I felt relieved because it made David Rice have to suffer with the consequences of killing innocent people for the rest of his life. Also, I felt relieved because of his psychological state. He was not in the right mental state to do this. It is to make him suffer the consequences rather than dying and not reliving the event in his mind for the rest of his life.
The real hero in the movie was the Vietnam Veteran. I love the fact that he used his previous life experiences in Vietnam to write great movies. In fact, I recently saw one of the movies he wrote, Flags of Our Fathers. I did not even realize he wrote that screenplay until I saw it on Nikki's blog. I had to watch the movie for another class and have been analyzing it. I love how he used the psychological turmoils he faced during the war to show the psychological states that the other Vietnam Veterans faced. It showed that a traumatic situation can be used to make a great movie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After, we finally (as in the sense we kept saying we would end it but didn't) concluded our discussion on torture by discussing the dialogue. I understand how readers could sympathize with Aaron's position since it is a commoner like us. I still like his view the most because it is not either extreme. I am a very indecisive person myself so I usually pick the middle ground as my position.
Then, we talked about wire-tapping. Wire-tapping is a concept that I do not quite understand the purpose of. I believe that it is useful, but the government is using it in the wrong way. Listening to random people's conversations does not same right to me. Sometimes I wonder if I saw in jokingly way, "I'm going to kill them" on the phone if the CIA is on the other line. It is taking our privacy away from us and is not right.
Overall, we discussed a lot, and I learned a lot from the class. Torture was a topic that needed to be talked about for a long period of time and liked that we explored many different areas of it.
I was very surprised, yet relieved in a strange way that David Rice had not died. It was nice to hear that his sentencing was dropped for the death penalty to a life sentence without parole. I felt relieved because it made David Rice have to suffer with the consequences of killing innocent people for the rest of his life. Also, I felt relieved because of his psychological state. He was not in the right mental state to do this. It is to make him suffer the consequences rather than dying and not reliving the event in his mind for the rest of his life.
The real hero in the movie was the Vietnam Veteran. I love the fact that he used his previous life experiences in Vietnam to write great movies. In fact, I recently saw one of the movies he wrote, Flags of Our Fathers. I did not even realize he wrote that screenplay until I saw it on Nikki's blog. I had to watch the movie for another class and have been analyzing it. I love how he used the psychological turmoils he faced during the war to show the psychological states that the other Vietnam Veterans faced. It showed that a traumatic situation can be used to make a great movie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After, we finally (as in the sense we kept saying we would end it but didn't) concluded our discussion on torture by discussing the dialogue. I understand how readers could sympathize with Aaron's position since it is a commoner like us. I still like his view the most because it is not either extreme. I am a very indecisive person myself so I usually pick the middle ground as my position.
Then, we talked about wire-tapping. Wire-tapping is a concept that I do not quite understand the purpose of. I believe that it is useful, but the government is using it in the wrong way. Listening to random people's conversations does not same right to me. Sometimes I wonder if I saw in jokingly way, "I'm going to kill them" on the phone if the CIA is on the other line. It is taking our privacy away from us and is not right.
Overall, we discussed a lot, and I learned a lot from the class. Torture was a topic that needed to be talked about for a long period of time and liked that we explored many different areas of it.
Faces of the Enemy continued
Watching the rest of "Faces of the Enemy" was very interesting. One thing that especially interested me was that the radical Christians said they were being "attacked" and that the other religions were the enemies. This was interesting because I believe that they are being hypocrites. In actuality, they are the enemies because they are attacking other religions and holding a grudge against the because they do not believe the same things. It showed that the enemies can actually be God's own people--the people who are so wrapped up into Christianity and do not accept others who are not. It shows me how in a sense categorizing yourself as a Christian can sometimes make you be categorized as an enemy. It shows that religious beliefs can cause some people to say some pretty ridiculous things.
Another interesting part of the movie was how David Rice drew his self portrait. It surprised me how he drew himself in a soldier outfit at war. It shows the psychological state he was in. This and other reasons lead people to draw the conclusion that he is schizophrenic. It shows how he was probably not in the right state of mind when killing those people. He believed he was fighting the war against communism and protecting himself by killing those people.
Another interesting part of the movie was how David Rice drew his self portrait. It surprised me how he drew himself in a soldier outfit at war. It shows the psychological state he was in. This and other reasons lead people to draw the conclusion that he is schizophrenic. It shows how he was probably not in the right state of mind when killing those people. He believed he was fighting the war against communism and protecting himself by killing those people.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Faces of the Enemy
The movie Faces of the Enemy shows what people view enemies to be. The part of the movie we saw yesterday showed enemies as murders and people who are against your religion.
The view of a murderer as an enemy was very interesting to me. This interested me because he talked about his victims being enemies since he believed the were communists (even though they were not.) This showed that the murderer has one view of who is the enemy while the jury of the case has a different view. It shows how open the term enemy is. An enemy could be someone who has physically or mentally hurt someone while it can be someone who has different beliefs than you. Furthermore, people believe that enemies can be someone who has different religious beliefs.
When the radical Christians stated that Jews, Muslim, and other religious groups were their enemies, I was disgusted. I do not understand why the qualify as an enemy. Yes they do have different beliefs, but they do believe in a God. Shouldn't that be the only thing that matters? By the Christians stating that, they are the true enemies. They are the ones that are "pin-pointing" people out and having issues with them for no good reason. This made me understand why people are so against organized relgion, and why people believe they are enemies. It is a lot easier to attack people who come from a different background or religion because there is no connection between you and the other person. However, I do not believe this attacking is right.
Hopefully, I will gain more insight while we watch the rest of the movie.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Government and Torture
The government and torture-- a question of great debate. With Bush nominating a new Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, people are wondering if he will make the same mistakes as Alberto Gonzales. As of right now, both Gonzales and Mukasey do not have good reputations concering torture. Gonzales made the mistake of approving of the torture while Mukasey stated his views on torture they wrong way (as Professor Johnson stated in class).
Questions that were brought up were is waterbording torture or not? I would have to say yes. This could cause sometime to die and is torturing them by not letting them breathe air. Another important issue was discussed mental torture vs. physical torture. Which one is worse--the one that leaves permanent scares in the mind or the one that leaves temporary scares? I believe that mental torture is worse because it is longer lasting. Victims of mental torture have to remember for the rest of their lives the incident that occurred. This is where I think the Standford Dictionary of Philosophy goes wrong. Torture should not just be defined as physical torture. It should contain all aspects-- both mental and physical. I look forward to talking about this more tomorrow.
Questions that were brought up were is waterbording torture or not? I would have to say yes. This could cause sometime to die and is torturing them by not letting them breathe air. Another important issue was discussed mental torture vs. physical torture. Which one is worse--the one that leaves permanent scares in the mind or the one that leaves temporary scares? I believe that mental torture is worse because it is longer lasting. Victims of mental torture have to remember for the rest of their lives the incident that occurred. This is where I think the Standford Dictionary of Philosophy goes wrong. Torture should not just be defined as physical torture. It should contain all aspects-- both mental and physical. I look forward to talking about this more tomorrow.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The Death Penalty
Today when we tried to begin our discussion on torture, we talked about the death penalty, a particular type of torture. Throughout the whole class we discussed the question of whether there death penalty should still exist or not. It was interesting to see the views that each of my classmates had.
Nicole stated how flawed the system was. I agree with her completely. Rapists and murders should have the same punishment.
One of the biggest problems with the death penalty is that many innocent people who are found guilty are killed through the death penalty. Why should someones life be cut so short if they did not commit the crime? The movie that Hannah talked about seemed to address this problem to. In order for the death penalty to work, innocent people should not be killed. The government needs to make sure that they are absolutely certain that each person on death row committed the crimes they were accused from.
Another major problem is racism. It still exists today and affects the judicial system greatly. Many minorities are put on death row solely because people believe they committed the crimes because of their racial backgrounds. Race should not be an issue on deciding who goes on death row or not. In fact, minorities are the majority of people who are killed on death row each year.
I believe these two issues need to be resolved before the decision to stop the death penalty for good.
Nicole stated how flawed the system was. I agree with her completely. Rapists and murders should have the same punishment.
One of the biggest problems with the death penalty is that many innocent people who are found guilty are killed through the death penalty. Why should someones life be cut so short if they did not commit the crime? The movie that Hannah talked about seemed to address this problem to. In order for the death penalty to work, innocent people should not be killed. The government needs to make sure that they are absolutely certain that each person on death row committed the crimes they were accused from.
Another major problem is racism. It still exists today and affects the judicial system greatly. Many minorities are put on death row solely because people believe they committed the crimes because of their racial backgrounds. Race should not be an issue on deciding who goes on death row or not. In fact, minorities are the majority of people who are killed on death row each year.
I believe these two issues need to be resolved before the decision to stop the death penalty for good.
Tortured Ethics
"Tortured Ethics" helped me see all three views on torture: people who are for it, people who are against it, and people who are in between. Each argument made their cased and show significant evidence on their view of torture.
One view that particularly struck me was the Clarence's view, being for the legalization of torture to some extent. Seeing that I agree with him, it allowed me to see the arguments I could make for legalizing torture. Clarence states, "With my proposal for judicially authorized torture under very specific and limited circumstances, with oversight and accountability, I am in fact hoping to control, not heighten this grave moral and legal danger" (Silliman, Johnson 2). This struck me because it does seem like a reasonable solution; however, there is an evident problem with it. How would the standards for torture be made? What case qualifies for torture to be used? Questions such as these ran through my head after reading this statement. This shows how complex this matter is.
Another view that particularly struck me was Erica's view--against torture. Erica states, "I really believe it's a moot point since, as I said earlier, we are never likely to know enough to have a robust example of such a case. For the reasons I have given, I think making institutional provision for such cases would seriously compromise our collective humanity, so if you insist, I choose to bite the bullet and forbid torture even in causes where we were fairly certain there was a ticking bomb." (Silliman, Johnson 8). When reacting to this, I thought that Erica showed how strong her conviction was. She believed that torture was so wrong that there should be no circumstances. In a sense, her solution was an easier one. She did not have the trouble of defending a case that is based on certain restrictions. Instead, she clearly stated a rule that should be applied to ever case, no matter how extreme it is.
Hopefully this article will be incorporated into our discussion about torture.
One view that particularly struck me was the Clarence's view, being for the legalization of torture to some extent. Seeing that I agree with him, it allowed me to see the arguments I could make for legalizing torture. Clarence states, "With my proposal for judicially authorized torture under very specific and limited circumstances, with oversight and accountability, I am in fact hoping to control, not heighten this grave moral and legal danger" (Silliman, Johnson 2). This struck me because it does seem like a reasonable solution; however, there is an evident problem with it. How would the standards for torture be made? What case qualifies for torture to be used? Questions such as these ran through my head after reading this statement. This shows how complex this matter is.
Another view that particularly struck me was Erica's view--against torture. Erica states, "I really believe it's a moot point since, as I said earlier, we are never likely to know enough to have a robust example of such a case. For the reasons I have given, I think making institutional provision for such cases would seriously compromise our collective humanity, so if you insist, I choose to bite the bullet and forbid torture even in causes where we were fairly certain there was a ticking bomb." (Silliman, Johnson 8). When reacting to this, I thought that Erica showed how strong her conviction was. She believed that torture was so wrong that there should be no circumstances. In a sense, her solution was an easier one. She did not have the trouble of defending a case that is based on certain restrictions. Instead, she clearly stated a rule that should be applied to ever case, no matter how extreme it is.
Hopefully this article will be incorporated into our discussion about torture.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Follow Up on the Movie
Following up on the movie, my classmates expressed their feelings of disgust towards the documentary we watched on Friday. I was expecting that we were going to watch the rest of the documentary, but we did not. I believe that we got more out of our conversation about the documentary than we would have if we watched the rest.
One issue that many of my classmates had a problem with was torturing animals in the name of religion. Even people who had no religious affiliation saw the problem behind this. Animals should not be killed in the name of religion. Hannah stated that in the Bible, animals were used as a sacrifice. Should this still apply to religion today? I believe it should not because we live in a different time. According to today's society, it would be wrong. This frustrated some of my classmates and I even more.
Another issue we had with the movie was seeing the "canned hunting." Nicole brought the point up about how much more suffering animals are faced with through canned hunting. By "trapping" the animals into a certain area, they have no chance of surviving. I believe this is wrong because animals should have the right to escape their killers. Also, canned hunting ruins the purposes of killing. Instead of killing for food, canned hunters are killing for a trophy. Animals should not be killed and torture for the sake of the trophy. It morally devalues them and is wrong.
Overall, I believe everyone learned a lot from this discussion. We all realized how animal cruelty and torture integrate with one another. Maybe we will discuss issues like these further when we discuss torture.
One issue that many of my classmates had a problem with was torturing animals in the name of religion. Even people who had no religious affiliation saw the problem behind this. Animals should not be killed in the name of religion. Hannah stated that in the Bible, animals were used as a sacrifice. Should this still apply to religion today? I believe it should not because we live in a different time. According to today's society, it would be wrong. This frustrated some of my classmates and I even more.
Another issue we had with the movie was seeing the "canned hunting." Nicole brought the point up about how much more suffering animals are faced with through canned hunting. By "trapping" the animals into a certain area, they have no chance of surviving. I believe this is wrong because animals should have the right to escape their killers. Also, canned hunting ruins the purposes of killing. Instead of killing for food, canned hunters are killing for a trophy. Animals should not be killed and torture for the sake of the trophy. It morally devalues them and is wrong.
Overall, I believe everyone learned a lot from this discussion. We all realized how animal cruelty and torture integrate with one another. Maybe we will discuss issues like these further when we discuss torture.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Torture
Torture is not a black and white issue. It depends on the scenarios on whether it can be justifiable or not.
I believe that torture is not justifiable in the means of terrorist torturing other people. It is inhumane and does not serve a person to human nature as a whole. It is very extreme and sometimes worse than murdering people. In order to physically torture someone for the fun of it is very sickening. Torturing people in this kind of way has no purpose other than trying to control someone. Controlling someone in this manner is not right; it is some sick pleasure people have that I do not quite understand. However, torture can be justified to help save human beings.
Torture is useful in the sense of torturing terrorists to find where a bomb is which is also known as the "ticking bomb" scenario. I believe that this is right because it has a definitive purpose--to try and help save the lives of thousands who could be killed by the bomb. Torturing in this way is preventing something worse to happen. In this case, the less evil of two wrongs should prevail. Torturing in a justifiable way is used as a last means of self defense; it is the last way to prevent something wrong from happening. In cases such as these, I believe torture is justifiable.
A quote from the article that helps prove my argument is, "In particular, it is difficult to see how torturing (but not killing) the guilty terrorist and saving the lives of thousands could be morally worse than refraining from torturing him and allowing him to murder thousands--torturing the terrorist is a temporary infringement of his autonomy, whereas his detonating of the nuclear device is a permanent violation of the autonomy of thousands." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 14).
The quote above proves my point exactly. Temporary pain is better than everlasting permament pain which does not only hurt the victims but their families as well.
That is my view on torture.
I believe that torture is not justifiable in the means of terrorist torturing other people. It is inhumane and does not serve a person to human nature as a whole. It is very extreme and sometimes worse than murdering people. In order to physically torture someone for the fun of it is very sickening. Torturing people in this kind of way has no purpose other than trying to control someone. Controlling someone in this manner is not right; it is some sick pleasure people have that I do not quite understand. However, torture can be justified to help save human beings.
Torture is useful in the sense of torturing terrorists to find where a bomb is which is also known as the "ticking bomb" scenario. I believe that this is right because it has a definitive purpose--to try and help save the lives of thousands who could be killed by the bomb. Torturing in this way is preventing something worse to happen. In this case, the less evil of two wrongs should prevail. Torturing in a justifiable way is used as a last means of self defense; it is the last way to prevent something wrong from happening. In cases such as these, I believe torture is justifiable.
A quote from the article that helps prove my argument is, "In particular, it is difficult to see how torturing (but not killing) the guilty terrorist and saving the lives of thousands could be morally worse than refraining from torturing him and allowing him to murder thousands--torturing the terrorist is a temporary infringement of his autonomy, whereas his detonating of the nuclear device is a permanent violation of the autonomy of thousands." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 14).
The quote above proves my point exactly. Temporary pain is better than everlasting permament pain which does not only hurt the victims but their families as well.
That is my view on torture.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
To Love or To Kill: Man vs. Animal
Watching the documentary, "To Love or To Kill: Man vs. Animal" left me feeling sick to my stomach after seeing how animals are treated. By seeing this movie, it showed me that Americans are not the ones that are harming animals the most.
For example, the Spanish are extremely cruel to animals. Torturing bulls and throwing other animals out of windows is extreme. The documentary reasoned this type of torture and killing through religion. Why would a culture feel the need to kill another living creature that their God created? There are other ways to show adoration towards a God and celebrate religious holidays.
During the part of the movie where cats were being decapitated was when I was the most disgusted. Why would household animals be killed as a source of food? This showed me that the moral status of household pets equals the same of a farm animal's in countries such as China. It opened my eyes to a different culture's point of view of animals. However, there was some good qualities to this documentary.
Seeing animals being used for therapy with disabled human beings or prisoners showed the happier side of the relationship between man and animals. It showed me how the United States still respects animals to some degree and uses them for meaningful purposes. Luckily, where we live animals are being used to help others and not as a source of food/sacrifice.
Also, when the Rabbi stated we were inconsistent with killing cows as a source of food but not cats, I felt disgusted. Although I agree with him to an extent, I do not believe it justifies what other cultures are doing. I still believe it is wrong to kill a cat as a source of food and do not care if I am a hypocrite by doing this.
Watching this movie proved to me that one's culture helps determine the moral status of animals. What is "right" to one culture is "wrong" to another. Like Betsy, Liz, and Nicole, I would prefer not to finish watching this documentary. Even though it is useful to an extent,
I believe it is more harmful. Seeing my other fellow classmates and me closing our eyes and turning away from the TV showed how much we did not want to see more of it. I hope that I can actually sit and watch the rest of the movie without shutting my eyes.
For example, the Spanish are extremely cruel to animals. Torturing bulls and throwing other animals out of windows is extreme. The documentary reasoned this type of torture and killing through religion. Why would a culture feel the need to kill another living creature that their God created? There are other ways to show adoration towards a God and celebrate religious holidays.
During the part of the movie where cats were being decapitated was when I was the most disgusted. Why would household animals be killed as a source of food? This showed me that the moral status of household pets equals the same of a farm animal's in countries such as China. It opened my eyes to a different culture's point of view of animals. However, there was some good qualities to this documentary.
Seeing animals being used for therapy with disabled human beings or prisoners showed the happier side of the relationship between man and animals. It showed me how the United States still respects animals to some degree and uses them for meaningful purposes. Luckily, where we live animals are being used to help others and not as a source of food/sacrifice.
Also, when the Rabbi stated we were inconsistent with killing cows as a source of food but not cats, I felt disgusted. Although I agree with him to an extent, I do not believe it justifies what other cultures are doing. I still believe it is wrong to kill a cat as a source of food and do not care if I am a hypocrite by doing this.
Watching this movie proved to me that one's culture helps determine the moral status of animals. What is "right" to one culture is "wrong" to another. Like Betsy, Liz, and Nicole, I would prefer not to finish watching this documentary. Even though it is useful to an extent,
I believe it is more harmful. Seeing my other fellow classmates and me closing our eyes and turning away from the TV showed how much we did not want to see more of it. I hope that I can actually sit and watch the rest of the movie without shutting my eyes.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Value of Animals
Does each animal have its own sentimental and moral value to us? This is what we discussed on Friday. Mainly we discussed this between cows and horses. We have no problem killing cows as a source of food, yet it is a problem with horses. Is an animal's usefullness to us that important? Is it worth killing a cow for food and saving the horse as a mean of transportation? Questions like this kept running through my mind during this discussion.
I agree to it to some extent. Yes cows are very important food source for humans. However, I do not believe they should hold a lesser moral value than horses. I believe that each animal is uniquely important to us, and we should treat it as such. Whether they are a means of food or a means of transportation, they are equally important to us. Although some animals should have lower moral values.
Animals such as ants and porcupines should have a lower moral value. They are not as useful to as cows and horses are. They are just animals that live on the planet. Does this mean they are morally useless? No, I do not think that. I think that they do have a purpose on this planet, but I do not know what that is. This topic could be discussed forever. Hopefully, we will have a good conclusion to this topic on Wednesday.
I agree to it to some extent. Yes cows are very important food source for humans. However, I do not believe they should hold a lesser moral value than horses. I believe that each animal is uniquely important to us, and we should treat it as such. Whether they are a means of food or a means of transportation, they are equally important to us. Although some animals should have lower moral values.
Animals such as ants and porcupines should have a lower moral value. They are not as useful to as cows and horses are. They are just animals that live on the planet. Does this mean they are morally useless? No, I do not think that. I think that they do have a purpose on this planet, but I do not know what that is. This topic could be discussed forever. Hopefully, we will have a good conclusion to this topic on Wednesday.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Moral Agents vs. Moral Patients
Discussing moral agents and moral patients is crucial to the discussion about the moral behavior of non humans. Moral agents are the ones who are on the giving and receiving end; they can dish up actions that count morally. They are in a sense the "powerful" ones. On the other hand, moral agents do not have power at all. They are on the receiving ends of things. Moral patients are infants because they act upon what they see. Infants do not know better; therefore, if they do something morally incorrect they cannot be punished for this. This made me wonder if animals can be punished for their actions too. I thought of this particularly when we were discussing children being on trial for murder.
Murder is a serious offense and people should have to deal with the consequences for their actions. However, what is the age that human beings know how wrong murder is. Should this be age be the same for everyone or should it be different for everyone? This becomes an issue when teenagers murder people and are charged as adults. Should they truly be charged as adults or as children? What should this moral behavior be based upon. Should it be based on their brain or psychological state of mind? Similarly, I wonder if dogs should be killed for their murderous actions.
Dogs, especially pit bulls, attack on another and are sometimes put to sleep because of it. Should this occur? Are they fully responsible for their moral behavior? Questions like these kept "popping" into my mind when discussing moral patients. Should the owners be punished more or equally to the dogs?
I am enjoying this discussion more on a daily basis and cannot wait to talk about it tomorrow.
Murder is a serious offense and people should have to deal with the consequences for their actions. However, what is the age that human beings know how wrong murder is. Should this be age be the same for everyone or should it be different for everyone? This becomes an issue when teenagers murder people and are charged as adults. Should they truly be charged as adults or as children? What should this moral behavior be based upon. Should it be based on their brain or psychological state of mind? Similarly, I wonder if dogs should be killed for their murderous actions.
Dogs, especially pit bulls, attack on another and are sometimes put to sleep because of it. Should this occur? Are they fully responsible for their moral behavior? Questions like these kept "popping" into my mind when discussing moral patients. Should the owners be punished more or equally to the dogs?
I am enjoying this discussion more on a daily basis and cannot wait to talk about it tomorrow.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Reflections on Q&A 4 Dicussion Day 1
Do animals have the same moral status capabilities as humans? This question was the foundation of the ongoing discussion in class. I thought it was interesting on how two people had two completely different views on the same incidents. For example, Betsy brought up how animals do have moral status because of the emotions they feel when their fellow companion passes away. Is it just longing for what was the "norm" for them or does it directly correspond with their moral behavior? I believe it is their intuition that helps the animals realize that something is missing and that something could possibly be wrong.
Another example Betsy used was the stories of dogs rescuing and saving their owners' lives. Is this affected by their moral status? Once again, I believe it is not. I believe it is more of an intution that helps the animals realize that something is wrong with their owners and that they must do something to save and protect their owners.
I came to these conclusions through the class discussing the levels of moral behavior: high moral moral behavior, medium moral behavior, and normal moral behavior. Yes I believe that animals do have a moral sense to an extent. I believe the only reason they have this is because of their surroundings. Their owners and other people around them help them realize what is right and what is wrong. They do not decipher this on their own. This is why I believe nonhumans only have the normal moral behavior letter. It does not come from their mind; rather, it comes from the minds that surround them.
Are trained service dogs the same way? Yes, I believe they are. I know that they are have more knowledge that shapes their moral behavior, but it is not knowledge from their brain. Rather, I believe it is knowledge that comes from their trainers. I believe that moral status is something a species is given rather than them being able to rise in the moral status hierachy. Yes, their moral status knowledge can improve but it does not change their status. Moral status is based on what we think is right and wrong from the beginning.
I look forward to discussing this more tomorrow.
Another example Betsy used was the stories of dogs rescuing and saving their owners' lives. Is this affected by their moral status? Once again, I believe it is not. I believe it is more of an intution that helps the animals realize that something is wrong with their owners and that they must do something to save and protect their owners.
I came to these conclusions through the class discussing the levels of moral behavior: high moral moral behavior, medium moral behavior, and normal moral behavior. Yes I believe that animals do have a moral sense to an extent. I believe the only reason they have this is because of their surroundings. Their owners and other people around them help them realize what is right and what is wrong. They do not decipher this on their own. This is why I believe nonhumans only have the normal moral behavior letter. It does not come from their mind; rather, it comes from the minds that surround them.
Are trained service dogs the same way? Yes, I believe they are. I know that they are have more knowledge that shapes their moral behavior, but it is not knowledge from their brain. Rather, I believe it is knowledge that comes from their trainers. I believe that moral status is something a species is given rather than them being able to rise in the moral status hierachy. Yes, their moral status knowledge can improve but it does not change their status. Moral status is based on what we think is right and wrong from the beginning.
I look forward to discussing this more tomorrow.
Thoughts on "Science, Ethics, and Moral Status"
Even though we began the discussion on this article yesterday, I feel that it is important to reflect about the reading itself before reflecting on the class discussion. Harlan B. Miller's Science, Ethics, and Moral Status discusses two important issues: ethics itself and whether non humans, animals, have a moral status or not. Miller's setup of this essay allows readers to have an introduction to ethics before discussing the question: at what level do non humans have a moral status.
Through reading this article, I realized that animals do have a moral status but only to an extent. Yes, animals have certain characteristics of one who has a moral status, but they are not as complex as the characteristics that humans have. Two important terms that need to be discussed when mentioning this are moral agent and moral patients. Humans are moral agents; they are able to decipher on their own what is right and what is wrong. However, non humans are moral patients; they need moral agents to help them decipher what is right and wrong. There perception of right and wrong is greatly influenced by their moral agents. Another important topic that must be discussed is the groups that living things fit into.
Miller uses three groups: Group A, Group B, and Group C to show the capabilities of each group's moral status. Group A is classified as the moral agents. They are able to have a moral sense of the world. From knowing this category, it shows me that they are the "geniuses" of the moral status spectrum; they have the best understanding of what moral status is. Group B consists of the moral patients--the non humans. They are the ones that cannot think of what is right and wrong on their own. Lastly, Group C has no moral abilities. They consists of cultures, laws, etc.
Through knowing all of this, it makes it clear in my mind that non humans do not have much power when it comes to moral status. They are being controlled by the humans around them. Their owners teach them what is right and wrong by continually asking them to do a task and through getting rewards.
I look forward to discussing this tomorrow more in depth. This topic intrigues me more than I thought it would and will open my eyes to a new moral view.
Through reading this article, I realized that animals do have a moral status but only to an extent. Yes, animals have certain characteristics of one who has a moral status, but they are not as complex as the characteristics that humans have. Two important terms that need to be discussed when mentioning this are moral agent and moral patients. Humans are moral agents; they are able to decipher on their own what is right and what is wrong. However, non humans are moral patients; they need moral agents to help them decipher what is right and wrong. There perception of right and wrong is greatly influenced by their moral agents. Another important topic that must be discussed is the groups that living things fit into.
Miller uses three groups: Group A, Group B, and Group C to show the capabilities of each group's moral status. Group A is classified as the moral agents. They are able to have a moral sense of the world. From knowing this category, it shows me that they are the "geniuses" of the moral status spectrum; they have the best understanding of what moral status is. Group B consists of the moral patients--the non humans. They are the ones that cannot think of what is right and wrong on their own. Lastly, Group C has no moral abilities. They consists of cultures, laws, etc.
Through knowing all of this, it makes it clear in my mind that non humans do not have much power when it comes to moral status. They are being controlled by the humans around them. Their owners teach them what is right and wrong by continually asking them to do a task and through getting rewards.
I look forward to discussing this tomorrow more in depth. This topic intrigues me more than I thought it would and will open my eyes to a new moral view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)