Blog 6

Punishment, by definition, must indue pain, harm, or unpleasant circumstances, must be administered for a violation of the law  to the one found guilty, must be  imposed by another by one with rightful authority. There are two types of people, a Retentionist like Mill, and an Abolitionist like Hook. I do believe in retribution. I feel that the one who commits the murder deserves the same action in return.  This deters others from committing a crime, so at least by taking away someone's life, you are preventing other innocent people from being killed. I feel that if someone is going to 100% support capital punishment, they should also be willing to be one of the people that injects the murderer with the lethal injection and kill them. I feel no remorse for people put on death sentence because these people didn't just kill someone. They planned a murder. They literally though out the process to take away someone's life. Therefore, I feel that their life should be taken away. However, I know that I don't support it enough to be the person who takes their life away. I don't think capital punishment is awful. These people that are put on death row are terrible people. They did not only affect one person by taking their life away, but also the life of the victims family and loved ones. Mill says that keeping someone in jail for their life violates the principle of dignity because prison is torture and torture is not justified. However, I feel that prison is not always torture. In prison, people have the ability to get an education. They get food, they have a bed, and they have a place to live for free. Although it is not a good life by no means, these people that had planned to kill someone still get to live a halfway decent lifestyle. I feel that it is unfair because prison is not always torture. Then again, life in prison is not always a deterrence for others to not kill, for if they do get committed of the crime then they will have life in prison verses being killed, which will not  intimidate others as easily. To be honest, capital punishment is not an easy subject to form an opinion on. Yes, life in prison is torture for the murderer, but then again it may not be. Putting the murderer on death row is fair, but who are we to take away a human life? I do believe in sentimentalism, but I feel that I honestly am not sure how I feel about capital punishment until I am personally effected by it, and I hope that never has to happen, because I don't know if I would be in support of taking someone's life away. Then again, I would be so angry if someone killed one of my family members, that I may want them to be killed. Like I said, I'll never know until I'm in that position.

I commented on Alisa's blog at http://alisasemetis.blogspot.com/

Blog on Sexual Morality

I feel that sexual behavior can be morally evaluated. First, unlike Goldman, I do not believe that the only end goal after physical contact is always sex and in certain cases the reproduction of an off spring. I feel that physical attraction and things like touching and feeling are natural feelings. Sometimes, the objective is not always sex depending on the woman, for she may not be ready. However, yes, usually both man and woman do have sexual desires for each other. Sex is not only for the purpose of the offspring. Woman and men have natural sexual desires that have the want to be met after they reach puberty. I feel that there is nothing wrong with having sexual desires. I feel that it is natural and it is part of life. Although caressing and kissing cause excitement and arousal, sex is not always going to happen because there is no presence of genital. I don't completely agree with Scruton when he says that erotic love is a virtue, involving mutuality and the intimate approval of another. I feel that sex is made into such a bigger deal than it really is today. I do not consider it a virute. I know for extremely religious people that may be offensive, but I personally don't feel that it is as important as a virtue to me. However, I do agree with Scruton when he says that the virtue of sexual desire determines the nature of desire, itself; desire then determines the standards of behavior. I feel that sexual desire is part of nature and can change the sexual behavior of people. One thing that was hard for me to grasp was the fact that babies have sexual desires even though they have no idea what sex is. Also, I feel that there are a lot of other types of love and sex doesn't go hand in hand with love. Yes, for a lot of people sex can be a big part of their relationship, but, there is other things such as romance and emotions and the dependence and comfortability two people have that lead to the actual feeling of love. I feel that if two people feel so comfortable with each other, are best friends, depend on each other and love spending time with each other but don't have sex, they can still be in love. However, sexual desires will eventually come into play, which will only make their love stronger. I feel that depending on the couple, sometimes the end result in sex is pleasure, and sometimes it is the result of an offspring.

I commented on Catherine's blog at http://catherinedba.blogspot.com//

Blog 5

Abortion is an extremely touchy subject in my opinion. Mainly because I am a girl, and I could put myself in that position of having to make the choice to abort or fetus or not to abort a fetus. In addition, I have dealt with abortion through a friend that is very close to me, and I felt that the right decision for her was to get an abortion. I am pro-choice. I feel that there is no justification in the government telling a person that they must carry a baby to term. It is not their choice. Yes, some woman that get abortions multiple times and make the dumb decision to not use a condom or not be on birth control should be ashamed of themselves. However, there is woman like that whom are uneducated and are unaware of all the accessible uses of contraception. Anyway, the real matter here is when a fetus is considered to be a person. I agree with Judith Thompson in many ways. She says that a person is not considered an actual person unless they fit into two of these categories; are a member of the moral community, conscious of extreme and internal events,capable of reason, self motivated, have the capacity to communicate, or has a concept of self. Like Judith Thompson, I agree that a baby is not a baby at conception, but the life does not start until the baby is born. However, I don't feel it is okay to abort a baby after about 4 moths. I feel that crushing a skull to abort a baby might as well be killing it. But, no matter what, a woman should have the right to choose whether she wants to abort the baby or carry it to term, I just hope that if the woman is capable of raising this baby healthily, she will not abort it. I don't think I need to adjust my principles that much. I feel like I morally know what is right and wrong when discussing the abortion of a baby. I don't feel it is as much of a matter as when the baby is considered a person and has the right to life, but it is more of a matter if the woman is capable of raising a baby, she should do it. If she cannot raise it for health reasons, monetary reasons, or not enough help, then she should not make the baby suffer in this world.




I commented on Catherine's blog at
http://catherinedba.blogspot.com/

Blog 4

     The first contemporary issue that I am talking about in my blog is cloning. I am still unsure about how I feel about cloning. Being Christian, I feel that I am supposed to be against it, for it goes against my Christian beliefs. God is supposed to control human life. If a woman is to bear twins, it should happen naturally. That is a natural genetic clone. However, I feel that if a person has the money and intelligence to attempt to be a genetic engineer and clone, then why not let them try. If cloning ever became common, that is when I feel I would be against it. But, if it is only the wealthiest who can attempt to clone, I am not that much against it. Since I am not firm on either side, for or against cloning, I agree with the arguments that both Kass and Tooley present against each other. 


     Kass is against cloning for several reasons. The one that I agree with is that is that it is a selfish of a person to create a clone. A person who wants to clone themselves basically wants another version of themselves to live longer. It is basically a selfish desire to survive your own death. Also, the clone may be stereo-typed or discriminated and have a rough life because they are a clone. I also don't like that fact that the clones life is some-what predicted for them. They have 50% of the same genes, so the clones are so much alike that the clone already will know what he/she is good at or what he/she is bad at, and that takes away from a natural life of making mistakes to learn life lessons. However, Kass says that woman no longer need men to produce because cloning is now asexual reproduction and woman will be on the same level as men. I feel that no matter what, a woman wants a man in her life and not just for the purpose of reproduction. When two people fall in love, if cloning is a possibility, they should still want to create a baby together rather than clone themselves. That is a desire of a woman and a man when they are in love and ready to spend their lives together, they want also to share a baby together. 


     I also agree with some ideas of Tooley and why he is against Kant. Tooley is 100% correct when he says that raising a baby now is completely different than raising them in the 1950's. So, no matter what, the clone will have a completely different lifestyle. Also, he argues that the clones only have 50% of the same genes, and they will not be exactly alike. Tooley also says that when we have children, we have them for ego driven motives. We basically have children to watch part of ourselves grow up again, and by creating a clone, we have the same motive which is to watch ourself grow up again. Tooley also argues that life may be easier for a clone because it is already told what he/she is good at, and they avoid putting time and effort into something that is pointless.


    Basically, I am unsure about how I feel about cloning. I see where both Kass and Tooley are coming from. If I had the choice, I would never clone myself, for it is against my religion and I feel that a clone is just not natural. However, at the same time, I do understand why one would clone themselves.


I commented on Catherine's blog at http://catherinedba.blogspot.com/.

Blog 3

Blog 3 - What Social / Moral Principles do you find compelling and why? How do these principles fit with the personal principles you identified in Blog 2? Do they conflict at all? Do you think you can live according to both? How will you go about doing so? i.e. Prioritize them? Adopt specific ones for specific contexts?


The Social/Moral Principles that I found compelling was Aristotle's means to an end theory. If you do something for something else it's a mean. I feel that I often live that way, although sometimes I wish i didn't. I sometimes wish that I didn't do something just for something else, but I feel that many people find themselves living that way and that is why is is compelling. Also, Satre's theory is very compelling. He says that life is what you create or invent and that you are fully responsible for everything in your life. Many people also live that way. The most interesting and compelling to me was Taoism. That is what I talked about in Blog 2. It really teaches you to not over-think and let nature run it's course. I would love to be able to think that way. I am an over-thinker and am always projecting, but if you are a Taoist, being average is okay. I would love to think average was okay. I am always trying to go above and beyond, and therefore I am always stressed. 


I feel that it is possible to live by both theories. However, you will only be living 'a little bit' by each theory. If you are following means to an end, you are always doing something for a reason. Sometimes, you are doing things to please people and always trying very hard. However, if you follow taoism, i don't feel that it is as necessary to please people and do things for a reason, for being average is okay and you do not always need to go above and beyond. I don't think I can personally live by Taoism, although I wish I could. I am always too worried about being great at things to the point where I don't like it. However, I definitely think i can live by Aristotle's means to an end theory. I feel that I could try living 'The Good Life' and that would make me the happiest, for I'm always trying to excel at something than be average. 


I commented on Catherine's blog at http://catherinedba.blogspot.com/.

Blog 2

Blog 2:  What personal principles did you adhere to before entering this course and where did they come from? Were they taught to you? Did you develop them on your own? How have our readings and discussions impacted those principles? Of the principles covered which are you drawn to the most and why?

Throughout life, I have always lived by certain principles that I feel most people strive to live by. Always treating others the way you would want to be treated is what I have been told since I was able to speak. I am never rude, I cannot be mean to a single soul or hurt a fly if I tried. It is almost exhausting that I try so hard to be overly friendly all of the time, but it is how I was raised. I was also always raised to stay positive. No matter how many bad things that happen to me in one day, I was always taught to say "It happened for a reason" or "It could always be worse, Danielle." Also, I have always been religious, so I was always taught by my parents to believe that God has a path for us, and if bad things happen to us it was meant to be, for He made this happen for a reason. I have been taught all of these principles from my family and how I was raised. However, I feel that I've developed my ability to think rationally on my own. I recently have been trying very hard to think rationally and never over react or yell or make assumptions. I try to never be stubborn or hold grudges. I constantly am trying to take my mind outside of the situation and think of situations as a third party, or put myself in other people's shoes. I developed more rational and worldly thinking after high school when I realized that gossip and hatred is so unnecessary, and being peaceful and rational helps to live a better and more civil life. I still live by all of these principles today. I feel that I live by them because it was how I was raised and it is what I was am used to. I think that they are decent principles to live by and be as worry-free and happy as I can be.

Every week when we talk about different philosophies, I relate these theories to my life. I often compare principles of my life to the principles of the philosophers we talk about. I try and imagine myself living differently and with morals such as Socrates or Aristotle's means to an end theory. I don't feel that I can easily change the way I think and live by someone else's philosophies, but our conversations about theories and philosophies do sometimes change the way I think. The one that stuck with me the most is Taosim. It really teaches you to not over-think and let nature run it's course. I would love to be able to think that way. I constantly am over-thinking and trying to plan. I ponder about my future and the path I am going and if it is what I should be doing every single day to the point where I want to escape my own mind and not be able to think. I feel that I will never be able to settle and always want to do better in life no matter how successful I am. I would love to be more content with life and feel that stableness and being average is okay. I was raised to think that average wasn't good enough, but to be honest, I am sick of living that way. The need to always strive for the best and work harder and keep improving is exhausting. I would love to change my way of thinking to be content with being average. I was most drawn to this theory and would consider trying to incorporate Taoism into my life one day, for stress free living seems like a great way to live.

I commented on Ashanti's blog at 

 http://ashantijones.blogspot.com/ .