Treatment of Animals (Is animal testing ethical? Is eating meat ethical?)
"To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body." This is a quote say by Gandhi. Maybe this paragraph has little to do about the testing of animals but it has something really significant and that is the way we treat our animals. Gandhi meant with this quote that even the smaller creatures have to be treated the same way as a human being. He thinks that in some way we all should live the same way with the animals. When a human being dies we really give much of a care. We should do it to with our animals since we share the same home with every single living thing. Gandhi also said that our bad treatment to the animals reflected the way we really were. It is incredible how many people treat animals in such grotesque way that they don’t realize that it’s like hurting a human being. I really think that the treatment of animals is something really serious to think about and in reality the bad treatment of animals that some people applied is just not ethical. It is just not right. We should treat every human, every animal and all living thing the same way without any discrimination or any other bad treatment. We should all be fair.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Gandhi Birth Control
Abortion (When is ethical if ever to terminate a pregnancy?)
Lots of people have different opinions when it gets to the subject of abortion. Abortion means the ending of a pregnancy no matter what stage of the pregnancy. Abortion in my opinion means a murder. Abortion is the ending of a human life just developing. Some reasons of abortions are that irresponsible people have sex without protection. The woman suddenly gets pregnant and neither the girl nor the man wants to become responsible for the baby choosing the worst choice killing their own son or daughter. For me this is not ethical. I think abortion can only be applied to real important reasons such as medical complications with the pregnancy or any other bad thing that occurs that would give no choice but to get rid of the baby. This nowadays happens. Some pregnant woman sometimes gets complications with their body not being able to make their baby survive so they have to abort. Those are real reasons and are not considered murdered. My philosopher Gandhi thinks the same way as I do. Gandhi because of his advocation of the Jain doctrine he became known as (Mahatma) meaning Great Soul. According to information Gandhi was vehemently opposed to abortion. Also he opposed to stuff as artificial birth control, He wrote this on a book called: Birth Control: The right way and the wrong way. Gandhi thought every human should live no matter his defects. I really think that Gandhi’s thoughts were really wise.
Lots of people have different opinions when it gets to the subject of abortion. Abortion means the ending of a pregnancy no matter what stage of the pregnancy. Abortion in my opinion means a murder. Abortion is the ending of a human life just developing. Some reasons of abortions are that irresponsible people have sex without protection. The woman suddenly gets pregnant and neither the girl nor the man wants to become responsible for the baby choosing the worst choice killing their own son or daughter. For me this is not ethical. I think abortion can only be applied to real important reasons such as medical complications with the pregnancy or any other bad thing that occurs that would give no choice but to get rid of the baby. This nowadays happens. Some pregnant woman sometimes gets complications with their body not being able to make their baby survive so they have to abort. Those are real reasons and are not considered murdered. My philosopher Gandhi thinks the same way as I do. Gandhi because of his advocation of the Jain doctrine he became known as (Mahatma) meaning Great Soul. According to information Gandhi was vehemently opposed to abortion. Also he opposed to stuff as artificial birth control, He wrote this on a book called: Birth Control: The right way and the wrong way. Gandhi thought every human should live no matter his defects. I really think that Gandhi’s thoughts were really wise.
Learn how moral you really are
Lying , Cheating , Stealing (Is it ever ethical to lie, cheat or steal, and if so what would be the circumstance?)
In my opinion the word ethical means the same as moral. Ethics basically is the morality on doing things that are bad and people know they shouldn’t do them. Humans know when they are doing a wrong thing but sometimes they don’t have the morality to fix their mistakes. I think that lying, cheating and stealing are unethical because they all represent evil in some way. Gandhi says that non- stealing does not mean merely not to steal. To keep or take anything that does not belong to you is also stealing. Even those who grab things thinking they will give it back because they just took it borrow and they are not stealing. The thing is if you take something that is not yours even borrow without permission it is still stealing and it is considered unethical. I also think that cheating and lying is un ethical since there is no moral action being taken when committing this unethical stuff. Gandhi says that we are not always aware of our real needs and most of us improperly multiply our wants and make ourselves unconsciously thieves. He said: “One who follows the observance of Non-stealing will bring about a progressive reduction of his own wants. Much of the distressing poverty in this world has risen out of the breaches of the principle of Non-stealing.” This means that people are poor but because they have followed the non- stealing rule. In conclusion I might say that I agree with Gandhi that no matter how minimum you steal, cheat, or lie it is always not ethical to do it.
In my opinion the word ethical means the same as moral. Ethics basically is the morality on doing things that are bad and people know they shouldn’t do them. Humans know when they are doing a wrong thing but sometimes they don’t have the morality to fix their mistakes. I think that lying, cheating and stealing are unethical because they all represent evil in some way. Gandhi says that non- stealing does not mean merely not to steal. To keep or take anything that does not belong to you is also stealing. Even those who grab things thinking they will give it back because they just took it borrow and they are not stealing. The thing is if you take something that is not yours even borrow without permission it is still stealing and it is considered unethical. I also think that cheating and lying is un ethical since there is no moral action being taken when committing this unethical stuff. Gandhi says that we are not always aware of our real needs and most of us improperly multiply our wants and make ourselves unconsciously thieves. He said: “One who follows the observance of Non-stealing will bring about a progressive reduction of his own wants. Much of the distressing poverty in this world has risen out of the breaches of the principle of Non-stealing.” This means that people are poor but because they have followed the non- stealing rule. In conclusion I might say that I agree with Gandhi that no matter how minimum you steal, cheat, or lie it is always not ethical to do it.
Ghandi the Non-Violent
. War (Is war Ethical? What are the ethics in war?)
War is a very important issue people talk about nowadays. First we have to remember that there are many kinds of wars. Not only wars of country versus country occur but as well war between people. Anyways the real question: Is war ethical? Is what I will try to answer no matter what kind of war it is since for making war you only need enemies and violence. In my opinion war is not ethical because it never brings good things. War only causes death, sadness, worridness, anger, hate, and lots of suffering and violence. According to my philosopher Mahatma Ghandi also agrees with me. Ghandi was one of the most famous leaders of non- violent movement. He oppose to the British imperial rule during the 20th century. Ghandi took the religious principal of Ahimsa which meant not doing any harm at all. Ghandi called this non-violent technique “satyagraha” which meant “truth force”. Ghandi was sure that this truth force was not a weapon of the weak but of the strong. This technique was of no violence at all but it implicated lots of truth. He use to fight not only colonial rule but also but social evils such as racial discrimination and untouchabilityh as well. Ghandi was a very wise man and he knew what he was doing when the British was causing oppression to him and his people. Gandhi was non-violent making him a very peaceful human being.
War is a very important issue people talk about nowadays. First we have to remember that there are many kinds of wars. Not only wars of country versus country occur but as well war between people. Anyways the real question: Is war ethical? Is what I will try to answer no matter what kind of war it is since for making war you only need enemies and violence. In my opinion war is not ethical because it never brings good things. War only causes death, sadness, worridness, anger, hate, and lots of suffering and violence. According to my philosopher Mahatma Ghandi also agrees with me. Ghandi was one of the most famous leaders of non- violent movement. He oppose to the British imperial rule during the 20th century. Ghandi took the religious principal of Ahimsa which meant not doing any harm at all. Ghandi called this non-violent technique “satyagraha” which meant “truth force”. Ghandi was sure that this truth force was not a weapon of the weak but of the strong. This technique was of no violence at all but it implicated lots of truth. He use to fight not only colonial rule but also but social evils such as racial discrimination and untouchabilityh as well. Ghandi was a very wise man and he knew what he was doing when the British was causing oppression to him and his people. Gandhi was non-violent making him a very peaceful human being.
Death penalty shoud be Forbidden
1. Death Penalty (Does the state have the right to kill another person?)
Killing another person is an extremely difficult decision. You are not killing an animal, a tree or any other living thing but, you are killing a human’s life. Of course killing any other living thing is significant because it has life and deserves to live but it will never be that significant as the life of a person. In my opinion killing a person is not good. Some countries in the world applied as punishment to their criminals the death penalty. It is the toughest punishment that has ever been existed since they take your life away. In my opinion I do disagree with the death penalty as my phher Ghandi. He quotes the following: “By birth I am a Vaishnavite [a follower of Vishnu], and was taught Ahimsa in my childhood [...] In its negative form, it [Ahimsa] means not injuring any living being, whether by body or mind. I may not therefore hurt the person of any wrong-doer, or bear any ill will to him and so cause him mental suffering." Ghandi says that he was taught since birth a type of religion named Ahimsa which is perhaps and Hindu tradition. This means not to hurt anybody in any form. This means physically as well as mental no matter his or her offense. My philosopher and I agree that the state shouldn’t allow death penalty for any reasons. I also think that nobody has the right to take somebody else’s life because of his criminal offense. People should be judged in a different way.
Killing another person is an extremely difficult decision. You are not killing an animal, a tree or any other living thing but, you are killing a human’s life. Of course killing any other living thing is significant because it has life and deserves to live but it will never be that significant as the life of a person. In my opinion killing a person is not good. Some countries in the world applied as punishment to their criminals the death penalty. It is the toughest punishment that has ever been existed since they take your life away. In my opinion I do disagree with the death penalty as my phher Ghandi. He quotes the following: “By birth I am a Vaishnavite [a follower of Vishnu], and was taught Ahimsa in my childhood [...] In its negative form, it [Ahimsa] means not injuring any living being, whether by body or mind. I may not therefore hurt the person of any wrong-doer, or bear any ill will to him and so cause him mental suffering." Ghandi says that he was taught since birth a type of religion named Ahimsa which is perhaps and Hindu tradition. This means not to hurt anybody in any form. This means physically as well as mental no matter his or her offense. My philosopher and I agree that the state shouldn’t allow death penalty for any reasons. I also think that nobody has the right to take somebody else’s life because of his criminal offense. People should be judged in a different way.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Stealing the Media from the internet
Intellectual Property (Is it ok to steal music, movies or books without paying for them? Is using someone else’s work as your own without any recognition or compensation wrong?)
Being right or wrong depends only in which point of view you look at it. Intellectual Property has two sides of the story as well. A Hedonist practitioner as myself could find pleasure in “stealing” music, movies or books. I find it casually interesting to steal this entertaining stuff in which I usually find pleasure in, while I watch a movie, or listen to a good song. I find nothing wrong in stealing this stuff meanwhile you don’t use it to win money out of it. But someone else might find pleasure in doing that. If a normal person would think it’s correct, no, because stealing in any way is totally wrong. Although stealing or just taking some piece of media information is kind of fulfilling at the moment. Per say you download a movie illegally, you have a good time for the duration of the film, but afterwards you just take it as irrelevant and might even delete the film from your computer or wherever place you have it. A Hedonist would do anything just to find pleasure in doing it, no matter if the action is totally wrong or not, that would be irrelevant to the situation in case. Although if the stealing of any type of digital media would bring a negative situation or main in some way, the hedonist would not do it just to be happy or not bring any bad feelings towards oneself. So basically it is okay to steal a movie, song or book if it won’t bring any bad consequence, unless there is one, I (a Hedonist) would steal it.
Carlos Gutierrez
Being right or wrong depends only in which point of view you look at it. Intellectual Property has two sides of the story as well. A Hedonist practitioner as myself could find pleasure in “stealing” music, movies or books. I find it casually interesting to steal this entertaining stuff in which I usually find pleasure in, while I watch a movie, or listen to a good song. I find nothing wrong in stealing this stuff meanwhile you don’t use it to win money out of it. But someone else might find pleasure in doing that. If a normal person would think it’s correct, no, because stealing in any way is totally wrong. Although stealing or just taking some piece of media information is kind of fulfilling at the moment. Per say you download a movie illegally, you have a good time for the duration of the film, but afterwards you just take it as irrelevant and might even delete the film from your computer or wherever place you have it. A Hedonist would do anything just to find pleasure in doing it, no matter if the action is totally wrong or not, that would be irrelevant to the situation in case. Although if the stealing of any type of digital media would bring a negative situation or main in some way, the hedonist would not do it just to be happy or not bring any bad feelings towards oneself. So basically it is okay to steal a movie, song or book if it won’t bring any bad consequence, unless there is one, I (a Hedonist) would steal it.
Carlos Gutierrez
Physical Force, an act of evil!
No man, society, or government has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical force against anyone. As men desire to live together, no man may start the use of physical force against others. Whoever that initiates the use of force, no matter the purpose or to which extent, is a killer acting as a destroyer of a man’s capacity to live. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate the use of it. The ethical principle involved is simple; it is the difference between murder and self-defense. The principle is that no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force. Force and mind are opposites. Morality ends where a gun begins. When men abandon reason, physical force becomes their only means of dealing with one another and of settling disagreements. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment. Force is the antonym of reason and thought. Understanding is not produced by a punch in the face, or from the muzzle of a gun, or by terror. The mind is a cognitive faculty, it cannot achieve knowledge or through the perception or reality, and it cannot be forced.
*I decided to do this topic because it was interesting, although it wasn't on the list.
(D.B.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)