animal bad treatement is not ethical

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.)

Let´s protect those creatures

Certainly animal testing is not ethical because an animal is like a human being they can breathe, move, and they have instincts as well as humans. The only difference between those two is that a human being are capable of rationalized, they have mind and they are capable of knowing what´s wrong and right. Therefore, as I mention before human are somehow like animals. I considered that no one have the right to take an animal’s life that will be considered like killing a human being. Animal treatment should not take place because first of all is not ethical and it´s not consider the right thing to do. So if I stated that animal are similar to human without the capacity of obtaining knowledge but they have instincts that can help them be defined as human. An example can be a bird because if you have notice some types of bird and in certain season tend to migrates and a good explanation of this event is because they have instincts that will allowed them to think and know that they have to migrate to a better place looking for protection, shelter and food. Therefore, I must said that eating meat it´s totally on ethical because you are killing a living thing that have instinct and a characteristics of a human being. I believe that killing animal´s goes against God´s will because he created the world with all the creatures for a specific purpose that was to live in harmony and peace.

no room for a soulless baby

When is abortion ethical?
Ethical issues like abortion is widely debated around the world, I would regard as abortion ethical in some cases. As a devoted catholic religion follower I considered that abortion is a grave sin against marriage and murder because it prevents the living of the next generation of human nature but the sin in the action of abortion is not homicide only if the fetus was already developed to a human being. Abortion is not murder because the soul is not yet destroyed. The women’s womb and the semen of the man are still considered to be non living things. There are many other exceptions as to when abortion is not considered murder like if the mother’s life were in danger and the baby’s life is sacrifice for the mother it is permissible because they no mean no harm just to protect an already human being to conserve their life or self defense. When someone want to have an abortion they have to think about if the soul was already created, that is only after 40 days of being procreated and after that if they have an abortion it should be called murder. We can apply the doctrine of double effect when questioning whether is ethical wanting to cause harm or death of a human being, if it is promoting some good at the end. The moral principles of the action is its intention , if they have no intention to kill for evil doing just to protect and look for common good then go on with the abortion

"May the force be with you"

As an existentialist I believe that war cannot be ethical. I profoundly believe in the Darwin theory of survival. War causes so much damage to millions of people and survival to me is the ultimate goal in life. I not only see this theory as simply just living and being careful, I see that humans have to overcome death, be one step ahead and live beyond life itself. It is unethical to me that nations at conflict kill because it makes humans pitiable, pathetic, and weak. Nations go to war because they are unable to control the situation, to believe in the power within them. As soon as conflict starts, nations become slaves of their own ideas, fears and desires. The one who wants war must have the sufficient will of power to terminate the idea of war. Disrespect and humiliation wars cause, makes the ego of humans vanish and become moral slaves of the other nations moral or what is ethics to them. Humans have to have the will of power, have to be brave, self-assured, and resistant to all evil in life and war only comes from insecurities of failing in life. Life may be meaningless but since we are forced to live through it every single day we must resist its hardships and never become servants of others and of life. Even though I may see life as absurd I also believe that war goes against my principles of my superman, the will of power and the theory of Darwin which I have devoutly include in my philosophy.

Only God decides death

Euthanasia? Is it ever ethical to terminate the life of a terminally ill person or some incurable condition? As a Christian existentialist philosopher I believe that terms with such depth like suicide and death cover many different moral aspects. Euthanasia may either be voluntary or nonvoluntary Humans should live life trying to find their self by making their own choices, experiences, beliefs and taking responsibility. The conceptual distinction between good and evil is ultimately dependent not on social norms but on God. It is morally incorrect that someone else makes the decision if someone should continue living because one should stay true to one self. I also believe euthanasia is a violation of the authority of God since its unacceptable killing another human being. When a patient requests euthanasia he is giving up the desire to live, denying their own existence and God’s will. God is the only who can make the decision of whether one person should continue or should not continue living. If one person decides to take over the lives of others, then that person is going against God’s will. There is no way one person should decide to kill himself or herself, if there is a problem it should be overcome by faith. Faith is the most important task to be achieved by a human being. Only on the source of faith does an individual have a chance to become a true self. This self is the point which God judges for eternity. Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.””

Making Moral Choices

I, as Soren Kierkegaard believe that everyone is free to make their own choice, a choice that is true to oneself. Through life people have to learn to make their own decisions based on what you believe is important without hearing what your friends, family, or society argues or says. As an existentialist I believe that we, as humans can never know if we made the right thing. Everyone makes mistakes, but you definitely have to learn from them; it is throughout personal experience that we learn what is actually moral and immoral. It’s important for us to make and judge our own moral choices, I believe in authenticity and how people should make decisions based on what he believes is good or bad and not think on what others say. We must judge our actions according to reason or the standards of society; we remove the thought of “what might people think” or “what will they say” and let God judge our actions. Even though we are free to make our own moral choice, God is the only one who knows what’s ethical and what’s not. For me abortion is not ethical, because is killing the life of a baby. God also thinks that abortion is not moral under any circumstances. You make your own choice and later you become responsible to your consequences.

"Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person"

Day 14. 562 B.C.

Scrutinizing over the pile of papers has been something that brings up many important things to talk about with and for the world. Since the inception of Buddhism, I have not found anything more heartless than what I found today. A letter from a nearby town's health center. From what I can understand, due to that the dialects within each town change, this lady makes reference to a patient who is said to be in a very critical state. I believe she is asking for any advice from my person. In the last three months I've been told that somewhere north of India there is a plague that has already killed approximately 200 people; out of the 200... 161 have been killed before they die naturally. Nobody know what it is, how it developed, or when did it really begun. I am afraid that it spreads closer to my town, and for that I pray. Before continuing on with the narration of my daily experiences, I would like for the future generations to comprehend God's viewpoint over Euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of taking the life of someone under a very critical state, and that is intended for people not to keep suffering. It is a huge human mistake I can say. From the roots of my teachings, and with the support of the thousands of humans for Buddhism, I declare my stance and go on and say that Euthanasia is immoral. How can people believe that killing someone is a solution? What gives humans the right to kill someone under critical conditions? "God created life, let him finish it as well", a journal of mine read. This is irrevocably the truth of life. Humans get naturally sick, and for that people should let God take them away... whenever and however he likes. Afterlife is underlined by our actions in life, italicized by our feelings, and most importantly, capitalized by the moments we were conscious of God's regulations and acted consequently in regards to them. Let our soul decide when rationalization is not sufficient. Killing someone because he or she is suffering requires deeper thinking... that we can find the answer in heaven...

Green alternative

John Stuart Mill

Conservation and Preservation (What are the ethics controversies in environment conservation?)

Greetings I am John Stuart Mill, as a utilitarian I am here to discuss about the conservation of the environment. I stand firmly by the side of this idea. The environment will play a crucial role in our lives in the near future. If we continue burning forests and cutting down trees with no kind of restrain we will be headed in the wrong way. What kind of future to we leave our children if we destroy our earth. Despite the growing necessity for men to explore new boundries in technology, settle further into forest because of the lack of space in cities. We must find environment friendly solutions to this. All I wish for is that of the greater good for all humanity. Destroying that delicate balance of nature will not benefit us in the future. It will most likely do more harm then good. For example we destroy all the forests in the world and then how will we have oxygen?. We must really think of the conseuquences of our actions and set an example for others. The environment has nurtured us since the existence of man kind, it has given us the tools achieve many goods, The least we can do is to respect it and protect it.

Natural slaves!

My theory of slavery is that people are naturally slaves and others are naturally masters. But is there any one intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule. Anyone who is ruled must be a slave, which does not seem at all right.
“ among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say,
It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians”
Natural slaves should have powerful bodies but be unable to rule themselves. They become very much like beasts of burden, except that unlike these beasts human slaves recognize that they need to be ruled. The problem with this theory is that is that the right kind of souls and bodies do not always go together! So, one could have the soul of a slave and the body of a freeman, and vice versa!because there are some in whom the body and soul are appropriate to natural slavery, that is a strong body and a weak soul. But still there are people who should naturally be slaves. It also seems that men naturally rule women and that barbarians are naturally more servile than Greeks! This seems like an odd, indeed arbitrary, way for the virtues of the soul to be distributed!

- aristotle

JUST ANALYZE, EVERYTHING IS IN ONES MIND

I am once again Jeremy Bentham and the intellectual property according to my philosophy states that it is not ok to steal music, movies or books without paying for them. It is also not a good idea to use someone’s work to make it look ones work and get credit without earning effort or time and dedication. Utilitarianism is based on intellectual moral manager which is using one’s mind to avoid stealing music movies or books. Why not paying and do the correct thing instead of downloading something without paying to the person who used time and effort for the good of society.
In this theme I can share my principles of legislation which states that the practice of utility is tied to the morality of the society. It is not fair to take advantage of the people who make the work for others to copy and paste it or steal it without paying. Everything must be equal in society to make people happy and avoid pain. If everything is equal and fair for society pleasure will be a way to influence others to be better and make a philosophical world full of happiness. Justice is a term we can use to satisfy society, this way justice will take advantage of people who thinks it is ethical to steal or use other work without giving credit. Utilitarianism is a good choice to invite pleasure and say I can do it without stealing or using other minds. Everything is in one’s mind, we just need to analyze. It is no ethical to use other work without giving credits according to justice and it is not ethical to steal according to society and to a personal pleasure.

Be Original

My writings constitutes on a record of literary reputation. Everything that I have ever written I've tried to be unique and original and to make sure of myself that no one else would have what I've written and that's how everyone should be. The more I wrote an aura of intrigue and danger developed around me. The critics have encumbered my social life and have verbally attacked me. As I have published my works I was engaged to many public controversies. The conservative side argued that I posed a genuine threat to religion, and it was the Church’s duty to take action against me. While the moderate side argued that my views were self-refuting and, in any event, as a nonbeliever, censuring me would have no impact. I've had many disputes with many people over about how i thought. My work in political theory continues to show the progression toward the current American thought on government and free speech. I believe that civil liberty came through the law which provides the predictability necessary to ensure liberty. I decided to have literary fame and this desire became "the ruling passion of his life and the chief source of his enjoyments". I been arguing that the dispute about the compatibility of freedom and determinism has been kept afloat by ambiguous terminology. Actions are, by their very nature, temporary and perishing; and where they proceed not from some cause in the character and disposition of the person who performed them, they can neither redound to his honor, if good, if evil. I haven't ever denied causation. I have had a massive influence on the free will debate.My compatibalist theory is original in its attempt to re-define and unite liberty and necessity, while at the same time maintaining that morality is dependent upon a compatibalist argument and that ideas about religion and God are illogical.
-- Milade Handal

A warning to the people, this is war

A Warning to people, This Is War
Is war ethical? This is a much debated question amongst people in our modern time. Normally war emerges out of a conflict between different groups; countries, gangs, individuals. In war we either attack or defend. War can be ethical in order to defend ourselves and unethical when we use it to attack others there are also many factors that must be taken into account, allow me to explain. We live as a nation and express ourselves truly. A foreign nation wishes to invade us and impose their ways upon us forcing us to accept ant adopt their traditions. It would completely ethical according to existentialism to defend our own views so that we may be able to express ourselves truly without someone trying to force their views on us. It is unethical to behave in a way in which we are not true to ourselves so by trying to keep our beliefs true to ourselves we are doing an ethical thing. It would be unethical for us to bring war upon others so they can adopt our views. Throughout history we have learned that conflicts like the inquisition in which many innocents were murdered because they wished to remain true to themselves and not accept someone else’s religion. War is like a coin; it has two faces one ethical the other unethical we must always find a way to remain true to ourselves even if it might mean through war.

Carlos f

Peace and Love, Why war?

Why do some people really think that war is ethical in some way? It is ridiculous to create war instead of promoting peace and love. War doesn’t mean a better quality of life for everyone, there is always a part of this that gets affected severely. In a war, many innocent people get killed and their family members get also affected emotionally because of the loss of their member. Not even if a country wins the war it means that they are living in harmony because there is always some death and people who had to suffer some really painful physical as well as emotional experiences. Human beings need to learn to leave in harmony and respect each other because war only causes more problems instead of solving them. With peace, every problem can be solve bay talking and making some deals on how to help each other instead of making the other suffer because they believe they have a greater power, therefore have the right to make whatever they want. If you don’t want to have a lot of damages in your country like death and infrastructure damage after a war, why would you cause that damage to others? Remember that by having more power over others, it doesn’t mean you have the right to take over other countries and take what you want from them because any type of government has its limits. In what way would it be ever ethical to kill or leave another country in really serious economic situations? If humans would learn to leave in harmony and respect with each other, the world would be different in a better way.

Death Penalty, on the view of Kantian Ethics

There is ongoing crucial debate within the criminal justices system as to the moral status of the Death Penalty. Death Penalty, or known as capital punishment, is the killing of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence. On the view of Katian ethics, a classic expression of the retributivist position on the death penalty is Immanuel Kant's statement that if an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death. For Kant, the death penalty was a conclusion of the argument for justice. As a person of dignity, the victim derserves to have the offender harmed in proportion to the gravity of the crime, and as a person of high worth and responsibility, the offender is deserving of the death penalty. Accordingly the torturer should be tortured exactly to the severity that he tortured the victim, the rapist should be raped, and the cheater should be harmed to a degree equal to that suffered by the one cheated. Criminals deserve such punishment in accordance with the priciple of proportionality.

Is being a Pinocchio, a cheater cheater, or a thief morally correct?

Lying, cheating, or stealing....is it right?

According to Jean Paul Sartre, an existentialist philosopher being a Pinocchio, a cheater or being a thief is a decision that the moral agent alone has to make and then take responsibility for the consequences that come along with the decision they make, if they made the wrong choice. I believe that there is no Creator alive; therefore human beings cannot explain their actions and behaviors. Human beings are responsible for those actions. In the world we are left alone, with no excuse. Each individual has to affront their problems. Lying, cheating, or stealing is permitted under any circumstance that the individual considers as a benefit for themselves. In an existentialist belief, every decision depends solely on the moral agent and it’s ethical only if the agent considers it this way. First, the moral agent must be a mature enough person to make a rational decision and if they did not make the correct one, they must confront it themselves and take responsibility for those actions. Accepting the consequences is a big part of the existentialist philosophy. For example, according the existentialist belief lying is permitted in a situation where you are sure that you will take responsibility for those actions and will accept the consequences. An example could be lying to your parents in order to let you go out to this weekend’s party, and they conditioned you that you were allowed to go only if you finished homework. You did not do any of them and you lied so you were allowed to attend the party. Then, your parents find out and punish you with no telephone for one month. You will have to accept the punishment. As a conclusion, I can say that everyone is given a freedom of choice, so everyone can lie, cheat, or steal.

Daniela Reyes (Jean Paul Sartre)

Yes Mirror? No Mirror? See for yourself!

The world we live in today is based on many norms and rules we have to comply to be neutral in the society. But these rules only give us distinction in the law and order parts of society. To maintain a stable relation with oneself and society, you must also obey the moral laws. You are who you are, and only you choose whether or not to follow your beliefs.
I believe that genetic engineering is against any ethical or moral rule. Having said that existentialism is based on who you are and you must act according to it, having another person to act the same way as you do would be acting as another person, because no one is exactly the same. People in the world that agree with genetic engineering couldn’t be existentialist because they would be saying that acting as another person, although very similar to you, is accepted. Existentialism states that if you are yourself, then you don’t have any other influence in your character than that adopted by society. Having another person that is equal to you is against the ethical rule of existentialism.
The cloning of a human is not ethical, at all, because you are who you are and nothing can change that. Human genetics are very complex, thus giving many other options as to change the way the clone will act. If having a person equal to you in all physical traits, and acted in a different manner as you do, then genetic engineering would be ethical.

To steal or not to steal?

Lying, stealing, and cheating does not make people succeed in life, many f these people end in jail or with big consequences. People should be able to do their own things without the necessity of lying, cheating or stealing. The morals of each person can be noticed throughout their actions. It is said that “Actions speak louder than words.” Most people are determined by their actions, who they are as a person. So, if they lie, steal or cheat to achieve their goals in life they most likely will fail in life. Stealing is not a virtue, nor cheating or lying. None of these actions make you a better person. They just demean you. As well as each action has a unique consequence, depending on how severe the action is, by these the consequences will be given. For example is immoral that a person steals a gas station, first of all because is not correct to steal. Second of all, someone is working hard to keep the gas station running, so it is not fair that some lazy guy steals while someone else is working their but to have a better life and win a profit out of their hard work. If you want something you should work for it. People shouldn’t be lazy and accommodate to stealing food because it’s easier than working. These people most likely end up in jail. People should know better than this and know that it is unethical for a person to lie, because people deserve to always know the truth.

Private Citizens Can't Censor!

Private citizens can't use physical force or bring about by force or threats. They can't censor or suppress anyone’s views or publications because the only one that can do so is the govenrment. Censorship is a concept that pertains only to governmental action.The line of demarcation between freedom of speech and freedom of action is established by the ban on the initiation of physical force.Private citizens don't have the right to parade through the public streets or to obstruct public thoroughfares. Of course private citizens have the right of assembly on their own property, and on the property of their family or their friends. Nobody in the world has the right to take control over the streets. The streets are only for passage and are free for everyone. Censorship is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, and not to listen. Censorship forbids the discussion of some specific subjects or ideas such as sex, religion or criticism of government officials. Censorship is ethical if a newspaper refuses to employ or publish writers whose ideas are diametrically opposed to its policy or if businessmen refuse to advertise in a magazine that denounces, insults and smears them .

(D.B.)

Private Citizens Can't Censor!

Private citizens can't use physical force or bring about by force or threats. They can't censor or suppress anyone’s views or publications because the only one that can do so is the govenrment. Censorship is a concept that pertains only to governmental action.The line of demarcation between freedom of speech and freedom of action is established by the ban on the initiation of physical force.Private citizens don't have the right to parade through the public streets or to obstruct public thoroughfares. Of course private citizens have the right of assembly on their own property, and on the property of their family or their friends. Nobody in the world has the right to take control over the streets. The streets are only for passage and are free for everyone. Censorship is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, and not to listen. Censorship forbids the discussion of some specific subjects or ideas such as sex, religion or criticism of government officials. Censorship is ethical if a newspaper refuses to employ or publish writers whose ideas are diametrically opposed to its policy or if businessmen refuse to advertise in a magazine that denounces, insults and smears them .



(D.B.)