I, David Hume moral skepticism concludes that an individual’s morals are matters of their feelings about the fact, resulted from ones own experience. This is my empiricist method. My argument shifted philosophy in general from the norm to a radical point of view. I believed that the materials of thinking, our perceptions, are derived either two categories our ideads and our impressions. You can conclude that facts have no impact on a individual’s actions and morality never consists in any single matter of fact that could be perceived by reason alone. The debate over this issue is that of abortion. The opposition of stem cell research argues that the embryo is being destroyed during this process. This issue is one of our society’s morals. I argued that an individual’s “sentiments and affections,” not reason, is what leads us our actions. One can conclude that this stem cell research is moral because of their feelings about the subject. Not how they “ought” to feel about it, but how they really feel about it. The feelings associated with certain facts change from person to person. One may favor this research because they have personally been affected by it. Society says how we ought to feel about something and it is subjects that encounter this issue will reason it immoral because they have never had previous experience with it. So an individual who supports stem cell research had deemed it moral because my reason gave way to his “sentiment and affections.” I create a point in that an individual ought to feel a certain way about something but they really feel different due to the impact of our feelings. It is our preception of the subject that creates a division amoung our people. Somone can know all the facts about this issue but until they experience it personally they will continue to denouce stem cell research as immoral. Yet, when they experience first hand the outcomes and benefits of it their feelings will overpower their reason.

Abortion(When is ethical if ever to terminate a pregnancy?)

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory of morality and "how one should act". It states that one should act so as to maximize the amount of happiness in the world (focuses on the consequences of actions).Talking about abortion, many people ask the same question, it’s etchical to do abortion? Or when is ethical to proceed with abortion? the issue of abortion actually becomes one of the desirability of increasing or decreasing the population. Given that there must be some population size that can be regarded as the “perfect” size, if we are allowed to place it this way for a society, it is clear that Utility will ban new births above this amount while below this population size Utility will prescribe reproduction. So the utilitarian, who suggests that the future happiness of the child, combined with the estimated value of the effects on others, is such that Utility opposes abortion, must admit that this would imply that Utility prescribes an increase in population and that this would apply to anyone capable of producing a child. So Utility is generally against abortion only when it is generally for raising the population. In terms of utility, the actual act of abortion is not a particularly significant oneThe reason of personhood selected has important implications on the morality of abortion. If personhood is conferred on a being at the moment of conception, then, all things considered, aborting a fetus is immoral. On the other hand, if we select a reason such as self-awareness, then, all things considered, aborting a fetus is not immoral.

Death Penalty (Does the state have the right to kill another person?)

My name is Friedrich Nietzsche. I was born in Rocken, Germany in 1844. I have always been a excellent student however with a precarious health. When I entered college I got interested in the idea of Arthur Schopenhauer. The idea that life is absurd and that the only reality is the one that we create with our own reason. I believe that a person must follows his own values and morality, have a complete and utter independence and strength upon one self. A man who can take the reality of the world and who has power above all. This is what I called the "superman". The death penalty in my perspective is a matter of choice. The state can either decide if the person that is going to be killed guilty or not guilty. The judge must play the commander and decide what to choose. The world for me has no rules, no morals, no values, so is it a crime to kill someone who is said to believe is guilty due to the state's reasonable decision? The state can decide what they consider wrong and right, what they consider a truth and a lie. Killing a person means strength and power to one self like Hitler. I can point out that for me he was a man of power and independence who controlled not only himself but the rest of his pupils and his people. He made his own rules and follow no one else's. The state must take the power and play by their own rules. Their is no spiritual or moral restrain because it doesn't exists. The lethal injection or the hanging of a person translates to power, the power they have over another person because you can kill him/ her if you wanted to. Their is no moral judgement or a sin that God will later punish you. The state must become their own gods and perform their own actions. God does not exists and the traditional values were made by people who conform to this absurd life.

Finding True Self

I’m Soren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism. I’m a devoted Christian that thinks each person has a direct relationship and direct access with God; and I believe in extreme individualism and the importance of freedom and taking responsibility for our own actions. Whether or not to embrace free will it’s our individual choice. I consider freedom of expression to be ethical because individual should be allowed to express their thoughts regardless of the influence or power a larger group has on their choices, beliefs, decisions or desires. People should be influenced by the Freedom of expression and true commitment that allows us to enjoy our true existence because it makes us be true to ourselves choosing to act according to the reason. We should be allowed to express ourselves without censorship or limitation sharing our thoughts and ideas. Choosing free will but we must accept the consequences of this freedom. To express ourselves freely we must be able to respect the freedom of others. It is only unethical or immoral if you don’t act authentically people must make and judge their own moral choices. Freedom of speech, actions, feeling and attitudes are left to each person matter of choice. People should have complete freedom to create themselves. ‘‘How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have; they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech’’.

The best of the best; hedonist people live life 100% intense

5. Lying, Cheating , Stealing (Is it ever ethical to lie, cheat or steal, and if so what would be the circumstance?)

I don’t have a name, but I’m a very interesting philosophy. I am focused on pleasure and my name is Hedonism. Not many people are devoted to me because I’m am rather complicated and tend to like excesses. I don’t have ethics and I could care less if I cheat, lie, steal because I only focus on my own pleasure. I think it’s morally good to that if it means I or the person that follows me finds pleasure in doing it. Lying, cheating, or stealing are things that aren’t important in life, it is something out topic if you do it or not. The main idea of being hedonist is to have a good life focusing or basically looking for pleasure in anything you do, no matter the well being of others. Although there are various types of hedonist ideas we all focus on the pleasure of oneself and nothing more. For most people lying, cheating, and/or stealing would be morally and ethically wrong or very incorrect because this could cause other people to be damaged or hurt. Other people could be highly damaged if being cheated or lied to, and if being stole they could even get hurt or be in danger by any circumstances. Fears can be outcome and mental pleasure can be achieved easily or at least something like that was what Epicurus, a Greek philosopher who lived in the fourth century. This is similar to the Buddhism. Hedonism doesn’t constitute a complete morality because it only focuses on oneself.

EUTHANASIA-FAUSTO D. BOGRAN

POSTMODERNISM> EUTHNASIA (Do humans have the right to end their lives if terminally ill)
Speaking as a postmodernism, what is the right and wrong depends on the knowledge of culture in which people live. Truth itself is not something general, is something that prevails within a society. Speaking in the matter of hand, euthanasia is view under our modern society as a criminal act. It is forbidding in many countriesand it is view as inmoral to many people. People have the right to live, the right to endure, and for these reasons laws have been created. in order to protect the integrity of life itself. As a postmodernism, under the views of my society euthanasia is wrong. This however creates a conflict amogn many people. Some people view authanasia not as suffering, instead as a way to end suffering. For this suffering, in some cultures it has been practiced. In my society, euthanasia is prohibitted because it can be used as a tool for doing evil. There have been cases, in which people have volunteered murdered others under the excuse of euthanizing them. Authorities have difficulties in handling situations like this. Other claim that people have the right ot choose to live their lives, and how to end. This matter can cause confusion and trouble for society. This is why it is prohibited, and I stand against it.

Death Penalty (Does the state have the right to kill another person?)

Who would say that more than 2,000 years ago humans already thought about the right or wrong aspects of life. Many people would say that 2,000 years ago we were focused on more concrete things, and that were the aspects we called survival and interdependence. As I began to understand more of our world, I took a clear stance over society and how should it function. With the years passing, I began to philosophize and came up not only with a perspective of the rules and regulations we should be subject to, but a school of thought, or better a religion nowadays was founded. Buddhism takes a stance on judging what is right, and all of it follows its ultimate goal in teaching how to reach nirvana; the state of enlightenment in which desires and ambitions are extinguished. As I saw this moral question before my eyes I knew this religion had a defined stance to answer in the most sincere words. Death penalty is a misconception adopted by some people who believe it is not only the solution, but the right thing to follow in regards to violence in society. To what my memory recalls, I remember stating that equality and nonviolence were amongst the pillars that supported the foundation of Buddhism, and I will not fail to restate my beliefs towards this case. Death penalty is a solution to cowards, to those that think we are reigned by the famous yet vacuous quote: "an eye for eye". The world should accept the fact that there live around us many people who are ignorant with morality, and for that we should act in an intelligent basis. What do I mean with this? Establishing death penalty produces a circular flow of violence, where someone kills an innocent, and the sate kills the murderer; nothing has been achieved, but violence. Let the ignorant follow their way. We should know that adding violence to any societal implication is not a moral thing to do, and for that humans need to understad that in our lives the right thing to do is to live by the moral teachings that are subject to righteousness. My religion follows the nonviolence, and I have addressed myself as a nonviolent...

thomistic view on death penalty

1. Death Penalty (Does the state have the right to kill another person?)

My name is Thomas Aquinas. I’m a well known priest, philosopher and theologian. My life consisted of prayer, manual labors, preaching and teaching. I developed the Thomistic school of philosophy. I do believe the state has the right to kill another person only if the reason of killing the individual is no intending to kill because of hatred, it must be intended for overall good and justice of the majority. Death penalty is permissible when the reason of their death is wrongdoing or punishment. It’s not wrong to kill another person if the purpose is to save others life and keep others from danger. We need to seek for the good of the community even if that means to kill someone who is a threat to the society. The only explanation a person should be killed is for doing a really bad thing. One has to avoid doing bad things and try to be a person of good character, by possessing virtues and making choices that are morally good. The human act is to pursuit their good; an action that doesn’t contribute to a majority overall good and harms many should be punished. Moral consists in behaving well in your surroundings. By the natural law everyone know the difference of what is good and what is bad, so if they choice to do something bad the state has the right to kill them. There is no such thing as pure evil one must just follow God. Death penalty or capital punishment should be allowed for the security of all and justice, an individual that just wants to consciously do harm and prejudice others doesn’t deserve to live.

Irene Papadakys

ABORTION IS A MORAL RIGHT!

Abortion is a moral right which should be left to the discretion of the woman involved. Morally, nothing other than the mother’s wish is to be considered. Who else has the right to tell her what she is supposed to make of the functions of her own body? A child cannot gain any rights until it is born, so the mom chooses if the embryo has the right or not to live. The question of abortion involves much more than a pregnancy. It is also a question of the entire life of the parents. Being a parent is an enormous responsibility; it is an IMPOSSIBLE responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling. Some of these parents are not intelligent and conscientious enough because they abandon their child on a doorstep or give them in adoption. For these young parents, pregnancy is practically a death sentence. They are forced to give up their future and to become slaves of a child’s physical and financial needs. Some cases are even worse, like when an unwed mother is left alone with her child. I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. Procreation is not a duty; human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious people, an unwanted child may change the path of their life. To oppose an unwanted pregnancy is to support sacrifice for the only purpose of prohibiting happiness and fulfillment of human beings.

(Donaldo Bustamante)

Making Rational Decisions-Death Penalty

Jean Paul Sartre was a French philosopher and he was considered to be an existentialist philosopher. An existentialist can be defined as a philosopher who emphasizes freedom of choice and personal responsibility, and that each individual is responsible for their actions and must accept its consequences.

The death penalty is a very popular dilemma and debate that has been going on for years now. Many ask themselves, “Does the state have the right to kill another person?” Well, according to me, Jean Paul Sartre, the death penalty should be applied in every country. As an existentialist philosopher I strongly believe that individuals are free to choose between right and wrong and therefore this makes them responsible for the consequences that come along with the decision they made. For example, if a man comes along and kills an innocent girl walking down the street because he wants to steal the girl’s cell phone, the state has the right to punish the man and killed him because he just killed an innocent girl with no purpose. The man decided to kill the girl, who was innocent, so now he must be punished and take responsibility for his actions.

In every community we can see how crime rates are increasing, and often times the state does not punish those who deserve to be punish due to a crime they had done. As an existentialist, I believe that the states has the right to punish and apply the death penalty to people only if they have evidence and they consider that the death penalty should be applied. People are born free and they have the right to make individual choices. Freedom of choice is everyone’s right, but when it comes to taking individual responsibility for those actions things change. If you have the freedom of making your own decisions, you must first think about the consequences that those actions will bring to you, and then make it a final decision. If you made the wrong decision, then you must accept and take responsibility.

Without a doubt I believe that the state is in total control of applying the death penalty to those who deserve to be punished. People must learn to make the correct decision and if not, you must also learn from your mistakes. For existentialists, God does not exist; therefore the state has the right to punish people because there is no supreme being. Killing is not a crime. Death penalty should be applied, and the state has the right to kill another person if they consider it a need because people are responsible for their actions.

Abortion - aristotle

He would oppose to the idea of abortion because its not fair for the baby and they have the right to life. Believing that human beings life was presented in the fetus during the time of conception and it had a soul already with a present human life. But it comes down to human rights , whether the fetus should have any . The fetus for him does because of equality. The fetus is different from other living things. The fetus produces its own cells to develop humanistic characteristics. (A human)

Lying, Cheating, Stealing

Simon de Beauvoir

As an existentialist, I say that it is only ethical if it represents who you are. If you are a liar, cheater, and a thief by nature, then it is ethical to you. You must act as your own belief. I also believe that you must act as you are to be considered ethical. If you are, by nature, a thief or a cheater, and you don´t act the way you are, you are not being ethical to yourself. I, myself, am not any of those, although I have lied, cheated, and stole, I must say that I wasn´t ethical. I was the sidekick of Jean-Paul Sartre, an existentialist, and we shared some thoughts about how people should behave.

As you must know, an existentialist believes that a person is only ethical if he or she acts the way they are by nature. If you are a thief, then you must steal to be ethical, if you are a cheater then you must cheat. Lying, stealing, and cheating are only ethical if it is in your nature, not nurture. Many people get confused by these two words, nurture means what you are taught once you were born and nature is who you are since you were born. JP and I think that you must act by nature, not by nurture and these actions are ethical. I also believe that my thoughts and actions have been ethical due to that I have acted by nature, and this includes who I really am.

Lying, for some people, is a good way to stay out of trouble but, is this ethical?
Lying to safe yourself is ethical if and only if you lie because you are a liar by nature. Stealing and cheating also apply to this. All philosophies and philosophers have different thoughts about this topic, but as an existentialist I believe that you are who you are and you must act as who you are to be considered ethical.

Death Penalty

Death penalty (Does the state have the right to kill another person?)

According to virtue ethics, the state does not have the right to kill another person. Virtue ethic’s states that its role of character is based in guiding moral choices. This philosophy believes that its not moral to kill a person because everyone deserves a second chance. I totally disagree with the death penalty imagine yourself n the shoes of a thief who wants to regret its sin and collaborate with the community, why should people take his life? Many people do wrong things that later regret and shouldn’t be punished so drastically. These people should receive punishments that will later help the society or the environment. For example they could have social work hours by helping to clean the city or helping people in need. The death penalty can be somehow harsh and threatful to the life of human beings. Many times the police or investigators don’t have enough information to declare you guilty, but in the end they are the ones with the power. So if you are declared guilty and penalized with a life sentence, do you think death penalties are fair and equally applied to everyone? It’s not morally correct to take away someone’s life, after all only God has that power. I strongly believe that the people that sentence someone to the death penalty may some how be wrong, because everyone makes mistakes. Who says someone has the exact capacity to declare somebody guilty. A man should not be granted such powers, for the feeling of invincibility is threatening to not only the person, but to humanity as a whole. People are simple humans that make wrong but also have feelings. The feeling of guilt is a strong punishment for a starters. Killing someone is not giving the person an opportunity to really redeem themselves and pay for their mistakes.

Ethical or not ethical?

I Plato, think that pregnancies coming from women at the ages of 40 and on are vulnerable and can easily have an abortion. However, Aristotle and I believe that abortion can be done in certain cases. We can’t forget that in my time (Greece), abortion was accepted but not ethical and that I’m not an expert in this topic.However, even though I sort of agree with abortion in certain cases, I believe that sex should be done only when you plan to have a baby. In my book named The Republic, I state this situation with a deeper meaning. But I reinforced that sex should only take place and be practice in certain ages of your life and when you planned to built a family. Therefore, I think abortion took place because the government thought that, that was the best way to get rid of huge amount of population. So the government took advantage of this situation to release them from a problem.Abortion is not to be called ethical but is allowed in certain situations such as: to young, too old or the family is too extended. That’s why I encouraged people to be less promiscuous and control themselves and their appetite of having sex to avoid pregnancies. Therefore, if they get pregnated in an early age the baby will have several problems such as deformation or mental illness so the best thing is to abort them. In some other cases such as the women being too old, 40 and on will be obviously in danger as well as the fetus. That’s why I thing abortion should be practice in certain cases.

Lying, Cheating, Stealing

Simone de Beauvoir

As an existentialist, I say that it is only ethical if it represents who you are. If you are a liar, cheater, and a thief by nature, then it is ethical to you. You must act as your own belief. I also believe that you must act as you are to be considered ethical. If you are, by nature, a thief or a cheater, and you don´t act the way you are, you are not being ethical to yourself. I, myself, am not any of those, although I have lied, cheated, and stole, I must say that I wasn´t ethical. I was the sidekick of Jean-Paul Sartre, an existentialist, and we shared some thoughts about how people should behave.

As you must know, an existentialist believes that a person is only ethical if he or she acts the way they are by nature. If you are a thief, then you must steal to be ethical, if you are a cheater then you must cheat. Lying, stealing, and cheating are only ethical if it is in your nature, not nurture. Many people get confused by these two words, nurture means what you are taught once you were born and nature is who you are since you were born. JP and I think that you must act by nature, not by nurture and these actions are ethical. I also believe that my thoughts and actions have been ethical due to that I have acted by nature, and this includes who I really am.

Lying, for some people, is a good way to stay out of trouble but, is this ethical?
Lying to safe yourself is ethical if and only if you lie because you are a liar by nature. Stealing and cheating also apply to this. All philosophies and philosophers have different thoughts about this topic, but as an existentialist I believe that you are who you are and you must act as who you are to be considered ethical.

Immanuel Kant - Lying, Cheating, and Stealing

Since I, Immanuel Kant, tried to conclude very different way about right things to do, my theory on ethic become a non-consequentialist thoery. This means I concluded that moral choices must be judged, not by their consequences, but by the good will of the moral agent. Even When I try to apply this ethical question to my theory, or when I don't, the conclusion appears very differently. If normal people see this question, they would fisrt conclude the lying, cheating, and stealing is morally bad. But, on my view, this question can be thought very differently, because of the significance of my theory that relates to this question. On my view, moral, right thing to do, are determined, and judged by good will of moral agent. Good will means that the only things for its own sake. When I apply this thoery to the question, I can conclude that the moral in this question is determined by the humans' nature of morality, and its humanity. And this conclusion can be divided by two ways. When a human's nature who is lying, cheating, and stealing is good, according to the good will of moral agent, this man would stop lying , cheating, and stealing by his human nature of good morality. But, when a man's nature of morality is bad, he wouldn't stop lying, cheating, and stealing, which the a man's nature of bad morality became the circumstances that is unchangeable.

Lying, Cheating, Stealing; Is It Ever Ethical?

I am Jeremy Benthlam borned in england February 15, 1748. I am best known for the father of utilitarianism. As you know I established a conecpt which sets legal basis. This means everything must be legally based on ones mind. Lying, Cheating, stealing; is it ethical to lie, cheat or steal and if so what would it be the circumstance?

According to the following ethical question I state that utilitarianism is based on moral acts that produces happiness for the people. Lying,cheating and stealing does not takes or relates to the principles of utiliatarianism. According to my theory this could be named as lack of ethics since there is no fundamental principles that contributes to utilitarianism. There is no promotion for the happiness of the people.Lying does not make people happy. Stealing or cheating does not make people`s happines and there is no virtue of utility.Lying, stealing, and cheating does not make people succeed in the different areas of our philosophical world. People now in days should make their own proper and correct things by themselves without stealing or cheating since it is for sure that the value of a thing or an action in this case stealing is determined by the basis of utility. Stealing is not a virtue, nor cheating or lying. None of this actions make people happy because the system of ethics is comformed according to the rightness actions of an individual whose goals is to make society feel better without suffering consequences judged by wrongness. Utilitarianism focuses on the making others feel good, therefore to lie, cheat or steal is not part of an ethical society. The consequences based on the actios of lying, cheating or stealing are judged by the lack of ethics that sorround a society. I am a legal theorist and eveything must be legal. Something that is or looks kind of illegal should not be let passed because it will affect the society and the future of a philosophical world. Therefore the basis of utilitarianism must not permit people to steal, cheat or lie.

By: Rogelio C.

Existentialism- freedom of expression and censorship

Humanity is faced by freedom and choices. Freedom becomes a responsibility. Your freedom is the freedom to be whoever you wish to be and express yourself in a certain way. This gives you the freedom to choose what values you follow. This being said we are supposed to express ourselves as whom we truly are. Freedom of speech is ethical since we are expressing our true thoughts. There comes an abuse of power with this something Sartre called Bad Faith. Bad Faith is when we deny the responsibility by also denying freedom. Bad Faith is a way in which we lie to ourselves. A person might say truly offensive things then say that there is nothing wrong with what he said as he had no choice but to express himself. Philosophers would argue that this isn’t honesty since they let their anger take over their thoughts. People are allowed to express themselves by acting the way they choose to. We are the way we are and censorship would come in between us and our freedom of expression, therefore censorship is bad. We exist; we find ourselves alive and must find our own way of defining our existence. Soren Kierkegaard is considered the father of existentialism and thought that the individual is responsible for giving his or her own life a meaning and to live in a passionate and truthful way. Our individuality and freedom are very important things, we are to stop censorship and use freedom of speech and expression as it allows us to be ourselves. Censorship is never ethical as it suppresses our thoughts and freedom of speech is always ethical as long as we don’t fall into Bad Faith.

The Assignment

You will be a contributor to a class Web Log (blog) on ethics. For this blog you will be assigned a philosopher or philosophical school of thought. You will have to answer ethical questions as if you are that philosopher or a subscriber to that school of philosophical thought. If you are Immanuel Kant than you must answer all questions on the ethical topics as if you were Kant. If you are an existentialist than you answer the questions as and existentialist.
This will require you to become familiar with your philosophers writings and or philosophy. You must write on the several topics given. I will assign 10 topics to write on but you only need to write on 5. Each Blog will have to be a minimum of 250 words and be no larger than 500 words. You come up with a creative title for each blog entry. Every student in your class will be contributors on the same blog. In addition to writing a blog entry you will need to comment on your fellow student’s blog entries. During the course of the term you will need to read and comment on 5 blogs of your choice. This will count for 30% of your total grade. 25 points per blog entry 125 points total (10 points per blog comment, 50 points total).

You only need to answer 1 question per due date.
Make sure you address the question you are writing about in the first two sentences of your blog post.


Chose 5 from this list to blog
1. Death Penalty (Does the state have the right to kill another person?)
2. Euthanasia (Do humans have the right to end their lives if terminally ill?)
3. 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?)
4. Abortion (When is ethical if ever to terminate a pregnancy?)
5. Lying , Cheating , Stealing (Is it ever ethical to lie, cheat or steal, and if so what would be the circumstance?)
6. Freedom of Expression and Censorship (When is censorship ethical? When is freedom of speech unethical?)
7. War (Is war Ethical? What are the ethics in war?)
8. Genetic Engineering (Is it ethical to clone a human? Is genetic engineering ethical?)
9. Treatment of Animals (Is animal testing ethical? Is eating meat ethical?)
10. Conservation and Preservation (What are the ethics controversies in environment conservation?)

Due dates for Blog entries
Topic 1: February 26

Topic 2: March 5

Topic 3: March 12

Topic 4: March 19

Topic 5: March 26