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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ethical or not ethical?
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ABORTION
ReplyDeleteI, 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.
-milade handal