FINAL

a. Name: Benedectus Juwono

b. Username: einztein_o07

c. How many posts did you complete in total for the whole semester? Give me the dates for each. Make sure they are all on your website (date and number them if possible).
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 03:42:28
Subject: post 1: on happiness
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 04:26:59
Subject: discussion, rather? -- please read
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:52:07
Subject: post 2: epicurus vs epictetus
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:33:02
Subject: Re: discussion, rather? -- please read
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 21:19:40 
Subject: Re: Very Important!!
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:35:10
Subject: Re: post 1: on happiness
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:34:05
Subject: post 3: existentialism
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:45:53
Subject: post 4: augustine vs aquinas
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:30:18
Subject: post 5: spinoza
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:38:05
Subject: field trip: museum of tolerance visit
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:01
Subject: Re: Question About my Blogger Site
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:32:34
Subject: Re: Just wondering
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:07:44
Subject: Re: So...house everyone's "Saturday"  nite????
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:47:50
Subject: Re: [ethicssummer04] Re: I don't think I can handle
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 02:04:44
Subject: on 300 words/essay
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:30:27
Subject: POST 6: HUME VS KANT AND MY MORAL SYSTEM
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:33:29
Subject: Re: [ethicssummer04] Re: on 300 words/essay
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:03:12
Subject: post 7: marx vs hobbes vs mill
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:03:28
Subject: post 8: nietzsche
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 05:57:49
Subject: post 9: nietzsche passages
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 06:00:02
Subject: Re: einztein_o07 
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:16:54
Subject: Re: einztein_o07
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:59:12
Re: einztein_o07
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:23:56
POST 10: singer ch.1-5
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:13:12
post 11: singer -- abortion, euthanasia, poverty
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:03:16
post 13: cloning articles
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:05:08
post 14: evolutionary psychology
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:02:37
post 15: gandhi
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 02:08:55
research paper -- abortion: a legalized murder

d. List ALL of the visits you made (tolerance center, Hindu temple or Humane Society or PETA organization, etc.). Make sure you have a section on your website for your research where you "detail with thick description" these field trips/projects. If you did not visit a location for the second project indicate what topic you researched and how many sources you utilized for it. i have visited only the museum of tolerance. the second half of the course might be considered easier than the first, but it's still a lot of readings and posts to do. plus i have another philosophy class (david lane's phil 5 class), which also takes up a lot of my time. so i have not yet gotten a chance to visit any of the place for the 2nd research. i think i'll just do the individual research.

e. Please list what "grade" you received on your midterm examination. A-

f. What reading did you complete in this course? Did you read the fourteen theorists in Great Traditions? Did you read the material by Nietzsche (packet I gave a meeting)? Did you read ALL of Singer's book? Did you read the Gandhi book pp. 1-250? Did you read the article on CLONING? Evolutionary Psychology article? Explain in detail what reading you completed and "what reading you skipped." Be exact. i read all fourteen theorists in the great traditions, all materials in the handout, all of singer's book, and page 1-250 of gandhi's book. i have also read all of the internet articles that are required for posts. i did not read any of the optional readings.

g. Out of all the reading that you were assigned what reading would you recommmend for future ethics classes? be specific. Which books? which articles? which chapters? is there reading that you would absolutely not recommend? why? in my philosophy 5 class we read a book by donald palmer, "looking at philosophy," which also talks about the 14 philosophers we read in great traditions. personally, i think palmer's book is much easier to follow than the great traditions. for the nietzsche reading, i think it would be better to assign the whole book to read instead of just selected passages from the book; that way students can really understand the context of the idea he is talking about.

h. Did you complete any extra credit this summer? explain. no i did not. like i have said before in the midterm, the reading workload for two 18-week philosophy classes crammed into 5 weeks is enormous and i couldn't find the time to do beyond the minimum requirement.

***********************

1. Give a very specific outline of the ETHICS of Gandhi as presented in his "autobiography" from pp. 1-250 (up to p. 300 if you read this far) and the final last pages. Unlike a biography that only outlines his life the "autobiography" allows you to go into his head and experience his world view. Focus on his world view. Articulate his ethics as he sees them. Answer what does he mean by "experiments with Truth?" What are his "specific" personal ethical struggles and life challenges? What personal problems does he face and how does he solve them? Detail his ethical position. And, finally, why do you think Gandhi is considered by many to be a moral hero? Do you think that Gandhi's life can serve as an inspiration for us today. Apply Gandhi's ethics to your individual life AND to the world at large. (Hint: I need to see in this essay that you completed the assigned reading; this most likely will be a longer essay and so worth a bit more). If you did not read the AUTOBIOGRAPHY then skip this question and write I DO NOT KNOW. Do not use an outside source on the life of Gandhi to answer this question (no credit)....I am trying to decipher if you read the assigned book and understood his ethical struggles.

gandhi's ethics as everyone who has heard of the name knows, revolves around non-violence in finding a solution to every problem. gandhi has a belief that as long as one sticks with the truth, any conflicts will eventually be solved, without the need for violence or force. his autobiography outlines most if not all of his success story of how truth has helped him solved many problems without means of violence. gandhi was first inspired "to follow truth and go through all the ordeals" (p.5)after watching the play HARISCHANDRA. he gave high regard to harishchandra who was fully truthful, and gandhi thought that everyone should be truthful like harishchandra. what gandhi means by "experiment with truth" is that he considers his living truthfully as a life-long experiment, and this autobiography is like the report of his success, failure, and the hardships he has to go through. gandhi experiences hardships early, but whenever his principle to uphold truth fails, he carefully studies what causes the failure. one example was when he was still in highschool and a little misunderstanding caused him to be convicted of lying. he realized that although truthful, he was also at fault for being careless; from that he concludes that "a man of truth must also be a man of care." (p.13) this is similar to an experiment, since in a experiment, one always goes by method of trials and errors. gandhi does the same. he practices his principle, and whenever it fails he adds to the principle something it was lacking before and hence causing it to fail.

gandhi, always being a shy person, realizes that shyness is a great quality to have. by being shy, one would refrain oneself from talking out loud unpreparedly, and this is considered really important for a man who upholds truth. gandhi likes the idea that silence is golden; he claims that silence is a really important aspect in the discipline one needs to uphold truth. gandhi recognizes that "proneness to exaggerate, to suppress or modify the truth, wittingly or unwittingly, is a natural weakness of man, and silence is necessary in order to surmount it." (p.55) realizing this, gandhi adds silence to his experiment with truth. another thing that gandhi learns at certain points in his life-long experiment, is that one has to be able to suppress one's emotions and pocket the insults one gets, because otherwise, whenever insulted, one will get offended and experience emotional outbursts, which is likely to result in violence and distortion of truth. gandhi experienced this when his brother asked him to use his friendship with a sahib in order to get his brother out of a trouble. gandhi recognized this as an exploitation of friendship, and to gandhi, this has proved disastrous.

gandhi's experiment with truth was showing shape when he was violently assaulted for being "coloured." he showed his passiveness by refusing to bring the matter into legal accounts. not only passiveness, but gandhi also showed forgiveness and ability to think positively. he claims that he had forgiven the man even before he apologized, because gandhi thinks that the man doesn't know what he is doing because "all coloured people are the same to him." (p.113) gandhi's reasoning to uphold truth with the highest regard becomes clear when in the case with dada abdulla he made a claim that "facts mean truth, and once we adhere to truth, the law comes to our aid naturally." gandhi was still a normal human being, he did not renounce the world nor was he able to renounce his emotions, but one success that can be learned from him is his ability to restrain his feelings. many ocassion gandhi experienced insults that enraged him, but he always managed to restrain his feelings. gandhi was also not afraid of making sacrifices, such as taking off his turban, as long as it was "worthy of a better cause." (p.129) another instance that shows gandhi's passiveness is when a christian mother he frequently visited, asked him to not talk to her son about giving up meat because she is worried that the son will become ill. to this, gandhi claims that the best solution is for him to stop his visits. (p.141). gandhi also shows his belief that people are good and practices his non-violent campaign when he claims that he "has trusts in their sense of fairness." (p.168) this happens when gandhi made a visit to south africa and people there started getting violent upon his arrival.

i think such philosopy of live creates amazement on people, and that makes gandhi a moral hero for many people. gandhi was not the only one in this world who believes that peace is a much better solution than violence, but these people who believe rarely turn their belief into realization. gandhi makes himself an example that it is possible for one not to get provoked into violence. gandhi's principle of non-violent protest is EXACTLY what we need in the world today. when a number of people rally together to protest about an issue, their main purpose is to get their message of disapproval across. but these sorts of rallies often end up in violence, either provoked or not. when a protest turns violent, what the world sees at fault is the protesters, not the main issue they are protesting about, thus defeating the whole purpose of the protest AND making the participants look bad. if they apply gandhi's non-violent system and learn how to pocket insults in order not to get provoked, the world will be moved and understand the issue they are protesting. people like john lennon and his wife, yoko ono, had been a follower of gandhi's ethics and their non-violent campaign against war: "give peace a chance," has been much more successful than other campaigns that people carry out.

------------------------------------------


2. Compare/contrast the "moral systems" of Gandhi with Singer. Detail your answer. How might Gandhi's ethical views match or differ from Singer's. In discussing Singer make sure you define utilitarianism (explain in depth what this is) and his overall general moral stance and then compare this perspective with Gandhi. Would Gandhi disagree or agree with Singer? In what areas of ethics? Explain your stance here.

utilitarianism is an ethical theory that based itself on the concept of greatest pleasure for the most people. what defines good is pleasure, and evil is pain. so in order for one to reach true happiness, pain has to nullified and pleasure has to me maximized. utalitarianism is in a way not any different than hedonism, goes on a little further to claim that morality means promoting the greatest happiness to the most of society. happiness for oneself is not yet the final happiness that everyone seeks, but happiness for the whole entire society is.

singer being a utilitarianist, introduces the importance of the concept of pain in all of his arguments. it seems to me, however, that singer concerns more with nullifying pain rather than maximizing pleasure. for singer, one out of many reasons he considers animal killing (for food) as immoral is the fact that animals experiences pain and pain reduces pleasure. not only this, but also for the case of abortion and euthanasia. whatever results in pain should not be done because it only reduces pleasure, a typical view of utilitarianist. now, of course singer's view on each of these subjects are not exactly that, there is more to it, but for the sake of comparison, i take only the outline of his argument.

this argument would not be very compelling to gandhi. while singer also argues against animal killing, gandhi's reasons concern less on the pain vs pleasure concept that singer's argument revolves around. gandhi's argument is based on his belief that animals ARE inferior to human beings, but because of this human beings should protect them. gandhi does not concern whether animals feel pain or not, but his argument against animal killing proves to be stronger ---at least for me--- because he looks into the values of animals themselves. he sees animals as living beings with values, not something that is to be judged solely on pain and pleasure, like the argument peter singer and david lane gave. if it were up to me only, gandhi's argument is much more convincing than both singer and lane.

on the issue of euthanasia and abortion, i think singer's as-long-as-it-does-not-inflict-pain policy would also not be very compelling to gandhi. gandhi is not a utilitarianist, so whether a fetus can experience pain or not will not be taken into account on his view on abortions. gandhi will most likely argue against abortion, because he is a person who values life, and regardless of whether fetus can experience pain, fetus has a potential of becoming a human being, and for gandhi this is much more valuable. on euthanasia, it is likely that gandhi would be against such a thing, regardless of voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. but when put to practice, say gandhi is faced by someone who voluntarily requests euthanasia, gandhi's passiveness makes it possible that gandhi would just let him have it. after all, gandhi has firm belief in people's "sense of fairness" and therefore trusts them to know what is best for themselves.

------------------------------------------

3. Now reflect on what you think Nietzsche would say about Gandhi's ethics? Would he be impressed or disgusted and WHY??? Make sure to thoroughly explain your answer in light of what you read in the autobiography and what you read by Nietzsche. Be specific.

nietzsche would definitely be disgusted. gandhi's high regards of passiveness in his ethical theory is completely opposite of nietzsche's ethical theory. nietzsche claims that human beings have to use force in order for them to persevere. unlike gandhi, nietzsche have high regards for confrontation; nietzsche claims that confrontation is the only way human beings can evolve for the better. his perfect image of a human being is the superman, one who is able to refuse traditional values and dominate nature as to act the way the superman wills it to be. for nietzsche, evolution means becoming a person who can surpass humanity and master nature. nietzsche's conception of good and evil relates to nature; whatever conforms to nature is good, and whatever contrary is bad, but nietzsche's nature is that of darwin's definition: the survival of the fittest, and nietzsche seems to be taking it literally. he thinks that in nature only the strongest can survive and therefore everyone must strive to be stronger. to this he introduces the idea of "will to power." nietzsche claims that will can be the source of one's power, and with power, one can evolve to be the superman nietzsche regards as the perfect human being.

this idea is completely opposite from gandhi's. gandhi claims that peace and non-violence is the solution to everything, and in his experiment with truth, he has proven that his theory was correct. nietzsche would be disgusted of gandhi's ethics, however, especially with gandhi's passiveness and tendency to avoid conflict. nietzsche claims that only by undergoing conflict can a person evolve for the better, and thus is contradictive with gandhi's ethical theory that teaches one to learn to control emotions and pocket insults. for nietzsche, gandhian ideas like this ---if followed--- will never get human beings to the level of the superman, and thus it is only normal for nietzsche to abhor such passiveness.

nietzsche would also be disgusted by gandhi's ethical view on animals. gandhi values the lives of animals as much as he values the lives of human beings, and thus refrains from killing animals for food. this is in opposition to nietzsche's idea of man's domination over nature. nietzsche claims that the highest level of human beings, the superman, is achieved only after man can use the "will to power" to dominate over nature. but dominating over nature would also mean full domination of animals. gandhi, on the other hand, claims that human beings have to use their superiority to protect the inferior ones, the animals. this idea of protecting the weak goes against nietzsche's principle that in nature, only the strong survives. therefore, it is not a wonder if nietzsche and gandhi can never sit and drink tea together.

------------------------------------------

4. What is the neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism as presented by Lane? (outline the main points/ideas in the article WHY I DO NOT EAT FACES). What is the "utilitarian argument for animal rights" (define) as presented by Singer? Are they the same argument or not? When discussing Singer outline his argument for animal rights drawing specifically from the first couple chapters of his book to illustrate that you read. (hint: you will need to mention and define speciesism and other important ideas and examples from the reading, etc.)

lane's argument on animal rights is simliar to singer's. similar in a sense that they address the same kind of objections to support their claim. lane, like singer, claims that animals can experience pain, based on the fact that they have nervous system. he strengthens his argument by claiming that when the central nervous system is shut down, pain disappears; thus, anything that has a central nervous system must be able to experience pain. another point lane tries to make is the question on whether it is NECESSARY to eat meat. like singer, lane also claims that human beings do not NEED meat to survive, and that meat is simply a luxury. lane also goes on, in defense of vegetarianism, to ask us to put ourselves in the animals' position. he invents a scenario in which a transhuman being which intelligence to us is like us to a cow, comes to us wanting to eat us. lane then claims that intelligence also cannot be used as an excuse to to kill animals for food.

singer's "utilitarian argument for animal rights" apparently takes equality into account in all of his arguments. it seems that his claim is that something is moral, or correct, or justified, if it does not create inequality. for singer, equality in a nutshell is equal consideration of interests. so an action can only uphold equality if the interests of every side that is affected by this action have been equally taken into account. in his argument on animal rights, singer claims that just because animals are different from us in many ways, does not imply that their interests can be disregarded. doing so then leads to speciesism, which is not any different from racism, only that it discriminates against other species and not other races. while singer seems to be against the killing of animals, he does accept that there are some animals that are not self-conscious and not autonomous and says that the case against animal killings is weak for these animals. however, singer addresses other arguments that may be used against animal rights. he counters the argument on whether animals can feel pain by arguing that there is no reason that they cannot since vertebrates all have fundamentally similar nervous system, including us. thus if we can feel pain, then they can, too. singer also counters the argument claiming that we are justified to eat animals since animals eat each other. but we are not like animals: while some animals are herbivores, some other are carnivores and they NEED meat to live. human beings however, do NOT NEED animals to live. eating meat is a luxury, and the very fact that we can still survive without eating meat, gives no justification on eating them.

------------------------------------------

5. Now answer whether animals have moral rights? Justify "philosophically" your position. This is not simply just your opinion. But you need to "back up" your answer with philosophical reasoning....use other "ethical theorists," ones that we covered in the course, as a backbone. I encourage your to draw upon material from earlier in the semester. I would like you to use at least three philosophers to justify your position (Hobbes, Mill, Nietzsche, Spinoza, Sartre...whoever you think might fit here and exlain why).

i do NOT believe that animals should have animal rights, but this does not mean that we can then just go around killing animals all we want; there are limits to this. the difficulty of assigning rights to animals is this: should we give all animals the same rights or not? if the answer is yes, we should, then that means a dog in the living room has the same right as the mosquito spreading the west-nile virus. if we can't kill dogs, then we can't kill mosquito as well. if the answer is no, we shouldn't, then we will be giving unfair rights to animals; we will be considering a species of animal greater than another species. why should mammals be considered a higher species to reptiles? why should reptiles be considered a higher species to bugs? or vice versa. this difficulty makes it impossible to assign rights to animals. what kind of rights? which animals should be affected?

many argue using the same basis of argument: "animals can feel pain. humans can feel pain. if humans don't like pain then animals don't like pain as well. if we shouldn't kill human beings because it inflicts pain on them, then we shouldn't kill animals either." as far as the argument goes, it is valid and sound. but there is a problem with it. what is defined by "animals?" mammals? reptiles? or everything in the animal kingdom? vegetarians use the claim that it is immoral to kill animals, but do they not kill ants? or bugs? or gophers causing ruckus in their yard? this might sound extreme, but they never say it is immoral to kill or hurt cows, chicken, fish, and pigs; they claim it is immoral to kill or hurt ANIMALS. no offense, but do they not consider reptiles and bugs animals? again i need to emphasize that i am not saying that we should go around and make every animals extinct.

peter singer argue for animal rights, claiming that as long as killing animals cause pain, then we should not kill animals. in other words, he is saying that if the animal does not feel pain, it is okay to kill it. the problem with this argument is that it is difficult for us to know which animals feel pain and which animal does not. when you hit a dog with a stick, how do you know the howl means that the dog is in pain? how do you know that the dog doesn't have a twisted or retarded dog-brain that the dog becomes one who takes pleasure in being hit by a stick? this might seem ridiculous, but it is not impossible. just like there are people who enjoy hurting themselves, like cutting or stabbing themselves. i forgot the politically correct term for these people, but they do exist. also, how much is it required for the animals before they feel pain? a pinch to a 3-month-old baby does not inflict the same pain as a pinch to arnold schwarznegger. the latter one might inflict pain on the person who pinches instead. if singer claims that killing animals is immoral because it causes pain to the animal, then if we put all the animals to sleep with, say, sleeping gas, then shut down all their nervous system so they cannot feel pain, then it is okay to kill them? of course it is still not okay. pain cannot and should not be used as a reason against animal killing.

david lane uses an example about transhuman being who are far more intelligent than us and find our meat to be delicious and argues that it is still not moral for them to eat us. lane also compares these intelligence of these transhuman being to us is like us to cows. well, if there is such a thing as those transhuman beings, then maybe they DO deserve to enjoy our meat as delicacies. of course lane was just taking an extreme example, and i fully understand that he is just trying to put us in the position of the cows. but here is the reason why ---even if these transhuman beings do exist--- we are different from the cows. we can assemble. we can join forces to resist. if these transhuman beings try to eat us, of course we will fight back. if we do not have the will to fight back in order to preserve ourselves, then sure, they have all the right in the universe to eat us. i am not joking, but if somehow these cows, chickens, and pigs join forces to freed themselves from being the source of food of human beings, then maybe they won't be food anymore. i am not talking about intelligence either; a bird is more intelligent than any of us in building a stiff, strong nest that will not fall of a branch of a tree from merely a bunch of trunks. i am talking about the will. we have will, and that makes us superior than these animals.

regarding gandhi's argument, claiming that since we are superior to animals, it is our duty to protect them, i have to say i agree, though not fully. but again this does not mean we should all give up from eating meat. i didn't fully agree with gandhi because again, what kind of animals are we talking about here? why should we prefer cows over slugs or mosquitos? now, i do not know whether mosquitos or slugs have nervous system or not, but IF THEY DON'T, then a cow with its nervous system shut down is no different than these puny mosquitos. and even if they DO have nervous system, why is it not immoral for us to kill mosquitos? lately, mosquitos have been threatening our lives with the west nile virus, so to take precaution, we clean up all kinds of place that can be used by these mosquitos to live. in other words, we are killing these mosquitos so that we do not die. and when we kill these mosquitos, do we carefully look first and give them the benefit of the doubt that they're just regular blood-sucking creatures with no west-nile virus? no. we just smack them with our palms instantly and after they're squashed, we then look and say: "oh well, it's just a regular mosquito after all." but again i need to emphasize that i am NOT saying we should all just kill every living animal.

if one wants to defend the cows chickens pigs and fish being killed daily for our food sources, do not use animal rights as a reason to back up the argument. i firmly do NOT believe that animals should be given rights, not because they are worthless or anything degrading like that, but because we have to ask the question to ourselves: WHO ARE WE TO GIVE THESE ANIMALS RIGHTS? are we their creators? no. are they the citizen of our country? no. they just happen to be living here. if they don't like it they can rebel and leave, i would not mind. if one wants to defend these animals from being eaten daily, DO IT OUT OF RESPECT. i can give up meat whenever i want, for i usually give up meat for 40 days every year during lent. of course there are trouble finding variety of cheap nourishing non-meat food that can sustain my need to stay awake for 18-20 hours everyday doing college work, but meat is NOT something i need to survive. i DO agree with that argument. all i'm saying is that pain should not be used as an excuse for us to not eat animals. when gandhi argues that we do not meat to survive, i feel that such is a much stronger argument than what singer and lane has proposed. of course singer proposed such an argument as well, but his main point lies in the "pain" argument.

argument to defend animals based on their pain is ---at least for me--- ridiculous. giving animals their rights is even worse. what's next? the neighbor cat being taken into prison, tried, and sentenced into 5 years in prison for hurting my hamster? some other animal rights activist argue that we shouldn't feel superior to animals, that they have rights as well. but think of it this way: if we give them rights, then they have to follow regulations as well, and by regulations i mean the constitution and the state laws. are they able to comprehend such? if they ARE able, that means we have to give them the same right we have, and that means cats and dogs and mosquitos and slugs will have as much right to education as us. i can sense affirmative action bill being passed by the supreme court to let these animals the right to a higher education. am i being ridiculous? i think not. this is what will happen if we give animals the same right as us. "well, of course not the SAME right, you doofus," you say. okay, let's give them lesser rights. they don't need education and cars, maybe just a right for them to live. but then that implies most if not all of the people in the world will be sentenced to prison for mass massacre of ants, attempted murders mosquitos, and such ridiculous charges. like i have said before: when animal rights activists argue for the rights for animals, they should be implying ALL animals, because otherwise they will have to be specifics like dog rights activist, or cow rights activist. i do not think animals not need rights, what they need is RESPECT.

friedrich nietzsche will, of course, support this argument of mine. as much as i hate him for his arguments (and i have my own reasons for that), he will agree that my argument here reflects his "will to power" concept. nietzsche claims that human beings will have the power to dominate over nature if they can evolve into a better human beings he called superman. this idea of nietzsche reflects darwin's theory of evolution, or simply put, the survival of the fittest. this is the concept i used in my argument; if those cows or chickens can evolve into a better beings (like supercow or superchicken) that can think and join forces, then they will be able to fight us, the demonic meat-eaters. kinda like the movie "chicken run." too bad the chickens in this world don't have mel-gibson-like intelligence to organize such an escape.

mill's utilitarian principle would also support this view, but for a weaker reasoning. utilitarianism concerns with the concept of the greatest pleasure for the most people. well, although living without meat is possible, but giving up something tasty will result in less pleasure and will not go along with utilitarianim. one might argue against this by saying that vegans gain longer healthy life by giving up meat, but then again, it all comes back to the questions: how much longer? is longer really worth it? and why can't a meat-eater live a healthy life?

kant's categorical imperative, however, will be the strongest to back up my philosophy regarding animal rights. kant claims that we should "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." so if we want to give animals their rights, then it SHOULD apply to all animals, because otherwise it won't be universal. like i have said before, what right do we have to prefer dogs over mosquitos? if we try the maxim "we should not kill animals" then it would also apply to mosquitos and flies. but now we have west-nile-virus-carrying mosquitos around us, will we just let ourselves be obliterated because of such maxim, and our persistency on animal rights? (animal rights, not dog or cat or cows or chicken rights)




------------------------------------------

6. How does Peter Singer view abortion? Describe his reasoning process. More importantly, do you agree? Justify philosophically (explain in depth; do not write simply yes or no). (note: when explaining Singer's position here note that he is not simply pro-life or for abortion--his answer is a bit more complicated...explain the "specifics" of his position...it is not black or white but a bit grey....explain the greyness.....in what circumstances is abortion acceptable to Singer and in what circumstances is it not.)

simply put, singer is for abortion. by applying his ethical theory that is highly influenced by utilitarianism, singer challenges the premise that a fetus is an innocent human being. singer claims that a fetus is not a human being; he considers the level of rationality, self-consciousness, and awareness, and concludes that a fetus is at the same level as that of nonhuman animals. a fetus, singer claims, has no sense of rationality, no awareness, and is not self-conscious. since a fetus does not have the characteristics of a person, then it cannot claim the rights of being a person. singer also challenges the claim that fetus has the right of a person because it has a potential for life. he claims that although a fetus IS a potential human being, the argument that it is wrong to kill a potential human being is a weak one. again singer claims that having a potential to become a human being does not imply that the fetus can claim the rights of a human being. he also addresses the objection that says that killing a fetus would deprive the world of something that is intrinsically valuable: he argues that contraception and celibacy does the pretty much same thing but are not considered to be morally wrong. singer claims, however, from a utilitarianist standpoint, that the killing of a fetus does cause pain and not pleasure, not to the fetus itself, but to the parents of the fetus. thus, he concludes that if the parents have no objection then abortion does not inflict pain on anyone and ---from a utilitarianist point of view--- is not morally wrong.

i have personal dislikes for singer and his argument, although at first i found them quite convincing. singer based his arguments solely on materialistic aspect, but probably all utilitarianists do. the way he values life is through the concept of "pleasure vs pain." something is valuable if it produces pleasure, and not if it produces pain. his argument makes sense, but i feel that it lacks the compassion for the fetus itself. singer claims from a utilitarian point of view that since a fetus is not a human being, then the interest of the fetus itself should not be taken into consideration. i am not against animal killing, but fetus is not the same as animals, so i am against the killing of a fetus. it is extremely displeasing to see how singer classifies fetus in the same category as a nonhuman animals. a fetus has the potential to develop into human beings with intelligence while animals will develop into animals whose instinct dominates over intelligence. for this reason, a fetus should be valued more than animals.

------------------------------------------

7.How does Peter Singer view euthanasia? Describe his reasoning process. Do you agree? Justify philosophically (explain in depth). (note: there are varying types of euthanasia so make sure to explain each and his position on each one of these and your position on each of these as well.)

peter singer stands to defend that euthanasia should be justified as an action that is NOT morally incorrect. he addresses three different types of euthanasia: voluntary, one in which the person to be killed requested so because he considers that his life is no longer worth living; involuntary, one in which the person to be killed is killed against his will to go on living or is killed prior to being asked for consent; and nonvoluntary, one in which the person to be killed is in such a condition that he cannot make a decision on whether to go on living or not. singer justifies voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia, but not involuntary. he considers involuntary as morally incorrect since it is done against the person's will to live on, and if the person chooses to live on, then clearly living on (although under pain) gives the person more pleasure and singer's utilitarian principle then justifies living on. this same argument goes for the voluntary euthanasia. nonvoluntary however, is quite differently argued. singer sticks with his utilitarian principle and claims that in case of defective birth, if the child cannot then lead a life of a good quality, then taking the life of the child is justified. for singer, such a thing as an unworthy life to live exists, and euthanasia is justified for those who are living unworthy lives.

i hold firmly to my belief that there is no life not worth living, no matter how painful or unpleasant. so regardless of the utilitarian principle that singer upholds, i am against the concept of euthanasia, involuntary or nonvoluntary. however, on the case of voluntary euthanasia, if the person keeps insisting that his life is not worth living, then no matter how hard i try to talk him into not doing it, i will not succeed. like gandhi, i also believe that a person knows what is best for himself, and thus if he thinks death is the best possible solution, then euthanasia is justified. but in the event where the person cannot make a decision for himself, then euthanasia should never be done. such a strong issue as euthanasia is only justified if personally requested by the person suffering.

------------------------------------------

8. As an ethical theorist what does Singer say about poverty, refugees and the environment? Explain his position in each of these area. Do you agree with his positions here....explain? If so (or for the sake of the argument imagine that you do) what can you personally do to "make a difference" in these areas. Explain in depth.

apparently the singer book i bought online was not the correct one. i did not notice this until now, because singer's discussions on animals, euthanasia, and abortion were all there. even the chapter on poverty was there also. but this edition of practical ethics stops at chapter 10. i have punched in the correct ISBN number, but apparently the person selling it was not being truthful about it. there is no edition number written on the book, but my guess is that this is definitely an older edition and not the 3rd. in this book, chapter 5 talks about animal rights, chapter 6 talks about abortion, chapter 7 talks about euthanasia, chapter 8 talks about poverty, but chapter 9 and 10 does not talk about any of the refugees or environment that is being asked. chapter 9 is titled "ends and means" and chapter 10 is titled "why act morally?" so i guess i would have to skip the question about refugees and environment.

on poverty however, i can say this much:

in a nutshell, singer argues that human beings are morally obliged to help prevent absolute poverty, as long as the sacrifice made to do such a thing is not something of comparable significance. singer harshly compares not helping to murder, by addressing five objections to his comparison. first, singer addresses the lack of identifiable victim: if a person KNOWS that not helping causes the death of some people, then deciding not to help will be the same as murder, despite there is no specific victim. second, singer addresses the lack of certainty that the money sent to help will actually be a help: for singer, this is a valid point in the argument, but still is not acceptable; he gives an example about a speeding motorist who does not harm any pedestrian, but the act of speeding itself is already unacceptable. third, singer addresses the claim that we are not responsible for other people starving since they would still be starving even if we didn't exist: this point is considered irrelevant to singer; he takes the notion of a consequentialist by saying that if someone starving is a result of us not sending our money to help, then we are at fault, regardless of whether we exist or not. fourth, singer addresses the claim that motivation of not helping and murder is different: again singer gives an example about the speeding motorist; his intention was of course just to feel the adrenaline rush from speeding. but if he ends up killing someone in the process, then he is held responsible, regardless of his intial intention. and the fifth, singer addresses the claim that it is easier to not kill than to save lives, since saving lives could probably mean lowering our standards to that below our bare necessities: this claim, for singer, is not sound because it takes into account our society, in which donating is done for the praise; he claims that praise or blame does not justify right or wrong. singer also argues that it is possible for us to help without lowering our standards to that of below bare necessity. he gives examples on things we can sacrifice to help prevent poverty, which is of greater moral significance: expensive dinners, overseas holidays, larger house, extra cars, etc. singer in "practical ethics" also brought up the objection from triage. the concept of triage says that we should not aid those who do not need aid and those to whom the aid will become useless. this is in a way similar to "lifeboat ethics" in which people in a lifeboat will not let those floating in the ocean to jump in because the boat will drown. singer disagrees with such a concept that claims the rich should not help the poor because the poor will drag the rich down with them. singer proposes different ways to handle different poverty type, but he insists that the poor should not be left to starve.

------------------------------------------

9. Outline the articles on CLONING (handed out at the mandatory meeting), discussing what it is, how is works and MOST IMPORTANTLY the ethical issues involved. Most importanly, having been well informed about cloning now, what is your ethical position here? Explain in depth your position on this topic.

cloning is the art of ---roughly putting it--- copy-pasting one's genetic code into a newly developed embryo. this embryo will then develop to form a copy of the person whose genetic code is copy-pasted to the embryo. in other word, this art creates a CLONE of the person, and for that reason is called cloning. one of the newest cloning method is the nuclear transplantation cloning, which successfully created a cloned sheep scientists named dolly. there are three other different types of cloning: molecular, cellular, and blastomere. molecular cloning is a method to duplicate a segment of DNA that produces a biologically significant substance, by using bacteria as a host. cellular cloning is a method that clones particular cells of the body, used to test drug effects on body cells. blastomere cloning is a method to create a copy of the embryo by splitting the embryo early in the development, before it reaches the blastocyst stage. aside from these definitions, the more interesting part of cloning is the ethical issues it raises.

human cloning is claimed to have breached the fine line between mortality and divinity, and thus scientists who practice cloning are said to be playing god, since only god can create human beings (or make copies, in this case). but the argument that people put forth for this claim seems to be based on the thought that creating a clone means defying the natural way of creation. to this, it is then argued that many things we have been doing now are also unnatural; things such as birth control pill and other medical assistance to help the birth of a child that is unlikely to survive are not natural. but the fact is that such things have been helpful to the society, and these things, though unnatural, have helped the society for the better. why then use a claim that cloning defies natural process when we're already living in a world where things do not go naturally?

another claim against the human cloning is with regard to having another identical person. this brings things back to the classic nature vs nurture argument. the unfortunate thing about cloning is that it can only make a replica of the genetic code (nature), but not the effect that is caused by nurture. now, with no intention to offend any of the nurture or nature proponent, i think it is safe to claim that on this issue there is no black or white. both nature and nurture affect the growth of a person evenly, if not almost. such a replication process as cloning, can only replicate the nature side of a person: the biological part, and this is known to make up at most 50% of a person. so there is a 50-50 chance that although the clone is identical to the original, it might behave differently and grow differently. thus, no matter how many clones we make of a person, the chances of getting an identical person with identical behaviour will be slim to none, as it would constitute the exact same environment for that person to be brought up in.

though i tend to go against cloning, i do feel that there are many benefits we can get from the research. my only reason to be against cloning is the thought that once people can clone, they might not be interested in reproducing anymore. not that i think we should go follow what is natural, but i fear the fact that is also brought up in the article: reducing genetic variation. it might not be scary to have many identical people around the neighborhood, but such a thing will leave the society stagnant. we have to admit that genetic variation does play some role in the various development of a person. with cloning, we reduce this variety of development by half, because now the nature aspect hardly plays any role anymore. variety is thus left only to nurture to determine. i don't know if it will come to that, but it is not an impossibility that this might lead to reducing the growth of the society by half. the positive aspect of cloning, on the other hand, is the development of the stem cell research, which may eventually lead to the development of a treatment that can cure cancer. cellular cloning can be used to replace the cell that is disfunctional due to the tumor growing in or around it. with the development of the method to clone cells, replacement of the cells after the removal of tumor can be made easier.

------------------------------------------

10. Out of everything you studied this term, from the fifteen ethical theorists, to the moral case topics, to the life of Gandhi, to evolutionary psychology what or who had the most impact on your thinking and may have actually impacted your life in some way? Explain in detail...apply to your life and world. I really want to see that you digested the material you studied and that somehow it affected your worldview. Articulate who or what influenced you the most and how it did. Offer details.

i was astonished that saint augustine and i hold the same ethical view. i have never been exposed to the writings of saint augustine before, until i had to read the confession for my humanities class last spring. i was shocked. as i was reading i thought to myself: hey, this guy came up with the same idea a long time ago, so i've got to be on the right track. i would spend more time reading the city of god over the rest of the summer, since i've got nothing to do after this course. another philosopher whose ethical view has somewhat affected my life is that of epictetus. his idea that true happiness can only be achieved by a disciplined mind, being able to accept the events that are beyond our control, is exactly the way my dad has taught me over the course of my life. epictetus' ethical view is somewhat similar to the old saying that goes: do not want what you do not have, but want what you have. it is quite astonishing, it seems to me, that my dad, who has never studied philosophy throughout his life, was able to teach me the ethical view of a great philosopher of the past.

another philosopher that affected my view on the world is friedrich nietzsche, but in a bad way. it is not that i am biased because i am a catholic, but i just cannot see nietzsche's logic. if his ethical view is ---god forbid--- held to be the correct morality and everyone follows, this world will be filled with war and people who are trying to dominate others in order to become the strongest --- the superman. maybe nietzsche doesn't mean it to be promoting war and violence, but aside from the fact that human beings ARE violent in nature, nietzsche's ethical view will nonetheless promotes such violence to persist. gandhi, however, was a great example and has earned my full respect and admiration. if i had the opportunity, i would probably be like miss schlesin, who worked for gandhi on low salary just because she admires him and likes his principles. i can relate to gandhi in many ways. i have been provoked many times into violence and sometimes the only thing that stops me from bursting into anger is the fear of pain i will get. but now i learned from gandhi that peace and passiveness can also settle a conflict. before reading gandhi i've always been upholding the nietzschian view that only through conflict can human beings evolve for the better. as much as i dislike nietzsche, i had always thought that whenever something unpleasant happens, the best way to settle it is to confront it. gandhi taught me a different method, and he himself has proven it to be successful.

the articles on cloning has also somewhat shifted my stance on the cloning issue. like i have explained in #9, i fear that cloning produces identical persons, and hence reducing genetic variation. from the articles, i learned that although cloning basically copies someone's genetic code, the mutation and the complex development of the DNA and the genes allow a small variation between the copy and the original. not much, but at least not fully identical.