Blog 6 - How did the third contemporary issue effect your principles? What more have you found that you need to reasonably respond to these moral issues beyond a set of principles? Are their other skills or knowledge that will make you a more effective ethical being? What are they? The third contemporary issue of the death penalty did not make a huge impact on my personal principles. I don't have strong opinions on this topic. However, talking about this issue in class made me uncomfortable with the idea of ending life purposely and with an "eye for an eye" kind of mind set. I do not typically agree with this mentality, but I felt like I could relate to Hook's views on the death penalty. In order for me to reasonably respond to the moral issues that we covered, I found that I needed to respond with leeway and an open mind. Once I developed one personal principle, I realized that different moral issues would challenge my principles and I need to account for them.

Abortion

Blog 5 - How did the second contemporary issue effect your principles? Are you better able to see areas where your principles need adjusting? What adjustments need to be made? Which philosopher's position was least consistent with your own principles and why?

The second contemporary issue of abortion did not negatively effect my personal principles. I think that the mother's rights outweigh the fetus's because the woman is a full person. This fits into my social principle of natural born rights and a person being able to do what they want without the law hindering his or her decision. A woman can do what she wants with her body according the Locke and I agree with this as well.

The only area where my principles need adjusting is in a case where the mother wants to terminate the fetus past the point where the fetus is pretty far along in development. I think that even if the woman wants the abortion, the baby has rights once is developed. This goes against my principle of libertarianism being that the law is hindering the woman's choice. However, once the fetus can be counted as a human, I think the baby's rights are more important than the mother's.

John Noonan's position was least consistent with my own principles because I think that abortion should not be outlawed with just the exception of self-defense. I think that a woman should be able to abort her fetus, while it still counts as a fetus and not a person. I disagree with his view that the fetus is just an unnamed "it" until birth. I believe that the fetus is not an "it" once it reaches the point in development where it can still live if taken out of the womb, not until after it is born.

I commented on this blog: http://evangerry.blogspot.com/

Cloning

How did the first contemporary issue effect your principles? Did it challenge them? Were your principles helpful in working out your response to the issue? Which philosopher's position was most consistent with your own principles and why?


The first contemporary issue actually did effect my principles. The idea of cloning and stem cell research certainly challenged my social principles that I discussed in my last blog. In my last blog, I stated that everybody should have the right to what they want. However, I am not sure that that is the case when dealing with cloning. I believe that cloning is unnatural and despite the benefits for a happier, healthier life, I think that cloning would hurt society. Yes, the world is progressing in such a way that cloning may very well be possible in the future, but in my opinion, it is immoral because of the psychological reasonings. Say one person wants the clone, but then that clone could feel inferior and lacking in uniqueness because of being a clone. This causes psychological distress to that person that is unnecessary and immoral because that clone had no choice in becoming someone else's clone. 


My principles were helpful by challenging the issue of cloning because I was able to see that there are flaws and exceptions to my social principles and the other principles I developed. I agreed with Locke's principle of natural born rights, but then after addressing the idea of cloning, my principles had to shift to allow my distaste for cloning, even when I thought a person should have the right to do what they please. My principles worked out my response to this issue because I realized there were more exceptions to my principles, when regarding the humanity of others. 


Kass's argument is more consistent with my own principles. He says that cloning violates human individuality and that the idea of cloning is immoral. His ideas relate to my own because my principles shows a similar opinion to his in that the individuality of a person is taken away, which I think could cause predisposed psychological damage to the clone. The whole idea of cloning, to me, scares me, even after reading about the advantages and benefits cloning may have to humans. It's just not natural. 




I commented on Catherine's blog:  http://catherinedba.blogspot.com/

Social / Moral Principles

What Social / Moral Principles do you find compelling and why? How do these principles fit with the personal principles you identified in Blog 2? Do they conflict at all? Do you think you can live according to both? How will you go about doing so? i.e. Prioritize them? Adopt specific ones for specific contexts?

The social principle I find the most compelling is John Locke's libertarianism. This is because I find his idea of natural born rights and every person having the right to do what they want interesting. He believed that these natural rights allow us the freedom to make choices for ourselves without being hindered by the law or anybody else. I agree with the idea of a just government who cannot tell us what we can and cannot read as well as having the choice to terminate a pregnancy, and other ideas along those lines.

These principles fit well with the person principles I identified in Blog 2, because in my last blog I said how people shouldn't be judged overly negatively for what they think or do. If a person has an opinion they should be allowed to think it or say it without feeling as if they were to be attacked if someone had a different opinion to their own. This is where Locke's social principle of natural rights comes into play. Just as people shouldn't step on one another's ideas, as John Locke believed, there is no right for a person to judge how another person chooses to live and the choices that they choose to make. If a woman wants to abort her fetus, then she should have the right to do so whether it is moral or immoral to others. However, one aspect of Locke's view of natural rights that conflicts with my personal principles are not giving money to the poor as a result of not being able to force anything on people, such as taking money from those who do not want to give it. I believe that Welfare is something that is helpful for those who deserve it. 

I can live according to both principles. I believe that many cases are circumstantial. I mean by this, that even if you strongly agree with one principle in a specific context, a different principle may better suit a different case. I do think it's necessary to adopt specific principles for specific contexts. Not one principle is perfectly just but rather, there are flaws in everything. We just have to find the fit for what principle would be the best in different situations. 




I commented on this blog: http://ashantijones.blogspot.com/ 

Personal Principles

I adhere to the personal principles that I've developed through my upbringing and schooling. From pre-school to fifth grade, I went to a Christian school. I was taught strict religious principles and was taught what I should believe in. I switched schools because at an early age, I became confused with the concepts they taught me, and I felt suffocated from the constant regiment of religion. However, some principles from this time have stuck. Compassion to others, humility, and acceptance were some ideas that I adhere to. From our readings and discussions, I strengthened my principle of acceptance of others' beliefs and attitudes. Not everyone has the same opinion as you, and they should not be judged or penalized for it. This is prevalent in our class. People may have similar beliefs as you, but there are others who will disagree wholehearted. Their argument should not be judged in a negative manner, but taken in account along with your own. If they feel strongly about a point, what makes their opinion greater than your own? This brings me to another principle I learned growing up. Everyone is equal. We were all put on this earth, whether it's for a certain reason, or just to simple live. The principle of making the most of your life and doing whatever you set your mind to is, yes, cliche, but also true. If we only have one life to live, it should not be wasted doing things you don't love. There would be no point to life, then. 


I commented on Melissa's blog. http://melissaswain22.blogspot.com/