Prompt: Guilty as Charged, But?
Even if Roswell Gilbert was acting out of love and obligation to his wife by killing her, I still think that he was wrong in his actions. Taking another persons life is a terrible and horrendous act to commit. Alternatively I think Gilbert should have sought serious medical help for his wife. Even if she begged him to kill her, I still think that it was wrong; it’s not Gilberts place to take someone’s life even if they are asking for it.
Alzheimer’s is a horrible disease and I witnessed with one of my grandmothers several years ago. It’s terribly sad to witness someone’s mind basically disintegrate. Possibly the worst thing about the disease is that the person affected with it has now idea about the difficulties of daily life. In this situation there is no telling what was going through Gilbert’s wife’s mind.
I think that the majority of society would be shocked and appalled by Gilbert’s actions. I think there are many other options that could have been explored before giving in and killing his own wife. The state of Oregon is the only state in the nation where physicians-assisted suicide is legal. This tells me that the other 49 states in the nation feel like aiding in someone’s death is wrong and immoral.
This is a very complex issue because most people have not been in the position that Gilbert’s wife was in, on her death bed. While I say that his actions were wrong and immoral, I have never been in so much pain that I wished I was dead. I think in this kind of situation you can not fully understand it unless you have spent time in the other person’s shoes.
I don’t think that our laws are sufficient enough to address such a complex issue and I do not know if they will ever be. Whenever morals are mixed with the law the issue at hand often becomes very gray. The people in law believe that they are right while the people on the morality side believe that they are right. I think that there is a whole array of issues including this one where the two sides often times see things very differently.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
Globalization: Not a Quest for Empire
Prompt: Why are We at War
After reading Normal Mailer’s book “Why Are We at War”, the point that I ponder the most is Mailer’s repeated statements about George Bush’s quest for empire. While Mailer goes on to make many good points that I agree with throughout the book, I don’t see how someone could justify the current war in Iraq as America’s quest for a global empire. I disagree with Mailer in regard to America’s so-called quest for a global empire
Our nation’s initial plan for war was to discover and remove weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East. After the weapons of mass destruction were not found, I agree with Mailer that Bush needed to point the finger elsewhere and apparently the most logical place to turn was Iraq. Even after turning to focus the war on Iraq, I believe Bush had good intentions, but the war we are currently fighting is like no other war we have ever been apart of. Bush stated that “Our current war with terror does not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” This is a noble idea, but an idea that I do not think is possible. Terrorist groups will always exist and we can never eliminate all of them. That is why this war is unlike any other, there is no clear cut measure of victory.
With this being said I find it difficult to consider our current war as a quest for global empire. How is attempting to eliminate terrorist groups a quest for a global empire? Why would Bush desire to establish a global empire when he has a limited term as president? If America is trying to take over the world why would we start in the Middle East? Why would Bush attempt such conquest when the next president will most likely have a very different opinion and way of doing things than him?
I believe that Mailer is confusing globalization in general with America’s attempt to take over the world. Other countries are influencing American society just as we our influencing theirs. Just because we have a greater influence does not mean we are trying to rule the world.
After reading Normal Mailer’s book “Why Are We at War”, the point that I ponder the most is Mailer’s repeated statements about George Bush’s quest for empire. While Mailer goes on to make many good points that I agree with throughout the book, I don’t see how someone could justify the current war in Iraq as America’s quest for a global empire. I disagree with Mailer in regard to America’s so-called quest for a global empire
Our nation’s initial plan for war was to discover and remove weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East. After the weapons of mass destruction were not found, I agree with Mailer that Bush needed to point the finger elsewhere and apparently the most logical place to turn was Iraq. Even after turning to focus the war on Iraq, I believe Bush had good intentions, but the war we are currently fighting is like no other war we have ever been apart of. Bush stated that “Our current war with terror does not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” This is a noble idea, but an idea that I do not think is possible. Terrorist groups will always exist and we can never eliminate all of them. That is why this war is unlike any other, there is no clear cut measure of victory.
With this being said I find it difficult to consider our current war as a quest for global empire. How is attempting to eliminate terrorist groups a quest for a global empire? Why would Bush desire to establish a global empire when he has a limited term as president? If America is trying to take over the world why would we start in the Middle East? Why would Bush attempt such conquest when the next president will most likely have a very different opinion and way of doing things than him?
I believe that Mailer is confusing globalization in general with America’s attempt to take over the world. Other countries are influencing American society just as we our influencing theirs. Just because we have a greater influence does not mean we are trying to rule the world.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Rating Ethics
Prompt: The Alligator River Story
I would give Ivan a one because I respect him more than the other characters in this story. Ivan makes the most mature decision by avoiding the troubled situation all together. He isn’t rude or unjust to anyone he simply states that he wants nothing to do with the situation.
Next I would give Gregory a two. Although he loves Abigail and wishes to be with her he does not approve of what she did to get to him. Perhaps Gregory over reacted by permanently casting Abigail aside, but one could see where he is coming from. I would guess that Gregory wanted to be with Abigail just as bad as she wanted to be with him, but he would have taken different steps to make it happen.
I would give Slug a three. He is not a model citizen by any means, but in his mistake he doesn’t compromise his integrity like Abigail and Sinbad. I think Slug beat Gregory because he saw the pain that Abigail was enduring. Even if Slug was just looking out for Abigail and trying to protect her, that is no reason to brutally beat another individual. I think Slug was unjustified in his actions because he wasn’t directly involved in the situation to begin with.
I would give Abigail a four because she makes one of the biggest mistakes in my opinion. She compromises her integrity and her body by going along with Sinbad’s request. In my opinion Abigail is no different than a prostitute on a street corner. Abigail’s only excuse could be that she acted that way because of her love for Gregory; however I do not believe that love for Gregory justifies her actions.
I would rate Sinbad a five because he is the most unethical of the characters in the story. He uses his power (in this case a boat) to take advantage of a young girl. In my opinion Sinbad cannot be trusted. If Sinbad approved of what he did to Abigail, there is no telling what he would do to others wishing to cross the river. Sinbad uses the power that he has to manipulate others and take advantage of them.
Overall I think ethics plays a huge role in daily life. The manner in which people conduct themselves in difficult situations says a lot about their character. I believe that people should act morally and make responsible decisions all of the time, not just when it’s convenient or beneficial to them.
I would give Ivan a one because I respect him more than the other characters in this story. Ivan makes the most mature decision by avoiding the troubled situation all together. He isn’t rude or unjust to anyone he simply states that he wants nothing to do with the situation.
Next I would give Gregory a two. Although he loves Abigail and wishes to be with her he does not approve of what she did to get to him. Perhaps Gregory over reacted by permanently casting Abigail aside, but one could see where he is coming from. I would guess that Gregory wanted to be with Abigail just as bad as she wanted to be with him, but he would have taken different steps to make it happen.
I would give Slug a three. He is not a model citizen by any means, but in his mistake he doesn’t compromise his integrity like Abigail and Sinbad. I think Slug beat Gregory because he saw the pain that Abigail was enduring. Even if Slug was just looking out for Abigail and trying to protect her, that is no reason to brutally beat another individual. I think Slug was unjustified in his actions because he wasn’t directly involved in the situation to begin with.
I would give Abigail a four because she makes one of the biggest mistakes in my opinion. She compromises her integrity and her body by going along with Sinbad’s request. In my opinion Abigail is no different than a prostitute on a street corner. Abigail’s only excuse could be that she acted that way because of her love for Gregory; however I do not believe that love for Gregory justifies her actions.
I would rate Sinbad a five because he is the most unethical of the characters in the story. He uses his power (in this case a boat) to take advantage of a young girl. In my opinion Sinbad cannot be trusted. If Sinbad approved of what he did to Abigail, there is no telling what he would do to others wishing to cross the river. Sinbad uses the power that he has to manipulate others and take advantage of them.
Overall I think ethics plays a huge role in daily life. The manner in which people conduct themselves in difficult situations says a lot about their character. I believe that people should act morally and make responsible decisions all of the time, not just when it’s convenient or beneficial to them.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Sexual Preference: Consider or Ignore?
Prompt: Human Rights or Majority Rule
In regard to the situation that started in Miami and spread across the nation, I do not believe that individuals should be discriminated against based on their sexual preference. While we all have our own views regarding homosexuality, discrimination is still discrimination. Although I don’t agree with or condone homosexuality, I am sure that there are many well educated professors out there, that are more than capable of running a classroom, that happen to be gay. To me this fact should not prevent them from getting a job. I guess I a somewhat biased in this statement because I am speaking from a college student’s point of view. I think that college students are mature enough and educated enough to not be bothered by whether or not their teacher is gay.
If I were a parent would I want my elementary aged child in a classroom with a homosexual teacher? At first I’m sure this fact would bother me, but after thinking the situation through I suppose I would be OK with it. It’s not like the teacher is there to promote homosexuality or influence children in one way or another, they are there to teach math, science, history, or whatever and as long as they do a good job at this, I don’t see a problem with it.
A similar example of this happened to my family in the summer of 2000. While building a new home, my mom was faced with hiring an interior decorator. The guy she ended up hiring was gay. Despite the fact that he was gay, my dad (who is usually against any form of homosexuality) was not concerned with this issue. This didn’t bother him because the guy did a great job for a good price and was very professional. Although my dad didn’t agree with the guy’s lifestyle or sexual preference, this was ignored because of the professional setting. People who do not ignore this type of thing in professional settings, may be missing out on a lot of quality employees that may happen to be gay.
Overall, I guess society should be more concerned about human rights than the will of the majority. If I were a member of the “minority” I would hope that my interests were considered, not just ignored because I wasn’t following the mainstream.
In regard to the situation that started in Miami and spread across the nation, I do not believe that individuals should be discriminated against based on their sexual preference. While we all have our own views regarding homosexuality, discrimination is still discrimination. Although I don’t agree with or condone homosexuality, I am sure that there are many well educated professors out there, that are more than capable of running a classroom, that happen to be gay. To me this fact should not prevent them from getting a job. I guess I a somewhat biased in this statement because I am speaking from a college student’s point of view. I think that college students are mature enough and educated enough to not be bothered by whether or not their teacher is gay.
If I were a parent would I want my elementary aged child in a classroom with a homosexual teacher? At first I’m sure this fact would bother me, but after thinking the situation through I suppose I would be OK with it. It’s not like the teacher is there to promote homosexuality or influence children in one way or another, they are there to teach math, science, history, or whatever and as long as they do a good job at this, I don’t see a problem with it.
A similar example of this happened to my family in the summer of 2000. While building a new home, my mom was faced with hiring an interior decorator. The guy she ended up hiring was gay. Despite the fact that he was gay, my dad (who is usually against any form of homosexuality) was not concerned with this issue. This didn’t bother him because the guy did a great job for a good price and was very professional. Although my dad didn’t agree with the guy’s lifestyle or sexual preference, this was ignored because of the professional setting. People who do not ignore this type of thing in professional settings, may be missing out on a lot of quality employees that may happen to be gay.
Overall, I guess society should be more concerned about human rights than the will of the majority. If I were a member of the “minority” I would hope that my interests were considered, not just ignored because I wasn’t following the mainstream.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Decisions: Absolute or relative?
Prompt: Right or Wrong?
I think that every individual uses some sort of “process” in deciding what’s right or wrong and whether they should or should not do something. Before making decisions people think about how they will benefit or possible be negatively affected by their decisions. An individual’s morals and values also play a role in certain decisions.
I am no different than other people in that I use a process and consider many factors before deciding to do or not do something. I try to use the morals and values which my family and friends have instilled in me over the years when making my decisions. I also try to weigh the benefits and consequences of my decision-making. Sometimes these decisions are very easy, but at other times they can be difficult, especially growing up, when influential peers surround you. Personally, I believe that a person’s friends can be the biggest influence on decision-making. With this in mind I think that it is crucial for today’s teenagers and young adults to surround them with the right friends.
In regard to moral “relativism” or “absolutism”, I would generally consider myself an absolutist, but I do believe there are some small instances when moral relativism is acceptable. I would consider myself an absolutist because I am very strong in the morals and values that I have learned and believed in over the years. Since I believe strongly in these things, I do not see reason to stray from them and lean towards a more relative moral stance when major decisions are at stake. For instance, decisions like stealing or doing drugs should be absolute decisions, not relative to the situation or person.
On the other hand, in less serious cases I can see where moral relativism is acceptable. An example of this could be a little white lie that we have all told at some point in our lives. When someone close to us (spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend, etc.) asks if we like their new shirt or haircut, nearly everyone has lied and said yes when they have not meant it. Lying is still lying, right? It is, but with something as menial as this I understand where moral relativism is acceptable.
I think that every individual uses some sort of “process” in deciding what’s right or wrong and whether they should or should not do something. Before making decisions people think about how they will benefit or possible be negatively affected by their decisions. An individual’s morals and values also play a role in certain decisions.
I am no different than other people in that I use a process and consider many factors before deciding to do or not do something. I try to use the morals and values which my family and friends have instilled in me over the years when making my decisions. I also try to weigh the benefits and consequences of my decision-making. Sometimes these decisions are very easy, but at other times they can be difficult, especially growing up, when influential peers surround you. Personally, I believe that a person’s friends can be the biggest influence on decision-making. With this in mind I think that it is crucial for today’s teenagers and young adults to surround them with the right friends.
In regard to moral “relativism” or “absolutism”, I would generally consider myself an absolutist, but I do believe there are some small instances when moral relativism is acceptable. I would consider myself an absolutist because I am very strong in the morals and values that I have learned and believed in over the years. Since I believe strongly in these things, I do not see reason to stray from them and lean towards a more relative moral stance when major decisions are at stake. For instance, decisions like stealing or doing drugs should be absolute decisions, not relative to the situation or person.
On the other hand, in less serious cases I can see where moral relativism is acceptable. An example of this could be a little white lie that we have all told at some point in our lives. When someone close to us (spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend, etc.) asks if we like their new shirt or haircut, nearly everyone has lied and said yes when they have not meant it. Lying is still lying, right? It is, but with something as menial as this I understand where moral relativism is acceptable.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
bloggin along
Prompt: Perception
I think that the better individuals know themselves, the less likely they are to distort data or information surrounding them. I also believe that people with more stable personalities and strong belief systems are less likely to distort data. People who are weak minded or are easily influenced would probably be more likely to distort data. Also, individuals who are unhappy with themselves or their surrounding situation would probably be the most likely to distort information. I think this makes sense because if individuals cannot, or have failed at changing their situation that they do not like, the easiest way to escape that situation would probably be to distort the information surrounding oneself. Distorting certain information surrounding you is a scapegoat in my opinion. Instead of working to change things some people take the easy way out and distort the truth.
The distortion of information could be based on perception as well. For example, I may perceive information much differently than someone else. Because of this I may think one thing is true while the other individual prefers to believe something else. Although we were given the same information, the different manner in which we perceive it may lead to different thoughts about the truth. Who is right in these types of situations? This is an ongoing question that cannot really be answered.
I would agree with Socrates’ statement that we come closer to perceiving the truth through knowledge of the self and by discovering where we are most likely to distort data. I believe that people’s biases and prejudices are the biggest factors in distorting the truth. If people are closed minded and not open to other’s ideas I think that they are not completely grasping the truth. To have an understanding of what is true you must be able to see things from other people’s points of view. Often times when individuals are biased or prejudiced against a certain group of people they would not consider looking at certain issues through the eyes of the victims of the prejudice. I believe that all biased and prejudiced thoughts and actions must be eliminated in order to grasp the actual truth.
I think that the better individuals know themselves, the less likely they are to distort data or information surrounding them. I also believe that people with more stable personalities and strong belief systems are less likely to distort data. People who are weak minded or are easily influenced would probably be more likely to distort data. Also, individuals who are unhappy with themselves or their surrounding situation would probably be the most likely to distort information. I think this makes sense because if individuals cannot, or have failed at changing their situation that they do not like, the easiest way to escape that situation would probably be to distort the information surrounding oneself. Distorting certain information surrounding you is a scapegoat in my opinion. Instead of working to change things some people take the easy way out and distort the truth.
The distortion of information could be based on perception as well. For example, I may perceive information much differently than someone else. Because of this I may think one thing is true while the other individual prefers to believe something else. Although we were given the same information, the different manner in which we perceive it may lead to different thoughts about the truth. Who is right in these types of situations? This is an ongoing question that cannot really be answered.
I would agree with Socrates’ statement that we come closer to perceiving the truth through knowledge of the self and by discovering where we are most likely to distort data. I believe that people’s biases and prejudices are the biggest factors in distorting the truth. If people are closed minded and not open to other’s ideas I think that they are not completely grasping the truth. To have an understanding of what is true you must be able to see things from other people’s points of view. Often times when individuals are biased or prejudiced against a certain group of people they would not consider looking at certain issues through the eyes of the victims of the prejudice. I believe that all biased and prejudiced thoughts and actions must be eliminated in order to grasp the actual truth.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Hello
My name is Roger Allen from Hayesville, NC. I'm a junior at Mercer University pursing a degree in finance. I'm taking this class to stay on track and graduate on time. In my free time I enjoy watching and playing sports, hanging out with my friends and having a good time. This is my second class at Macon State and so far I have really enjoyed it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)