Blog 6 - Death Penalty (Third Contemporary Issue)

The death penalty was one of the issues that I actually had thought about and formed an opinion on before discussing. As I've stated in previous blogs, I believe that matters of life and death should not be decided by humans; matters of life and death should be in the hands of God alone. The death penalty is the issue with possibly the least grey area involved. With abortion, there are other factors, like when life beings. With human cloning there are even more complications, just by the nature of what cloning entails. But as far as the death penalty goes, it's pretty easy to tell where I stand. In my opinion, the death penalty is the most hypocritical concept I have ever heard. Killing someone who has killed someone proves nothing.

I brought this up in class, but I do have a personal philosophy on the death penalty. It isn't really based on anything; I didn't hear it from anybody or base it off any philosopher's viewpoints, but to me it makes perfect sense anyway. If you believe in the death penalty, you should believe in it strongly enough to be able to carry out the execution yourself. If you can't, then you shouldn't have to have somebody else to it for you. But if you can carry it out, then you are equal to who you seek to kill. If you think about it, they killed probably because they thought he/she was a bad person. And if you kill them as punishment, that is the exact same thing.

I don't really know what other skills or knowledge assist in deciding your stance on these moral issues other than to explore the views of other people and cultures. After educating yourself fully, then decide for yourself which corresponds best to your personal principles.

This week I commented on Dan's blog.
http://danwilson22-dansblog.blogspot.com/

Blog 5 - Applying My Principles (Second Contemporary Issue)

My principles seem to have remained the same after discussing the contemporary issue of abortion. As I stated in my previous blog, I believe that humans should not have so much control over matters of life and death, as that is God's job. I don't think humans should have the right to decide when a person dies because we did not create said person. I also believe life begins at conception, so in combining the two previous principles, we can decide that I am pro-life. However, I don't think something as complex as abortion is a black and white issue. If delivering the child puts the mother at risk of death, I do think an exception can be made, as well as in the case of rape (though there are so many couples on waiting lists for adoption; if you are not fit to take care of a child, I'm sure there is an infertile couple who would be more than elated to adopt your baby). Also, as mentioned in the discussion, I am a male, and since I am not carrying any baby, it is really not my decision to make.

As arrogant as this sounds (I really don't mean to come off as arrogant, so i'm sorry if I do), I don't believe my principles need adjusting on the matter. I believe what I believe and I have a solid foundation and reasoning for doing so, and I would never force anything on anybody else because others are entitled to their views as I am entitled to mine. I feel that my opinions are not too rigid; they are moderately flexible viewpoints which suggest that I don't claim to know everything about life and morality (and i'll certainly admit to that). However, the philosopher that was least consistent with my viewpoint was Warren. Some of her points definitely held some validity, like the criteria for being a human being (though I don't know why she came up with the idea that you needed to fulfill two of them to be human; I felt that the number two was kind of picked at random), I disagreed with most of the things she said. I disagree with the idea that a fetus is not a human because they are dependent upon the mother. I don't think that is a strong argument because the counterargument was much better (that small children and the handicapped are also dependent; whether physical dependency or not, they would not be able to survive without the parent/guardian).

I commented on Alex's blog this week.
http://ethicalwellbeing-richardsa.blogspot.com/

Blog 4 - Contemporary Issue

The first contemporary issue, cloning, was extremely interesting to discuss because of the valid points on each side. Personally, I did not feel as if it changed my personal principles at all. The topic of cloning, I felt, did challenge and conflict with my personal beliefs. My views on cloning, abortion, the death penalty, and a few other controversial issues are generally influenced by my belief in God. In short, I don't think it's my place to mess with life (for abortion, I believe that life begins at conception and we should not be able to decide its whether the fetus lives or dies; death penalty is even more obvious). As far as cloning goes, it kind of seems like "playing God" to me; I don't believe that humans should have that much control, to create life in any other way than the natural way that I believe we are meant to and have always done. I also think it dehumanizes, as once you are not the only you, you are no longer unique. Men will also be essentially obsolete at this point, which could cause many issues (the population would likely become mostly female, which could lead to many females without a significant other). Things could also get absurdly complicated legally for obvious reasons. Due to this, it was pretty easy to decide my stance on the issue. I would side closest with Kass on the issue of cloning. Kass speaks about dehumanization, as with cloning, human nature is completely malleable; this compromises the value of what is "natural", whereas pre-cloning it would have been held in such high regard.

I commented on Ilsa's blog this week.
http://illybueno.blogspot.com/

Compelling Social/Moral Principle (Blog 3)

Basically, my entire last post was about my faith in God and how Christianity has influenced my morals. Ironically, the principle I am interested it is Sartre's atheistic existentialism. What I like about existentialism is that it really puts an emphasis on not judging other people, and not being hypocritical in your actions. While I obviously am in disagreement over the atheistic view on the existence of God, I can certainly agree with Sartre's existentialist philosophy on the judgement of others, and I like the idea of acting in good/bad faith (i.e. do I think that what i'm doing is an accurate representation of human beings?). I like this because it keeps you conscious and aware of each and every one of your actions. Your commitment to this philosophy/lifestyle must be extremely serious if you really want to live this way, and I respect that (though I don't think that I could actually do it).

Obviously, Sartre's existentialism conflicts with belief in God and current values, because existentialism suggests that God does not exist (and if He did it wouldn't matter anyway) and also suggests that there isn't really a set moral standard. But I can incorporate certain aspects of existentialism into my life. For instance, I also think that people are inherently good. Therefore I can become more aware of my actions, and before I do something, ask myself if it is an accurate representation of human beings (though it is not really the same because I will be judging my action through a lens of Christian morals, a.k.a. Jesus goggles - but I think it still holds some validity). I can also use existentialism in not judging other people, which I already try not to do. I like the principle that I am able to judge the basis of one's actions (i.e. based on truth or error) but not that person.

I commented on Becks' blog this week.
http://becksbradley.blogspot.com/

Principles I Adhere To (Blog 2)

The personal principles the I have adhered to have changed as I have grown, and they are still changing constantly. They are a combination of what I have learned from my parents, Biblical teachings, and many other influences in my environment. I am also influenced in how I would like to act by seeing things in society or culture that I disagree with and opposing it; not rebelling just for the sake of rebellion but rebelling because I deeply feel that it is a detrimental principle to live by (i.e. society says college kids should be drinking and partying, and I disagree with that).

I grew up going to a Catholic church every Sunday. I went through CCD every Tuesday as well and was confirmed in eighth grade. Unfortunately, I never really got anything out of it. I always believed in God; believing in nothing never really made much sense to me. But the way it was presented to me was so dry and solemn that I couldn't really relate to it and get into it. If there is a God, He is something to rejoice over. If He loves us like I am told, there is no sense in beating myself up and feeling guilt for my sins, like I was told growing up. As soon as I was old enough to drive, I started going to a church separate from my parents, and from there my beliefs really expanded and evolved. (It should be stated that I have nothing against my parents, I actually have a wonderful relationship with them, and I also have nothing against Catholics; everyone has their own way of worshiping God, but the Catholic way is simply not mine.)

Technically, you could say my beliefs were taught to me, because I do take the sermons at my current church to heart. My favorite principle that I have ever been taught is, first, to love regardless of circumstance. And second, that the opposite of love is not hate, but rather selfishness; every hateful action is always driven by a selfish motive. Once we realize that we are all equal, and give up the idea of "I am better than you," then we will never act with hate again. That is the most prominent principle that I live by, and I have to say, it works. However, I am not always in agreement with everything my church says, and I think that it is perfectly normal and healthy for anyone's faith to be questioning, and it is necessary to look at religion through a secular lens (if that makes any sense... I know the two are complete opposites and never really used together). I believe in Jesus Christ but I also understand what organized religion does to people, and I believe certain things have been distorted over time. For instance, I don't believe Adam and Eve actually existed, and I believe that the theory of evolution can co-exist just fine with Christianity. That is something that I certainly did not learn in church. Therefore you could say that my beliefs were taught to me but some aspects were influenced by my own reasoning.

The readings in class have not (yet) influenced my beliefs very much, but I think the closest thing to doing so was Taoism. I had previously learned about Taoism because I do like to educate myself on the religious beliefs of other people or cultures, so I have done research on my own and also took a religion course in high school in which Taoism was discussed. I think the reason I can relate to Taoism is that it kind of just matches with my personality. I am extremely easy-going and level headed, and I don't really remember the last time I was legitimately angry.  Without actually verbalizing it, my grandmother, before she passed, taught me that you aren't able to control what happens to you but you are able to control how you handle it, and that seems to pretty much be the aim of Taoism.

I commented on Marshay Monet's blog.

http://marshay-monet.blogspot.com/