From guest blogger, Charlie.
Consequentialism is defined as the individual should do the most good they can, that it is immoral not to do so. Proposition Q is defined that if a population has a choice that results in the same number of
human lives, there is a moral obligation to choose the better outcome. Simply put, in all cases that Proposition Q applies Consequentialism applies and therefore if we reject Proposition Q, doesn't this
completely undermine Consequentialism because it is broader?
If we say yes, then all the Consequentialist arguments that we have heard up to this point are all unsound. That any argument with a tinge of action for the greater good in whatever fashion is rejected. That's a lot. This includes arguments from Singer, Norcross, Southan, La Follette, Pojman, Brennan, and Allhoff. This refutation of so much work is a bit extreme, the desire to do so indicates that Consequentialism needs to be revisited.
The key issue here is that while Consequentialism asserts the existence of a moral order, it is determinable if action one is morally superior than action two, it does not assert the existence of a moral metric, that one can determine a number, call it moral degree, that corresponds
to how good an action is. I think if Consequentialism is to survive, then this notion of a moral metric must be defined in some manner. If it is defined then additionally one needs to determine a constant M, the boundary of moral permissibly. Given a set of moral actions with a maximum difference in moral degree less than M, then these actions would all be considered morally equivalent. This metric and boundary would remove the problem of Consequential Fidelity, the notion that
Consequentialism demands the best good action in even the most comparable cases.
To give an example, let us consider the case of holding a door for someone else or not. Under Vanilla Consequentialism, in most cases it is morally wrong for you not to hold the door for another. You have already expended the effort to open the door, if the other is in sufficient proximity, the total amount of effort expended is less if you hold the door than if the other has to reopen it. Therefore the choice to hold the door is slightly better than not doing so, and is therefore the good choice, the morally obligatory choice. On the other hand with Normed Consequentialism, it wouldn't matter. Sure one action is slightly superior but the difference, it is assumed, would be negligible, that is less than M. Since it is ridiculous to apply morality to such trivial actions it seems that Normed Consequentialism is better in this case and in general.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
The "Wisdom" of Repugnance
From guest blogger, Michael.
Though it was only briefly mentioned in class, I'm interested in the 'Wisdom of Repugnance', less so for its moral validity, more so for its implications.
Though it was only briefly mentioned in class, I'm interested in the 'Wisdom of Repugnance', less so for its moral validity, more so for its implications.
The idea is criticized for being an appeal to emotion, and thus intrinsically fallacious, which is undeniably true. Disgust is not a good barometer for morality as shown by movements such as slavery, anti-semitism, prohibition, etc..
Yet somewhat contrarily, one has to concede that disgust is relevant not only as an evolutionary mechanic to avoid disease (fear of bugs, sores, rotting food, etc.) but also in some social norms (incest, murder... table etiquette?). These fears or anxieties usually don't merit a logical explanation because they are generally accepted as valid.
It is when the emotion is "co-opted" morally into non-relevant phenomena such as xenophobia that it loses its validity. Consider the cavemen days where xenophobia would be contributory to survival (other tribes were generally hostile), however, and disgust suddenly seems normative, or at the very least justifiable in a primitive context.
Perhaps we simply live in a time where social change occurs faster than we can adapt our evolutionary intuitions. But then can any deep-seated intuition really be considered normative? We operate plenty on the "pleasure over pain" idea, as well as the assumption that that warm, tingly feeling indicates moral behavior. What do you guys think?
The Ethics of Cloning
From guest blogger, Leona.
link to the clones of Dolly the sheep: https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/dolly-the-sheep-clones-age-healthily
* On another note, there's an article that is associated with last week's topic, marriage equality, that I found very interesting. Some queer activists are criticizing the marriage equality movement because marriage has a history of being used as a tool for government control of minorities, and the movement was largely planned out by the gay 1% and reinforced the normative view of relationships. In addition, marriage equality was presented as a way to solve healthcare and immigration status issues for minority groups. The authors argued that these issues should be addressed separately in queer activism.
http://www.organizingupgrade.com/index.php/modules-menu/beyond-capitalism/item/1002-marriage-will-never-set-us-free
Two days ago, I came across this article on reddit saying that clones of Dolly the sheep aged healthily. They did not show premature age-related problems. The researchers still need to look into the telomere aspects of those clones of a clone, but this at least demonstrated that cloning will not necessarily led to shortened lifespan. Even though these clones might still be prone to having genetic defects and detrimental mutations due to shortened telomere, the fact that their lifespan is largely unaffected can undermine arguments that are similar to Allhoff’s (i.e. cloning is not morally permissible because the clones are expected to have a life that is shorter than the general population and are more likely to have genetic defects).
However, considering the high level of stigma against cloning, I doubt if this recent finding would make cloning more acceptable to many. Besides the Principle Q argument, the slippery slope argument, and the family ethics argument we discussed in class, there are some other interesting arguments against cloning. Two of them are very similar: one argued that cloning is immoral because the clone’s identity is compromised due to having the same genotype as someone who have already lived, thus denied his or her chance to have an open future; the other argued that by having the same genotype as someone else, the clone’s dignity is violated because he or she cannot have a unique genetic identity. One major problem with these two arguments is that they both neglect the roles of nurture, environment, and epigenetic factors. They both made the mistake of genetic essentialism, which assumed genotype is the only determinant factor of one’s identity. In addition, in the case of the second argument we should kill one of the identical twins so the living one can have a unique genetic identity.
link to the clones of Dolly the sheep: https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/dolly-the-sheep-clones-age-healthily
* On another note, there's an article that is associated with last week's topic, marriage equality, that I found very interesting. Some queer activists are criticizing the marriage equality movement because marriage has a history of being used as a tool for government control of minorities, and the movement was largely planned out by the gay 1% and reinforced the normative view of relationships. In addition, marriage equality was presented as a way to solve healthcare and immigration status issues for minority groups. The authors argued that these issues should be addressed separately in queer activism.
http://www.organizingupgrade.com/index.php/modules-menu/beyond-capitalism/item/1002-marriage-will-never-set-us-free
The Ethics of a Clone Army
May the Force Morals Be With You
From guest blogger, Lee.
*MILD SPOILERS ALERT*
(Although honestly you should've watched Star Wars by now if you haven't...)
Let me start off by saying that the production of Star Wars: The Clone Wars was an immoral act in and of itself. It's widely argued to be the worst of the three prequel films, with a heavy emphasis on SGI for most of its scenes. One of the main reasons for this overhaul in green screen technology was the necessity to show a mass clone army, bred for the Republic (which is pretty much the government of the entire galaxy). As we talked about the morals of cloning on Earth, I couldn't help but to think of George Lucas' "galaxy far, far away".
The basic premise of the movie is this: A clone army is made to defend the galaxy and fight against the droid armies of the Confederacy (a part of the galaxy that is trying to secede from the Republic and uses mainly robots to do its fighting). The clones are far more superior than the droids because they can "think creatively" in battles. Though the clones are human, genetic engineering manipulated them to follow every command they were given by their masters, without question. And although they can think creatively to follow carry out an order, they do not have wills of their own, and have no desire to become independent.
I got to thinking: Would it really be immoral to create a clone army if they would be barely human at all? We ourselves have wants, desires, ambition...what if the clones were programmed so that they could not hold such emotions? Heck, we could even engineer their DNA so that they don't feel pain. We would be okay with sending robots into battle, why not beings bred just for the purpose of war?
And what if the beings looked far different than us? Have you ever seen Lord of The Rings? The bad guy Saruman created the army of monstrous looking Uruk-Hai to feel no emotion other than hate and to desire only one thing: to kill. If we created a beast for war, although it'd be pretty scary and unreal to us, would it be immoral? Wouldn't it be worse if we sacrificed the lives of soldiers? Or should we just use nukes and call it a day?
From guest blogger, Lee.
*MILD SPOILERS ALERT*
(Although honestly you should've watched Star Wars by now if you haven't...)
Let me start off by saying that the production of Star Wars: The Clone Wars was an immoral act in and of itself. It's widely argued to be the worst of the three prequel films, with a heavy emphasis on SGI for most of its scenes. One of the main reasons for this overhaul in green screen technology was the necessity to show a mass clone army, bred for the Republic (which is pretty much the government of the entire galaxy). As we talked about the morals of cloning on Earth, I couldn't help but to think of George Lucas' "galaxy far, far away".
The basic premise of the movie is this: A clone army is made to defend the galaxy and fight against the droid armies of the Confederacy (a part of the galaxy that is trying to secede from the Republic and uses mainly robots to do its fighting). The clones are far more superior than the droids because they can "think creatively" in battles. Though the clones are human, genetic engineering manipulated them to follow every command they were given by their masters, without question. And although they can think creatively to follow carry out an order, they do not have wills of their own, and have no desire to become independent.
I got to thinking: Would it really be immoral to create a clone army if they would be barely human at all? We ourselves have wants, desires, ambition...what if the clones were programmed so that they could not hold such emotions? Heck, we could even engineer their DNA so that they don't feel pain. We would be okay with sending robots into battle, why not beings bred just for the purpose of war?
And what if the beings looked far different than us? Have you ever seen Lord of The Rings? The bad guy Saruman created the army of monstrous looking Uruk-Hai to feel no emotion other than hate and to desire only one thing: to kill. If we created a beast for war, although it'd be pretty scary and unreal to us, would it be immoral? Wouldn't it be worse if we sacrificed the lives of soldiers? Or should we just use nukes and call it a day?
Elitist Voting: Democracy collapse into Dictatorship or Slavery System
From guest blogger, Yi.
In class, we discussed one of the suggestions on voting, which is only allowing people who know politics to vote. It is called elitist voting. I would like to divide elitist voting into two types and define different types of elitist voting. (There might be more types, but this blog will not cover.)
The first elitist voting is positive elitist voting: elitists do the best the can to improve the society and policies. The second elitist voting is negative elitist voting: elitist’s corruption happens in this case and elitists would only vote for politicians who would benefit their own elitist groups. (It sounds like Democracy voting with small range of people)I would like to discuss how negative elitist voting could make democracy collapse into dictatorship or slavery system and what results negative elitist voting could lead.
The huge problem for negative elitist voting is that groups of elitists might only vote for the candidate who makes the best policies for elitist groups. When political candidates realize that what they need to do for winning is just to create the best policies for elitist group, they would start making policies only to benefit these groups. Eventually there will be less politicians care about the rights and policies for the other groups cause their supporters are only from elitists. The power of elitists group will be too strong to control. The government will actually be controlled by elicits group instead. There would not be democracy anymore but just a group of elitists (dictators) to make up rules and ask other people to follow.
There might be another problem caused by negative elitist voting. There is a possibility that negative elitist voting would break the peace of the society. When elitists want to take charge of the whole society and manipulate the government, new slavery system might be formed. Politicians would set up certain rules based on elitists’ will to enslave non-elitist people in certain ways. In order to keep benefiting themselves the most, elitists group might prevent other people from learning and knowing policies. People who know politics will have privileges in the society. People who do not know politics will be forced to follow the social contracts made up by people who know politics. However, this might lead a huge disparity between elitist groups and other groups. Once people realize that the whole society is manipulated by certain group of people, they would feel unsatisfied and raise social movements. Some movement might lead to violence and wars. (These consequences only based on empirical predictions, but it is plausible if negative elitist voting really happen.)
Gene Editing – Designer Babies
From guest blogger, Jane.
With the enhanced recognition of the importance of the biotechnology, scientists are now making possible for couples to go for made-to-order designer babies. Designer baby, one of the human genetic engineering projects, is a direct manipulation on human’s genes. Designer babies are born with certain traits and have the selected desired qualities by using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) which is also called pre-implantation genetic profiling, referring to genetic screening of embryos prior to implantation and sometimes even of oocytes prior to fertilization. The main advantage of a designer baby is to reduce the chances of being born with several serious diseases.
However, there are a couple of drawbacks of this make-to-order baby. First of all, changing a baby’s DNA is risky, and there might be unexpected and different levels of damage to the baby. Genetic engineering project itself may not work properly. Selecting a specific type of trait such as hair color may turn off a different type of gene. This problem will not manifest until the baby was born. In addition, the existence of designer babies may make this society unbalanced. In some regions and areas, couples prefer male babies to female ones. In the future, millions of males will finally die out.
Killing vs. Letting Die
From guest blogger, Julie.
Is there a moral difference between killing and letting die? I don’t know if I buy that you can “let someone die.” When you have the power to prevent someone’s death and you don’t intervene, you’re killing them.
Killing is defined as the act of causing someone’s death, especially deliberately. When you make the decision to allow the process of someone dying to continue, you are killing them. If you have time to think through your options: save them or watch them die, and you choose to watch them die, you have deliberately decided to end their life.
Take for example a victim of a car crash. You are the only one around. If you were to call 911, an ambulance would come and provide necessary medical care to save the victim. If you don’t call 911, the victim is sure to die a painful death. Your phone gets great service so you have complete capability to call for help. You decide you don’t want to call, are you still letting the victim die? It seems to me that you are causing the victim’s death, deliberately since you make the conscious decision to not call. That sounds a lot like killing.
Now let’s change the scenario slightly: unfortunately, your phone doesn’t get great service. Now you can’t help by calling 911. All you can do is watch the victim die a painful death… or you could end their suffering and allow them to finish their life without grueling pain. Does “letting die” seem to be the greater moral choice in this situation? Either way their life is going to end and you could help relieve some pain if you kill them.
What do you guys think? Is there a difference between “letting someone die” and killing them? Instinctually there seems to be a difference, but I just can’t find it. And how do you think this applies to the debate over euthanasia?
Active vs. Passive Euthanasia
From guest blogger, Wadea.
Bioethics is the study of moral values as they apply to medicine in clinical settings. Two very relevant and controversial ethical issues in medicine and science today are Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) and euthanasia.
The difference between the two is simple: PAS is the person doing the actual killing, only assisted by the doctor, whereas euthanasia is the doctor doing the killing. Two different people are physically doing the killing with the same intention behind the act in each case—to end a person’s life who has given extended consent, experiencing deep pain, without a valuable future, and will die in the near future, regardless of any treatment. The official position of the World Medical Association is: "Physicians-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. Where the assistance of the physician is intentionally and deliberately directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own life, the physician acts unethically. However, the right to decline medical treatment is a basic right of the patient and the physician does not act unethically even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient.” I agree with the consistency of the position—that BOTH cases are seen as morally impermissible; however, I disagree with the direction of their position. What is our reasoning, morally speaking (and for those with religious beliefs—religious reasons), for arguing that these two acts are always wrong.
Let me propose a thought experiment. Imagine you are a soldier at war, fighting for your country. You see your brother, your best friend and partner in crime, lying in the dirt, grasping for air. You notice that he has both legs chopped off, a bullet in his neck, in which it is only a matter of time before he dies, a slow, painful death. You say your goodbyes. He asks you to shoot him in a place he will instantly die in order to surpass the suffering that is inevitably already occurring and ahead. Would this be a “wrongful” act of killing? Would it be morally impermissible for you to grant his wishes? What would be the alternative? Let your brother you care so much about suffer even greater pain? Would it be justifiable if he shoots himself, making him reach over for the gun when that is the last place he wants to exert any energy left into. Or, would you use your best moral discernment at that moment, knowing killing him is probably the best option, allowing him to go to a place where there will be no more pain, no more suffering, saving him from going through the trouble of having to do it himself.
What position do the rest of you take? Is it possible to view one of these as ethical and the other as unethical?
Voting Rights
From guest blogger, Olivia.
Voting in the United States is one of the practices many Americans take pride in to voice their opinion in how the country is run. Most consider is a right. However, it we have a right to vote, its questionable whether or not we have the right not to vote. Although much has been sacrificed for the right to vote in the United States and voting makes up our democracy there are several reasons why people have the right not to vote as well.
Specifically, for minorities, the right to vote has been a more treacherous battle but it can be argued that the governmental system is still unfair and biased, which is reason why some chose not to participate in a broken system. Those who feel like there is not hope through the present system, feel like it can only maintain the current unequal system and not real change can come about by participating in it; contrarily it would have to be overturned. To require participating in what some would call corrupt would be infringing on people’s personal freedoms and autonomy. There is also a possibility that not one to vote for with aligning values so voting would be purposeless for them if the candidates they have to vote for have none of their values and defeat the whole democratic process that may require people to vote.
Stem Cells and Slippery Slopes
From guest blogger, William.
In class we talked about stem cells and the moral arguments for and against the use of them. There are two types of stem cells. The first type is Human Embryonic Stem Cells (HESC). These are harvested from embryos inside of the womb and have many medical and industrial uses. The moral arguments against using this type of stem cell are very similar to the moral arguments against abortion. The second type is Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (IPS). These are created from skin cells and have the same uses as HESCs. The moral argument against using IPSs is interesting to say the least. Because IPSs are created using skin cells which are readily available and slough off of our bodies constantly, the arguments that are used to paint the use of HESCs as immoral do not work. Pretty much every modern philosopher thinks that the use of IPSs is completely moral. However, some philosophers have still tried to call the use of IPSs immoral. To do so they have made use of the slippery slope fallacy.
The slippery slope fallacy is a dangerous argument to use. In my opinion, it is an extremely poor argument to use in almost any debate. The premise of this argument is that the use of IPSs for medical and industrial use would send society down a dangerous path. This argument conjures up images of clone armies and forced cell harvesting, things that are clearly immoral. The issue with this argument is that it is essentially fear-mongering. There is no evidence that the use of IPSs will lead to the consequences laid out previously. Another problem with this argument is that it does not allow for any middle ground. It implies a direct movement from the use of IPSs for medical use and product testing to clone armies. However, the world simply does not work that way. Nature and society always regress back to the mean. While extremes may happen they are extremely unlikely. Yes, unintended consequences are guaranteed from any decision. But, in this argument they are simply incomprehensible. The argument against IPS use is a futile grasp at straws.
Affirmative Action Policy
From guest blogger, Alex.
The topic that struck the most interest in me was the discussion we had on affirmative action on Monday. Going into this situation, I was not in favor. The blunt reason was that I am a white male and feel as if it is working against me. However, by diving into the objections and claims by Pojman, I believe it is wrong for different reasons. The basis of affirmative action is to create an opportunity for all people to have an equal chance, and to minimize or stop discrimination. The first idea is that affirmative action requires discrimination against another group. Sure, it can be argued that the discrimination is lesser with affirmative action. However, the problem is discrimination, and there is still discrimination. Therefore, affirmative action doesn’t provide a solution to the base problem at hand, it just creates another form.
Second, Pojman says AA encourages mediocrity and incompetence. I wouldn’t stretch as far to say this, because I don’t think it necessarily “encourages” mediocrity. It doesn’t. However, I do believe that it undermines the principle of merit, and I believe this is wrong. Basing your hires off of skin color and not value is not how I think a business should be run.
This isn’t racism. It is the opposite of racism. Skin color does not make one person more valuable or worthy for a job. In my eyes, the background of a person is significant.
A white man can grow up his entire life in a neighborhood with all black men. Everything he does is associated with the black culture. Why does it matter that his skin color is white? On the other hand, a black man can grow up in a neighborhood full of white men. If he lives there from birth to adulthood, the chances are that he will act like those of white culture. Why does it matter that his skin color is black? It doesn’t make a difference in any way other than pigment, which should not have a role in the hiring of jobs.
Brennan and the Right to Vote
From guest blogger, Aria.
Brennan argues that we have a right to vote; a right that needs to be legally protected, but the right to vote he argues, does not entail the rightness of voting. His main argument is that we have a duty to abstain from engaging in a collectively harmful activity, when such an activity does not pose a significant personal costs to us.
It’s worth mentioning that Brennan is not arguing that we have a duty to vote well, but a duty not to vote badly. He argues that irresponsible voters that do not have adequate knowledge about majority of the policies of a candidate, have a moral duty to abstain from voting rather than voting blindly (again he is not arguing that such individuals should face legal charges, he is only arguing solely from a moral perspective)
As it was discussed in class, some found this view really elitist and voiced their concerns that such moral duty infringes on citizen’s right to vote. I however, argue that his belief, although seemingly demanding, is morally sound. I think, we would all agree that if we were to have a surgery done on our heart, we would want our surgeon to be as competent as a surgeon can possibly be. I argue that the same moral intuition should apply to the political decisions that we make. Such decisions determine policies that are going to have lasting effects on the lives of millions of people. Thus, it seems imperative to me that the political decisions that we make, through our votes, need to reflect the policies that are not harmful to the general public and the nation as whole.
Some might argue that it is often difficult to predict the consequences of many policies, thus such a duty is not morally plausible. But, note that Brennan is arguing that as long as we are voting on the basis of strong evidence, and some basic knowledge about those policies we are not doing anything morally wrong. What constitutes bad voting is “voting without sufficient evidence for harmful or unjust policies”. Furthermore, I argue that we are usually good at predicting what counts as a good policy based on some minimal research and some basic background knowledge. For instance, it’s been known for years that trickle-down economics fails to result in economic growth. Thus we have evidence that in majority of cases when such policy has been enacted it has failed. (one example is our own state where such policies have massively failed to cause economic growth) Thus, we have sufficient evidence that such policies would be harmful. If I vote for a politician upholding such economic policy, even unknowingly, I believe that I have failed as citizen, since such decision could potentially harm not just me but millions of other people. Consequently, I completely agree with the argument Brennan puts forth.
What do you guys think? If you disagree with him, can you come up with counterarguments to explain why he is wrong and such a moral obligation is unjustifiable?
Genetics and Moral Issues
From guest blogger, Rachel.
As a geneticist, I find the topics of cloning and stem cells very interesting. They are controversial, and their future ethical implications are unknown. For me there is not much to consider on the stem cell debate: I have always approved of both, and now that iPS is functional to reprogram cells, the debate is small. Cloning, however, has interesting implications for the future. I don’t agree with Allhoff’s argument for the immorality of cloning but I do think it would be unethical to clone for the purposes of a child. The hard part is that the potential research is very interesting, but that can be done with stem cells. It just all still seems so futuristic, but it’s the present. With epigenetics being studied more in depth, I wonder if something from that will arise to create another reason for the immorality of cloning for children.
Should We Have Compulsory Voting
From guest blogger, Tessa.
I’ve had a hard time deciding how I feel about compulsory voting. Voter turnout in the United States has been extremely low, around 60% in the last few years, because the likelihood that one a single vote influences the outcome of an election is negligible. See suggest that compulsory voting will increase the legitimacy of the democratic government. I don’t necessarily believe that there will be market failure if we do not implement this policy, but I do think it could be beneficial. Because there is such a low voter turnout, there would be less margin of error in counting machines (such as the event in 2000, where the error exceeded the margin of victory for Bush). See also foresees that the electorate would be more representative of all citizens, since the sample is so skewed right now (racially and socio-economically). If people were forced to vote, they would be more inclined to become more informed about the election and candidates. If they are legally required to take time out of their day to vote, they might as well support someone who shares the same ideals and morals. Additionally, this policy would help reduce the role of money in politics and would also force politicians to change their campaign methods. Finally, politicians would have to shift their focus to different sets of issues because there will be new types of voters. Overall, I think this compulsory voting policy would be beneficial, but also doubtful that it will ever be implemented.
I’ve had a hard time deciding how I feel about compulsory voting. Voter turnout in the United States has been extremely low, around 60% in the last few years, because the likelihood that one a single vote influences the outcome of an election is negligible. See suggest that compulsory voting will increase the legitimacy of the democratic government. I don’t necessarily believe that there will be market failure if we do not implement this policy, but I do think it could be beneficial. Because there is such a low voter turnout, there would be less margin of error in counting machines (such as the event in 2000, where the error exceeded the margin of victory for Bush). See also foresees that the electorate would be more representative of all citizens, since the sample is so skewed right now (racially and socio-economically). If people were forced to vote, they would be more inclined to become more informed about the election and candidates. If they are legally required to take time out of their day to vote, they might as well support someone who shares the same ideals and morals. Additionally, this policy would help reduce the role of money in politics and would also force politicians to change their campaign methods. Finally, politicians would have to shift their focus to different sets of issues because there will be new types of voters. Overall, I think this compulsory voting policy would be beneficial, but also doubtful that it will ever be implemented.
Why Cloning Is Immoral
From guest blogger, Ming,
I agree that cloning is morally wrong, but not because of principle Q. First of all, I think that reproduction of human is different from reproduction of plants, because generally human reproduction requires combination of sperm and egg. However, cloning just requires DNA from a cell from scalp tissue of one person and I don’t think cloning follows natural law because it simply extract some DNA and produce a very similar “human-alike” product.
Also, I think cloning is different from having babies without genetic testing for diseases. Some people will have pre-marital medical exam before having babies, but it is not for sure that the genetic disorder will pass to next generation. Thus, it is hard for parents to abort babies or change other mates. However, we are hundred percent sure that cloning would shorten animals’ lifetime. It is immoral to make worst choice if you have other choice available.
The Dilemma of Nuclear Power
From guest blogger, Bethany.
In this world of environmental awareness, people are becoming increasingly concerned with efficient, clean energy. Wind and solar power are renewable and clean, but they are far less reliable than fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Despite the controversy surrounding it, nuclear power is a promising and reliable source of clean energy. However, do the risks of nuclear meltdown and contamination outweigh the benefits? Do the supposed environmental risks make the employment of nuclear power plants immoral?
There are several ways in which we can view this problem. Interestingly, if we look at the issue of nuclear power from a hard-core environmentalist perspective, we may come to different conclusions. On the one hand, an environmentalist may argue that we can best protect the environment by replacing coal-burning plants with nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy does not pollute the environment, and it is extremely safe; the only meltdowns that have occurred were due to human error. On the other hand, some environmentalists may insist that it is immoral to install nuclear power plants because the highly toxic waste from nuclear reactor cores have half-lives of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Basically, this means that nuclear waste remains radioactive for a very long time and is detrimental to the environment if it is not stored properly. Additionally, there is always the risk of a meltdown, which would cause extreme damage to the environment.
From a Libertarian perspective, nuclear power should be completely moral because it does not infringe on anybody’s personal property rights. In contrast to popular belief, very little radiation is produced from nuclear power plants, so people who live near new plants would not have to relocate.
It is not obvious whether or not Block—who argues that there should be a personal property rights theory for environmental protection—would endorse nuclear power. When we look at the issue empirically, we see that nuclear waste is generally confined without a problem and that meltdowns are almost impossible when a plant is maintained correctly. However, if one believes that nuclear power is a terrible thing, then he or she must consider the effects of both coal and nuclear plants and ask the question, Which is the lesser of the two evils? After the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, many German nuclear power plants were shut down out of fear and replaced with coal-burning plants. Was this the moral decision? Should we be afraid of the chance of something going horribly wrong with a nuclear power plant? Or should we be more fearful of the widespread toll that coal-burning power plants take on environmental aspects such as air quality (which is ruined by burning fossil fuels and which has undoubtedly caused widespread medical issues such as lung disease).
I believe that, in this case, nuclear power plants are a far better option because they do not infringe on our collective personal property rights to breathe clean air, drink clean water, etc. Perhaps there are better options, but until science catches up, nuclear power should be more widely embraced.
Destroying Embryos for Research
From guest blogger, Alex.
We just discussed the use of stem cells for research in class, and I find it to be a very interesting topic. The potential healing benefits of HESC research provide strong grounds in favor of the research. If looked at from a consequentialist perspective, the potential health benefits from the research seem to outweigh the loss of embryos involved and whatever suffering results from that loss for people who want to protect embryos. However, most of those who oppose the research argue that the constraints against killing innocent people to promote social utility apply to human embryos. Thus, as long as we accept non-consequentialist constraints on killing persons, those supporting HESC research must respond to the claim that those constraints apply to human embryos. What do you guys think? Do human embryos have moral status? If so, why? If not, why not?
I think it helps to map out the argument that killing human embryos is immoral. From my very brief research, in its most basic form, the central argument supporting the claim that it is unethical to destroy human embryos seems to go as follows: It is morally impermissible to intentionally kill innocent human beings; the human embryo is an innocent human being; therefore it is morally impermissible to intentionally kill the human embryo. It is worth noting that this argument, if sound, would not suffice to show that all or even most HESC research is impermissible, since most researchers engaged in HESC research do not participate in the derivation of HESCs but instead use cell lines that researchers who performed the derivation have made available. It has now also been shown that embryonic cells can be derived from a human embryo without killing the fetus, so would it still be immoral to conduct HESC research? Let me know what you guys think…is it immoral to conduct stem cell research? Or do the potential health benefits make it morally permissible? Thanks.
Is Cloning Moral?
From guest blogger, Michael.
A case against the moral permissibility of cloning, when the clones face significantly reduced lifespans, can be made on the basis that procreation through natural means will create offspring with a longer lifespan, and thus a higher quality of life. Both sides can agree that if cloning could be done in a way that did not significantly lower the lifespan of the clones, it would be morally permissible.
Well, a study recently released recently shows that a new set of 13 sheep clones are doing just fine. They have yet to show any signs of premature aging, and are all around in great physical health. So, assuming that we can now expect to someday live in a world where we can create healthy clones of ourselves, is cloning morally permissible?
Personally, I think it is, but for the sake of this blog post I will provide an argument against it. Humans have been brought into this world in the same fashion for countless generations. A man and woman engaging in passionate intimacy to bring new life into the world has some kind of natural value to it. Humans are the byproduct of love, and that is how it ought to be. To change this would be to change too fundamental a part of humanity, and cloning does just that. It takes the grace out of the conception and makes the creation of a person no more significant the manufacturing of material goods.
My opponent may bring up the point that test tube babies have been produced in a somewhat-similar fashion for many years now. None of the people created through such means seem to live any less dignified kind of life. But the babies conceived in test tubes are still an intimate combination of two beings. Being nothing more than an identical copy of your parent may make your life seem less significant in some way. The clone does not have its own sense of self. It just a second copy.
Obligatory Voting and Morality
From guest blogger, Catherine.
One thing that has been bothering me since we talked about it in class is the idea of obligatory voting. The argument that there’s some sort of market failure when voter participation is lacking sufficiently convinces me on the presidential level, but on a local level it has less power. Like jury duty, it’s one thing to require people to be involved infrequently in government issues such as voting in one election every four years, but it’s a bit much to expect everyone to be informed and vote in every election that is in they’re the vicinity. It’s hard to say that there would be the same kind of market failure on a local level. If not everyone in a small town votes for the city council members, there isn’t going to be any significant negative outcome.
One thing that has been bothering me since we talked about it in class is the idea of obligatory voting. The argument that there’s some sort of market failure when voter participation is lacking sufficiently convinces me on the presidential level, but on a local level it has less power. Like jury duty, it’s one thing to require people to be involved infrequently in government issues such as voting in one election every four years, but it’s a bit much to expect everyone to be informed and vote in every election that is in they’re the vicinity. It’s hard to say that there would be the same kind of market failure on a local level. If not everyone in a small town votes for the city council members, there isn’t going to be any significant negative outcome.
I also agree to some degree that a voter needs to have information in order vote but the scope of that is also a problem, especially with how it relates to which elections are mandatory. Would it be better to have a voter who is well informed but only votes in the presidential election or one that isn’t informed at all but votes in all of the elections? To me the former seems like the better of the two which would show not only is informed decision actually important but that it negates the obligation to vote in minor elections.
Active and Passive Euthanasia
From guest blogger, Bryan.
In class we discussed about euthanasia which is categorized in two groups, active and passive euthanasia. Many people including the American Medical Association, hold that active euthanasia is immoral because it involves an intention to kill other by another human. However, I agree with James Rachels who argues that active euthanasia is morally permissible in certain situations.
We discussed a lot about a comparison between killing and letting die. If some people think it is morally permissible to use passive euthanasia to help illness people to reduce pain, then there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia because the intention (to reduce pain) and the result will be the same. In fact, practice active euthanasia may be more preferable because it can end up illness people’ life more quickly and happily. Hence, it is to me that practicing active euthanasia is morally permissible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)