b. Username: Laszlo.sofia
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). You are expected to complete amin. of 12 posts for the term....but all of the assigned reading forthe term (whether you posted on it or not) is still required and willbe addressed on this test.
Post #1 – June 29th night
Post #2 – June 29th night
Post #3 – July 6th night
Post #4 – July 6th night
Post #5 – July 6th night
Post #6 – July 10th day
Post #7 – July 11th night
Post #8 – July 16th
Post #9 – July 16th
Post #10 – July 17th
Post #11 – July 17th
Post #12 – July 19th
d. List the research project your did ( Museumof Tolerance or the other final project--for the latter givethe topic your researched and the location you visited). Make sureyou have a section on your website for your research whereyou "detail with thick description" the field trip/project. Ifyou are missing of the research project please indicate it hereso that I do not have to go hunting for it on your site or on theyahoo group.
I went to the Museum of Tolerance for my research project. There is a folder for it on my website, so it should be pretty easy to locate. You also said you had read it, at the time of my midterm, and it was fine.
e. Which online videos did you watch since the midterm?
I watched the interview with Charlie Rose, the PETA animal rights propaganda, the Cloning debate video, and the Stem Cell video.
f. Please list what "grade" you received on at the midterm time.Were you asked to makeup any work on the midterm anddid you?
I’m not sure what I received on the midterm but you said you have me at the A- range. You didn’t ask me to make up any of the work.
g. What reading did you complete in this course? All of itDid you read all of the ten theorists assigned in week 1-3? YesDid you read ALL of Singer's articles? Yes, I found his views to be very interesting. Did you read the Gandhi material? Yes, I had my friends read it to me during our California road trip. So we all learned about Gandhi! =)
Did you read the articles on Cloning and Stem Cells? Yes, but I work in Stem Cell research so I already knew a lot about it.
Evolutionary Psychology article? Yes
Explain in detail what reading you completed and "what reading you skipped." Be exact.
The second half of this class was very interesting to me so I did all of the reading. I skimmed some of the philosopher’s original writings but I always made sure I read enough of it to understand their views and ideas.
h. Out of all the reading that you were assigned what reading wouldyou recommend for future ethics classes? be specific.which articles? is there reading that you wouldabsolutely not recommend? why? Really I want to find out how theclass worked without an actual book....but all online reading?
I think the online sources all had very great information. Wikipedia is one of my favorite quick guides whenever I need to look something up. I do not feel that the first 20 chapters of Gandhi were worth reading. It would have been better to give us a summary of his youth and then we could have focused on his adult life. I do understand that you wanted us to see how Gandhi grew up to be the person he was, but I feel like it was very long winded.
Specifically, should I go back to using books or did you enjoy atotally ONLINE course?
I like using the online materials because it exposes us to a lot of information from different sources. It’s not from one point of view, like most books are. I did enjoy this online course and learned a lot from it. The first half of the class was a bit grueling but the second half was very interesting. I do believe that it is necessary to read all 10 of the philosophers to be able to understand the different stands on ethical topics in the second portion of the class.
i. Did you complete any extra credit this term? explain.
I completed the extra credit on the introduction to ethics website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Give a very specific outline of the ETHICS of Gandhi as presentedin his "autobiography" chapters 1-50 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. Focuson his world view. Articulate his ethics as "he sees them." Answerwhat does he mean by "experiments with Truth?" What arehis "specific" personal ethical struggles and life challenges? Whatpersonal problems does he face and how does he solve them? Giveexamples. Detail his ethical position. And, finally, why do youthink Gandhi is considered by many to be a moral hero? Do you thinkthat Gandhi's life can serve as an inspiration for us today. ApplyGandhi's ethics to your individual life AND to the world at large.(Hint: I need to see in this essay that you completed the assignedreading; this most likely will be a longer essay and so worth a bitmore). If you did not read the AUTOBIOGRAPHY then skip this questionand write I DO NOT KNOW. Do NOT use an outside source on the life ofGandhi to answer this question (no credit)....I am trying todecipher if you read the assigned book and understood his ethicalstruggles from his own perspective.
I do not understand how reading the first 50 chapeters of Gandhi was supposed to give us a strong understanding about his world ethical views. I guess you wanted us to understand how he became the man that he was due to all his experiences during his childhood and on. I learned a lot about his life starting from his childhood where he attempted suicide because he didn't feel like he had enough independence from adults because they didn't approve of his smoking. He also made a 'bad friend' who convinced him that he should eat meat because meat eaters rule over vegetarians. Gandhi then went back to being a vegetarian after he realized that this friend was only trying to lead him into trouble. He was a very quiet boy which then lead into his early adulthood. Gandhi used to keep to himself and he believe this made him a better person because he now chooses his words wisely. Gandhi was very interested in religion, not for the specifics but out of curiousity. He read the Bible and studied the Gita and had several conversations with many different religious leaders. The line that really stuck with me from Gandhi was : "There is no other God than Truth." I strongly agree with him on this idea and also his explanation that it is your acts which count, not your religious faith. Gandhi was drawn to politics because of his devotion to the truth. He said that individuals who believe that justice and religion are separate, are greatly misinformed.
Gandhi was tested in his life many times due to the decisions he chose to make. He went to England to study Law and there he had to change the way he dressed and thought about the world. Before he went, his mother made him promise not to eat meat, drink alcohol, or become envolved with women. Gandhi was able to keep his promise to his mother, which I find pretty expected becasue he did have a wife and a child back in India. When he went to South Africa to practice as a barristar, he was the victim of prejudice. When he first got there, he was asked by the hotel manager not to eat dinner in the dining room becasue it might offend the other hotel guests. There were several laws which went into affect, like in the Orange Free State where Indians were deprived of all their rights. They were only allowed to work as waiters in hotels and could only go out before 9pm. The Indians were only allowed to own land in assigned areas of the country.
Gandhi did not like how Indians were being treated and became a major political and spiritual leader. When a bill was passed which deprived Indians of their right to elect members of the Natal Legislation Assembly, Gandhi decided to act. He wrote a petition which was signed by 10,000 people in two weeks. He then presented this petition to the Congress. In his autobiography, Gandhi explains that his heart's desire was always to help the poor, which enables him to identify with them. I think he can identify with the poor because he lived in an Indian community which was struggling for its civil rights. Here he worked as a lawyer focusing on non-violent civil disobedience. After he assumed leadership in the Indian National Congress, Gandhi became a political and spiritual leader in the Indian independence movement. He always believed in solving problems with total non-violence, or what he called ahimsa. Gandhi's main principles were: truth, non-violence, living a simple life, being a vegetarian, and faith. He encouraged many people to live this way and to follow his lead.
________________________________________________________
2. Compare/contrast the "moral systems" of Gandhi with Singer. Detailyour 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 overallgeneral moral stance and then compare this perspective with Gandhi.Do you think Gandhi would disagree or agree with Singer? In whatareas of ethics? Explain your stance here.
Peter Singer is a modern day Australian philosopher who studies applied ethics. He believes that ethics is something that matters. It affects your life in an everyday manner from how you act to what you eat. He is a utilitarianist; therefore, he is interested in minimizing and eliminating pain and suffering for all living beings. Singer is a preference utilitarianist who defines a morally right action to be one that produces the most favorable consequences for all the people who are involved. Preference utilitarianists believe that every person's experience of satisfaction is unique.
I believe that Gandhi and Peter Singer would agree in many aspects of ethics. They both believe that vegetarianism is the way that people should live. Singer believes that humans do not have the right to eat other living beings, just for the pure fact that they can. Ganhi does not believe in the violence which has to be caused upon the animals for them to be raised and killed just for our pleasures. Both Singer and Gandhi agree on the fact that people should help the poor and the needy of this world. Singer talked about donating a portion of your earnings to an organization which helps these groups of people. Gandhi believed in giving these people a voice and helping them set up a better life for themselves and their community. Both of these men were in favor of living simple lives because they understand that material things aren't going to get you anywhere.
I do not believe that Gandhi was for abortions because he might consider this a violent act, whereas, Singer believed that it was the mother's choice after she gave it much consideration of everyone involved in the situation. I think Gandhi would have been in favor of euthanasia because it is ending the suffering of a person. Both Gandhi and Singer were advocates of truth. Gandhi became a political and spiritual leader and influenced millions of Indians to fight for their independence. Singer became a professor of philosophy and frequently gives lectures about his ethical points of view.
__________________________________________________________
4. Discuss the ethical contributions of Einstein as presented in theweb link on the course website. As you did with Gandhi, explain whydo you think Einstein is considered by many to be a moral hero? Whatdo you most admire about him? Do you think that Einstein's life canserve as an inspiration for us today. Apply Einstein's ethics toyour individual life AND to the world at large.
The article on Einstein is praising him for being at the forefront of three different movements: the struggle between totalitarianism and democracy, resisting authority to secure human rights, and expanding scientific knowledge. Einstein said that he does not want to use force under any circumstances unless ‘confronted by an enemy who pursues the destruction of life as an end in itself.’ He stated that when it came to atomic bombs our ethical progress is a lot slower than its science and application. The next topic that is brought up in this article is genetic engineering. I believe that Einstein is saying that just because we have the technology to do something doesn’t mean we should do it because the consequences are unpredictable.
Predicting the magnitude of the starlight deflection by the Sun made Einstein famous which he used to speak out for justice and human dignity. All of Einstein’s ethical principles were connected by the same theme: ‘Remember you humanity.’ He spoke out about war and peace, nuclear weapons, religion, civil rights, moral trends, economy, and foreign relations to name a couple. During WWI, Einstein encouraged all European artists and scientists to keep in contact. He also encouraged others to be disobedient against the military and to not go along with the herd mentality. Einstein joined several anti-war organizations and helped set up funding for the victims of the Nazis. In 1932, Einstein left Germany and cut all ties when Hitler came into power because he did not wan to support a country which did not defend the human rights of all of its citizens.
In 1946, Einstein wrote an article about American racial discrimination. He explained that the American ideals and practices were inconsistent and that the sense of equality and human dignity was limited to ‘men of white skin.’ Einstein suggested that this racial bias is passed down to children since they grew up listening to their parents speak badly about people of different color. Einstein suggested that we solve this problem by integrating schools and therefore, limiting the segregation of races.
The article explains that we have new ethical dilemmas including: ignorance, genocide, weapons of mass destruction, environmental degradation, extinction of species, and many others. Einstein stresses that the goal of research is to figure out how this world works and technology uses these research results to turn it back on ourselves. He explains that we have to choose these goals carefully and thoughtfully because they come with a lot of consequences. We have to think of these consequences when debating the ethical issues of the 21st century. If Einstein was still alive, he could have used his amazing intelligence and fame to keep fighting for human rights and equality.
I admire Einstein the most for standing up against the military forces. He encouraged many others to do the same and not to follow the herd. I really liked the last quote in the article which stated: “There lies before us, if we choose, continued progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity and forget the rest.” I really like this quote because it encourages people to keep their individuality but live a moral humane life. If he was around during the time of 9/11, I think Einstein would have had a couple things to say to our president. Maybe we wouldn’t still be fighting the same war loosing thousands of young men for no real cause.
5. What is the "utilitarian argument for animal rights" (define) aspresented by Singer? When discussing Singer outline his argument foranimal rights drawing specifically from the assigned reading (hint:you will need to mention and define speciesism and other importantideas and examples from the Singer reading and VIDEO, etc. I willlook for VIDEO material in your essay (required). Do not just write avague response but draw key ideas from the material. Again, for thefinal VIDEO details (when applicable) are important.Now answer whether YOU THINK animals have moral rights?Justify "philosophically" your position. This is not simply justyour opinion. But you need to "back up" your answer withphilosophical reasoning. I encourage you to usetheorists/philosophers we have studied to support your position.
Peter Singer is a modern day Australian philosopher who studies applied ethics. He believes that ethics is something that matters. It affects your life in an everyday manner from how you act to what you eat. He is a utilitarianist; therefore, he is interested in minimizing and eliminating pain and suffering for all living beings. Singer is a preference utilitarianist who defines a morally right action to be one that produces the most favorable consequences for all the people who are involved. Preference utilitarianists believe that every person’s experience of satisfaction is unique.
Singer’s views on animal-rights started after a lunch with a fellow classmate who was a vegetarian. His friend explained to him that he doesn’t eat meat because he does not like using another group of living beings just for our personal satisfaction. Why is it that we don’t lock humans up in crates, in dark spaces, and then eat them? The PETA video defined speciesism as the assumption that humans are superior to other species, or to dominate other species. Singer believes that speciesism is like racism where a dominant group which has the power exploits an inferior group. This group also gives itself all the valuables and denies the same values to the inferior group. He believes that we should not allow, or cause suffering to any other species. He argues that all beings with interests are entitled to equal consideration to what you would give to someone from your own species. Singer explains that when it comes to morals you should put yourself in the position of the other person being affected and the people surrounding this person. Then weigh your options and make your moral decision from there. Singer also points out that you can not discriminate against something based on the idea that it has wings or fur any more than discriminating based on skin color or sex. He also argued that we are not superior to animals just because we are more intelligent. There are human beings who are considerably less intelligent because of mental disorders, but we still treat them as humans.
The PETA video also quoted Charles Darwin by saying “Emotions and faculties such as love, memory, curiosity, and reason may be found well developed in animals.” It makes sense that Darwin would be saying something like this because he is the first one who proposed the idea of biological evolution. In David Lane’s essay, The Central Nervous System, he gives a neuro-evolutionary argument for vegetarianism. He explained that we are able to feel pain because we have a central nervous system which oversees what our bodies feel and directs how our bodies will react. Lane believes that we do not eat other humans because we can empathize with their pain. Since we do not see our dinner being killed right in front of us, we do not emphasize with these animals. He also points out that we do not eat animals like dolphins and apes because we can empathize with them since they are animals with higher intelligence. Lane argues that we do not need to eat animals to have a substantial diet; therefore, we shouldn’t eat anything that has a central nervous system because they can feel pain.
I do believe that animals have moral rights. I grew up on a farm and we treated our animals very well. Our pig got all of our leftovers and any rotting fruits or vegetables we had in our garden. Our chickens were let out of the coop every morning and allowed to run around their yard all day. When my grandpa slaughtered the chickens it was always away from the other ones as not to cause them stress. We also slaughtered the pig every year and stored whatever we couldn’t eat that day in the freezer. We also shared this meet with all of our neighbors, so it was kind of like a celebration on slaughter day. All the women were inside cooking the fresh meat and the men were cutting it up into pieces and making sausages. I do not agree with huge commercial farming and try to buy organic meat instead. I never thought about speciesism until this class and I find this thought to be very interesting. I agree with Singer, we have no need to eat meat and excessive consumption of it has left us with several health problems. ____________________________
6. How does Peter Singer view abortion? Describe his reasoningprocess. More importantly, do you agree? Justify philosophically(explain in depth; do not write simply yes or no). (note: whenexplaining Singer's position here note that he is notsimply pro-life or for abortion--his answer is a bit morecomplicated...explain the "specifics" of his position...it is notblack or white but he holds a much more interestingposition....explain this...in what circumstances is abortionacceptable to Singer and in what circumstances is it not.)
Peter Singer is a modern day philosopher whose theories on abortion, euthanasia and the issue of poverty have started many heated debates. Singer believed that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being’s capacity to hold preference, which is the same as the being’s capacity to feel pain and pleasure. On the topic of abortions he argues that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being, the embryo is human and alive, and that killing the embryo is morally wrong. His argument for pro-choice gets a bit complicated because he argues that killing an innocent human being is not a wrong moral decision. Singer points out that abortion is not a question of the woman’s right to choose, since it is not a question of individual liberty. He is a utilitarian so he believes that a moral decision can only be made once the person has weighed the preferences of the mother against the preferences of the fetus. Singer defines a preference as anything that can be obtained or avoided and deals directly with the person’s satisfaction or frustration. Singer argues that a fetus up to the 18th week can not feel satisfaction or experience suffering, it does not have preferences. Comparing this lack of preference against the mother’s preference, Singer comes to the conclusion that it is the mother’s choice and getting an abortion is not morally wrong. He also explains that since an infant does not have the essential characteristics of a person, such as rationality, autonomy, or self-consciousness, they are not actually considered a person yet. Therefore, killing a fetus is not the same as killing a person.
I agree with Singer’s views on abortion. I also understand why he proposed infanticide for infants suffering from spin bifida and other disorders. These children will grow up a life of suffering and torture. Looking at it from a preference utilitarian’s point of view, the child’s, the mother’s, and all the family member’s lives will be made more difficult if the infant lives. Singer also argues that an infant, like the fetus, lacks any of the properties on which its right to life could be based. It lacks the concept of itself and the desire to continue to exist. I’m not a big supporter of abortions but it is a better option than having another unwanted child in this world. When an unwanted child is born into this world, they bring stress onto the parents, the whole family, and the community.
____________________________________
8. Outline the article on CLONING, discussing what it is, how isworks and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the ethical (and political andreligious) issues involved. Next discuss the 25 minute VIDEO on thistopic. Having been well informed about cloning now, what is yourethical position here? Explain in depth yourstance on this topic.
The website on cloning gave Dolly the lamb as the example. Dolly was cloned through the somatic cell nuclear transfer process. This means that her DNA came from a single cell that was taken from the mother egg and was then fused with a mammary cell. The fused cells then develop into an embryo which is then transplanted into a surrogate sheep. This embryo then grew into ‘Dolly’ who is genetically identical to the donor sheep. This can, in theory, also be done in human beings. A cell from a donor is taken and the DNA from this cell is removed and transferred into an unfertilized egg. This egg, with the donor’s DNA in it, is then implanted into a surrogate mother and the resulting baby is then genetically identical to the original donor.
Human cloning technology could be used to determine the causes of spontaneous abortions and understand the rapid cell growth caused by cancer. This technology could also be used study the process of aging, genetics, and to regenerate damaged tissues. There are several arguments again human cloning. Some scientists argue that this process would result in a large number of miscarriages and deaths of newborns. There is also a high concern that there would be an increase in the black marker for embryos. Scientist are also afraid that the clone’s chromosome would match the age of the donors chromosome, which would put them at risk for the same chromosomal disorders, just at a younger age.
There are several religious and ethical arguments regarding human cloning and how it would change our world. The Catholic Church believes that any type of cloning is “intrinsically evil.” They also think that the scientists are trying to ‘play God’ and the clone isn’t manufactured in the image of God. Jewish people fear that cloning humans might harm the family by changing the roles and the relationships between family members. Protestants believe that the Bible says that ‘children should be conceived within a marital union between opposite sexes.’ A Muslim doctor explains that he does not think there should be a limit on scientific nature because ‘knowledge is bestowed on us by God.’ Other Islamic individuals do not believe in human cloning because it might interfere with kinship, which is a key concept in Islamic law.
Some of the ethical arguments against human cloning are that it may cause physical harm to the embryo because the technology is not safe enough to use on humans. They also argue that the child might have psychological problems and suffer a diminished sense of individuality and personal autonomy. The issue that parents might not love the clones as much as they would their children. Opponents to this issue bring up the fact that this is the only chance an infertile couple has to reproduces, so they would definitely love this clone. Another ethical problem with cloning is that it may cause such social problems as cloning becoming the preferred practice of conceiving a child because it is a sure way to have a child that you want. Some supporters of human cloning point out the fact that the benefits to the society of cloning an exceptional scientist or an intellectual outweigh the potential harms.
Human cloning became a main topic in governmental discussions in 1997 after ‘Dolly’ was made public. The Government realizes that this topic is not just a scientific argument but also an ethical and religious one. Former president Clinton called for a bill to ban any type of implantation of cloned cells into the female womb for the next five years. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which was created in 1995 provided some recommendations for the government. They said that at this time, human cloning is morally unacceptable for anyone. They suggested requesting any private or non-federally funded sectors to comply voluntarily. Members of the senate proposed banning human cloning forever since “creating multiple copies of God’s unique handiwork devalues human dignity and turns children into mere products of adult’s whims.” Other members of the Senate proposed a ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer but support the scientific community in research not involving human cloning. The majority of the scientific research community believes that these bans on human cloning would limit crucial research.
The topic of human cloning was discussed on the Charlie Rose show where he had a debate between Dr. Harold Varmus, who was a former director at the National Institution of Health, and the Republican Senator Sam Brownback. Senator Brownback, from Kansas, was a supporter of the bill that President Bush proposed banning all human cloning. Dr. Varmus does not support this bill because he believes human cloning could be very beneficial for our society. He discusses that the president and many of the senators do not understand the difference between human cloning with the intent of making a new human being and using the same techniques to generate materials which would deepen the scientific community’s understanding of human development and diseases. Dr. Varmus believes that using this technique could allow us to generate cells which can then be used in medical therapies. Senator Brownback fought back making the same point to every argument. In my opinion he had a very weak argument because he kept referring to the ‘clump of cells’ as a fetus. I don’t believe he has a very strong scientific background and can not understand how important this cloning technique could be to us for future therapies. Senator Brownback did have a good argument asking the doctor when he thought that clump of cells actually turned into a living human being.
Now that I am well informed on this topic I am in support of human cloning. I do not support human cloning for the sake of a reproductive method or with the intent to create human life. I do believe that scientists should be able to do human cloning for research into human development and diseases. I believe we can learn a lot from this kind of research and maybe even find the cure to some of our diseases. I agree that the federal government would have to put a few rules and regulations. The scientific community would follow all of these regulations, as they follow them now, since they do not want to have their grants taken away or to get fined. Scientists are also not able to publish any of their work unless it is all legal and their procedures are described in great detail. I don’t think the movie “The Island,” where clones are manufactured in case the donor needs organs or other body parts, would actually happen. I believe this government has enough control or at least power, to ensure that this wouldn’t happen.
9. Do the same for STEM CELL RESEARCH. Utilizing the online articleand VIDEO, discuss what it is, how it works, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY,the ethical (and political and religious) issues involved. Make sureto discuss the 29 minute VIDEO in your essay! (required) Having beenwell informed about stem cell research, what is your ethicalposition here? Explain in depth your position on this topic.
The video that we watched was another one of Charlie Rose's interviews. It was about a debate between a Dr.Daley and a Republican Senator named Orrin Hatch. The Senate and the House both approved a bill to expand human embryonic stem cell research. President Bush vetoed this bill 24hours later. The article by Richard Dawkins stated that Bush holds the embryos at a higher standing than Iraqi and Lebanese men, women, and children. The video argued that this type of reaserch should be NIH funded so it can set strict moral and ethical guidelines. They explained that pro-life not only means caring for the embryos but also caring for the living as well. This means that letting the invitro fertilization embryo tissue become hospital waste is immoral. This 7 to 10 thousand tissue speciments should be used for research to help further our understanding of human diseases, disorders, and try to cure them.
Dawkins explained the embryos as being no bigger than a pinhead and completely lacking all their senses. He questions why people think it's okay to be at war and kill thousands of Lebanese and Iraqi people and then veto the idea of using embryo tissue for research instead of letting it go to waste. Many medical researchers believe that stem cell therapy has the potential to dramatically change the treatment of human disease. There are several stem cell treatments already available, like bone marrow transplants for leukemia patients. There are several controversies surrounding stem cell research since creating a stem cell line requires a human embryo to be destroyed. Many religious groups strongly oppose this because they think the researchers are playing God and destroying a human life. Philosophers shot back with questions about when does an embryo really become a human being? Many others believe that embryonic stem cell technologies are a 'slippery slope' to reproductive cloning which would mean clones of humans in this world. They believe that this would fundamentaly devalue human life. Supporters of this kind of research think that it is worth taking these risks because the outcome of these treatments could have significant medical potential.
Since I worked in a stem cell research lab for the last three years, I would have to say that I am in support of stem cell research. I do not believe that the embryos which are used for this research are alive yet, since they do not have a central nervous system yet. If people are so opposed to stem cell research because they think it is killing a living being, then they should stop being hypocrites and become vegetarians. It would be great if this type of research was federally funded because that would set up strict guidelines. People already know the mechanism of cloning, so if they really wanted to start human cloning they already have. I believe that stem cell research could be used in the future to cure several cancers, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. The researchers need to be given the opportunity to conduct this type of research for the sake of our health and future as human beings.
10. Out of everything you studied this term, from the ten ethicaltheorists, to the moral case topics, to the life of Gandhi andEinstein, to evolutionary psychology, what or who had the most impacton your thinking and may have actually impacted your life in someway? Explain in detail...apply to your life and world. I really want to see that you digested the material you studied and that somehow itaffected your worldview. Articulate who or what influenced you themost and how it did. Offer details.
Out of everything that I have read and watched in this class, Peter Singer´s points of view have effected me the most. I enjoyed reading about his views on abortion, euthanisia, animal rights, and world poverty. A couple of my friends are vegitarian, so they really liked the fact that we could have intelligent conversations about animal rights and their personal life choices. Since I have so many vegetarian friends my meals are usually vegetarian as well. I only have meat a couple times a week and when I do I only have chicken or turkey. I did a study abroad year in England and there I learned how unhealthy American food is. Since then I have tried to buy organic foods, ones with less preservatives, and no hormones.
I really understood Peter Singer´s views on world poverty. All his scenarios spoke to me and really made me think. During this summer I went on a road trip with my best girlfriends. It was kind of like our last get together before I move to Washington D.C. and they go their separate ways. Our trip included a couple nights in Vegas which consisted in a very expensive hotel room and shopping. We were invited to a private party at the Playboy Suite at the Palms which costs forty thousand dollars a night. There we had free alcohol and sushi all night long with loud music and nice formal dresses. (There is a point to all this..not just bragging.. stay with me on this.) The day after I got back from Vegas my best friend from England and flew down to Costa Rica. We have been here for a couple of days and have seen a different side of the world. It is the complete opposite to Vegas where there is too much money wasted on material things. Costa Ricans have a much simpler life and they are just as happy, if not happier, than people who visit Vegas. On our way to a day trip in the nearby national park I saw little kids playing with such toys as egg cartons and flat balls.
We are staying in a cheap hostle which resembels a prison cell. We paid four dollars more for our private bathroom which is actually a cold shower and toilette attached to our room. I shouldn´t say attached, it is actually in our room without even a curtain to separate it from our beds. I don´t mind any of this though, I´m really not complaining. It is just so different from where I stayed a couple of nights ago. I believe Peter Singer would agree with this lifestyle a whole lot more than my trip to Vegas. Instead of spending billions of dollars on huge hotels, Mr. Trump and Mr. Wynn could be donating money to help fight poverty around the world. There is no need for them to try to out-do each other and compete on who can build the tallest hotel on the strip. I am really glad that you have introduced Peter Singer to me because he has made me think a lot about my choices in life. I will enjoy my next two weeks in Costa Rica and the simple life as much, if not more, than my stay in Vegas. I will try to get to know the locals as much as I can and enjoy their vibrant culture.
Once I get established in my career, I will attempt to follow Singer´s advice and donate a portion of my salary to an organization to help the needy. Since I will be a nurse, I will also try to offer others my services. I have always been interested in participating in programs like doctors without borders. Thank you for your time and keep this on-line class going for people like me! I like the idea of not having to carry my books around to Vegas and Costa Rica. I feel I have learned a great deal from the on-line reading and videos. It did require a lot of guidance on your part and I think you did a great job organizing it.
The End!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment