ETHICS 1289 (Fournier-Sylvester @ Champlain) FALL 2016
1,013 | 5 | 0
467 | 1 | 0
669 | 1 | 0
597 | 2 | 0
981 | 4 | 0
474 | 2 | 0
555 | 3 | 1
664 | 3 | 0
778 | 3 | 0
516 | 2 | 0
- ‹ previous
- 2 of 2
The topic that you chose is a very interesting topic and it’s very connected to the actuality. It’s discouraging to see now our days that the issue with the racism towards black people is still not settle. I think, like probably everybody, that there should not be racism towards races. In my opinion, this racism comes from the background of the United-States. Historically, the United-States have always been racism and it’s like repercussion of this history. That doesn’t mean that it makes it right for the police officer to kill innocent people like that. But we have to understand the background of this people and the culture in which they have been raise. Although I’m totally against the racism and I really thing that there should be consequences to this acts.
I think you depicted clearly both sides about this issue. The arguments you brought up for the two groups are really strong, convincing, it makes it hard to take position. However, I agree with you. I do not think we should criminalized the burkini. I think doing so would be sexist and victimize even more the women. I would personally not like to be told what to wear. If I'm ashamed of how I look like, for example, I would like to be able to wear shorts on top of my swimsuit. If it is for a religious belief, then it should be the same. I think the France's government should put their efforts in promoting equality of rights and opportunities for men and women instead. I think that doing the opposite would encourage radicalization of certain muslims, which would be (more) legitimate if they feel that their right to have a religion is violated. What would happen if peaceful discussions replaced the climate of fear in society? Would both sides live together happily, freely and peacefully?
Wow! Your article about the little Juliana touched me! Both sides are really well supported and detailed and this is why taking position is especially difficult in this ethical issue. I totally agree with you when you balance your position between both sides. However, I think I will let, most of the times, the decisions to the parents of sick child. In my opinion, parents, helped by health professionals would be able to take an enlightened decision, probably knowing a lot of information on the disease, its symptoms and consequences. They are not left to themselves. Although they cannot live the pain, they have a major advantage to be able to see and analyze both sides of the issue with their maturity. Also, considering that parents will always act for the well-being of their child, we can assume that they would take the most appropriate decision regarding their situation. In this case, choosing to let the parents make the decision would reunite both values of the debate. They take in consideration their knowledge of the situation, their experiences and maturity and also largely considerate the well-being of their child, this part of themselves. Finally, for adults that have intellectual disability, should we generalize this practice and ask their parents to take the decision?
I'm glad you chose that topic, which I believe is very important to talk about. I think you depicted very well the way american society responded to this particular situation. I must say that I completely agree with you. The rapist cannot be seen as the victim in the situation, he cannot be excused by the public and the media because of what he was aspiring to, because his profile was "clean". And I also think that if his skin was not white, he would have been judged differently. Society still have many stereotypes against black and latino men. It is totally unfair for the victim and it shows that there is almost no consequences for rapists. There can't be no mercy for a rapist, no matter how rich or pale his skin is. Would society have shown mercy for a black or latino rapist? Would the judge have taken in consideration the impact of the sentence on the rapist's future?
I really enjoyed how you developed your topic. I hear everybody talking about how this is solely due to the fact that Turner is white. Honestly, it could very well be a big part of the reason that he was given such a small sentence however, I feel as though everybody was extremely quick to coin this as absolute blatant racism without having the data to support their claims. Turner was given a ridiculously short sentence for his crimes. That is not arguable, no matter if he is white or rich, it is not acceptable. That being said, there are unfortunately many cases of rape in america every year of which most do not get blown up as this one did. I could not tell you what is the average sentence for a case similar to this one. Who knows how many of people have gotten away with short sentences for rap, like this one. I feel as though so many people are so apt to coin this as a race issue due to the various race issues going on in the past year. However, none of us would even know if last year a similar rape occurred but with a black man for the simple fact that it was not so heavily publicized by the media. I think that the judge is horribly wrong for having given Turner such a short sentence but I believe that this also says something about peoples conceptions of rape in general. In this situation, the judge seemingly empathized more with a rapist than a woman who was sexually violated behind a DUMPSTER. I feel as though this alone says something undeniable about the views that some have towards rape. This judges verdict shows that some people don't see rape as such a big deal. I feel like this judge would say something like "well he is just a young guy, guys have sexual urges. She should bounce back from this in not time". At a time when rates of depression and suicide in rape victims are factually extremely elevated, I wonder how a judge could let a rapist go with, essentially, a slap on the wrist.
I value both equality and freedom of belief highly, and thus believe that all students should have equal treatment but I also believe a sort of compromise should be found so that the curriculum does not encroach on any religious beliefs. I believe the arts classes are present in our education as a way to positively develop our creativity but there are other things that could be taught instead of music, dance or painting that are still artistic. A woodworking class, mechanics class, or even smithing class would serve to develop our creativity very well, as well as a cooking class (as another News Activist mentioned).
The question now is how the students would be equally dispersed throughout these courses. If the students could rank which classes they wanted most in order to place most of the students in their preferred classes, than the Islamic students, for example, would also need to rank the traditional art classes which means they could possibly end up in those courses, depending on how the students are assigned their courses and unless the students with religious particularities were prioritized. The encroachment issue and equality issue would thus still be possible even after many alternative courses have been added to the curriculum.
Another possible solution would be to abolish the arts classes but this could probably cause a lack of creative development for those whose families cannot afford extra-curricular artistic lessons. For others these lessons could be taken as a replacement to develop the students' creativity. This would allow for students to have a slightly more personalized education although at extra cost, as these kinds of lessons are rarely free of charge, while the students with religious requirements could simply participate in extra-curricular activities that stimulated their creativity without causing any religious offenses. Do you believe that this is a feasible solution?
Hey Interesting topic! Whether with consent or not euthanasia is still murder. In order to find the true solution to this ethical issue we must conform to the Word of God. Clearly in the The ten commandments it is written not to murder (Exodus 20:13). But we can also see an example of this issue confronted in the book of Job. When Job was enduring great pain and distress his wife said to him 'Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!' 10 But he said to her, 'You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?' In all this Job did not sin with his lips,” (Job 2:9-10). Jobs wife wanted him to end his life in order to end the despair and pain he was going through which is an early example of euthanasia. We are all to follow God's instruction and God is one that hates sin. Job refusing to take the wife's advice resulted in him not sinning against God. Which shows we are not to bestow our time of death. What do you think?
I really enjoyed reading your post since the subject is extremely unusual and original. Also, it was well written, good job! I totally agree with you on the fact that one's belief should not put a child's life in jeopardy. It is obviously the parent’s responsibility to make sure that their child is healthy and receives all of the medical care needed. To me, the value of parental responsibility is extremely important since they take all of the decisions for their child that is too young to have his say. Even though the parent’s intentions were not to harm the kid, they were extremely irresponsible and their faith violated the moral principle of “do no harm”. What punishment do you think would be appropriate for the parent’s negligence?
This post really caught my attention because I think that this subject is extremely interesting and controversial, and I enjoyed the fact that you were able to openly represent both sides of the debate even though the legalization of prostitution can sometimes be taboo. However, I tend to support the other side of the debate which is against the legalization of prostitution, because I strongly believe that we should not use people as means to an end. Also, the values that I have been taught and developed throughout experience go against the objectification of the human body. I also believe that the legalization of this controversy would only increase prostitution, which to me is not a good thing. In this case would other alternative to regulate prostitution, such as adopting the Nordic model for sex-work that consists of criminalizing the act of buying sex services instead of criminalizing the selling part, be efficient enough?
Your post was very well presented. The moral principles for keeping orcas held in captivity were clearly divided, showing both sides of the debate. You also had varied moral principles and explored a large range of issues regarding this topic.
I definitely agree with all three of your moral principles against SeaWorld. The orcas are treated as slaves for our own entertainment. The conditions and living environment in which they are in is simply unacceptable. These large, intelligent whales should be in their natural environment! Many of the orca’s living in SeaWorld are found to have a much shorter lifespan than those that are free and lose their instincts to due to captivity. Values such as protection are extremely relevant to this topic. In your post you mentioned how orcas ware hunted and how extinction is feared for this species. Orcas should be further protected to not only remain in their natural habitat but to be safe in the ocean as well.
Can the ethical issues present in the captivity of orcas also be applied to animals in zoos and animals used for human pleasure?
There no collaborative classes