Reply to: The Transitions of Homes
Your post brings to light important issues regarding the homeless situation. I was not aware of how numerous the homeless population was in Canada, nor was I aware of the issues that Canada has regarding transitional homelessness. You are right in saying that people who are homeless are more deserving of a spot in a homeless shelter compared to those who are transitional homeless. The alternative option of building more transitional houses is better suited for the families who have suffered through a tragedy of this kind. Despite this those who are homeless are sometimes deserving of living in these homes since they have suffered through the most. Looking at this issue from a utilitarian perspective it does not matter who receives the chance to live in these homes, as long as homeless people are being helped out it is considered morally right. Following a teleological perspective, similarly to utilitarianism this process is morally sound. There may be issues with a deontological point of view since people are deciding who are deserving of living in these homes and many are left out to live in shelters. Your solution to prevent further cutting from the program is a possible solution as it allows for more homes to be built, giving people more of an opportunity to live in these homes.
Reply to: Should Women Have the Right to Abort?
I like how you briefly discussed the opposition’s perspective and that you acknowledged that it is in fact a complex topic. I strongly believe that women should have control over their body and not be judged or punished for the decisions they make. In fact, limiting or banning abortion has led women to put themselves at risk by trying to get rid of the unwanted fetus. Some desperate measures include ingesting chemicals, throwing themselves down a flight of stairs, hitting themselves in the stomach, etc. Not only do these women harm themselves, but should the fetus survive, the risk of the baby being born with abnormalities significantly increases. In addition, an unwanted baby might completely mess up a woman’s life. For example, some women might not be able to continue their education, or might lose their job. These negative consequences might lead women to blame their unwanted baby, thus endangering the child. Moreover, the opposition might suggest adoption as being a better solution. While adoption is an amazing concept, some do not realize the repercussions that it might have on some people. In fact, some women might feel guilty for the rest of their lives because they feel that they simply abandoned their child. The teleological ethical theory suggests that the end goal of an action should define people’s actions, and the utilitarian branch suggests that the greatest good for the greatest number should be the end goal. In this situation, allowing women to get an abortion would prevent them from harming themselves and missing out on various opportunities. Keeping abortions legal would also prevent some children from having a miserable life. Ultimately, whether or not a woman gets an abortion only concerns her and her future baby, therefore women should be allowed to make a decision that will ensure her and her unborn child the greatest good, thus abortion should stay legal.
Reply to: Chemotherapy; An ethical perspective
This is a very well written piece with a significant amount of detail which additionally gives the readers an underlying understanding of the subject. Overall, the different information that you presented furthermore enhances your argument. This is a side of chemotherapy that I had no knowledge of which changes my ethical perspective.
The teleological perspective observes the outcome of an action. To be more specific, the utilitarianism approach determines that a persons actions must lead to a greater happiness. This utilitarian theory would view the force-meant of chemotherapy on a patient immoral.
It is unethical due to the fact that the doctors go against the patients wishes. So, if not receiving chemotherapy leads to greater happiness, thus it is good in these circumstances. In the case of Makayla Sault, she did not undergo chemotherapy, but yet she still lived her life to the fullest. She achieved her own personal happiness by rejecting the treatment. To respect an ill patients wishes is their greatest happiness.
Unlike the teleological perspective, the deontological perspective does not value individuals human rights. It looks at the consequences of ones actions. This is immoral since patients should have the authority to make their own decisions since it is their life.
Therefore, the teleological perspective allows for the ill to make their own judgements. They have the right to decide whether or not they will follow up with chemotherapy or not. This will lead to a greater happiness due to the fact that the patient makes their own decisions over their way of healing.
Reply to: Euthanasia: Can it be Ethical?
You have chosen a very interesting subject. I agree with you in that there are two sides on this issue that should indeed be more elaborated and that the article doesn’t really go into depth. However I think you should research better next time, since some of your info is inaccurate. First of all, euthanasia is not legalized in Canada but the demand has been submitted. Another issue is your formatting. Make sure that all of your text has the same font size. The problem you are outlining here is a moral ethical dilemma, meaning making the right decision following an ethical framework. It can be either from a teleological (ex: Utilitarianism) or deontological (ex: Kantianism) perspective. For example, in this case the church’s view is deontological since it follows a set of maxims (i.e. rules). Also, your first sentence of your conclusion is extremely vague. After reading the article, I noticed that by the end they were suggesting that there should not be a complete ban on euthanasia. I don’t agree with that since on what moral background can they then decide who needs a ban and who doesn’t. So, this is not a solution, it’s not solving anything.
Reply to: Capital punishment or life in prison?
First I would like to say that you make several excellent points against the death penalty. The death penalty is an ineffective punishment; the states that use it also tend to have the highest crime rates. That supports the view that it is a useless punishment as it doesn't even help prevent crime. Additionally, due to the massive legal costs and sheer number of appeals made, it doesn't end up saving the government money.
Where I disagree with you is the idea that it should be replaced with life imprisonment. The penal system is designed to punish criminals for their actions, and from a utilitarian perspective this is wrong. Even though they have done wrong the goal should not be to punish them, to make them unhappy. Instead, the goal should be to rehabilitate the ones who have committed crimes. This new mindset is especially needed in the states where they have a huge prison population, many of whom go on to offend soon after being released. In Norway, for example, the prisons are focused on trying to change the criminals into functional members of society. Because of this, I don’t believe that life sentences are necessarily the answer. People can change and, while there are some who will never be able to function in normal society, many of the people currently in prison have the potential to be something more than a criminal.
Reply to: The Transitions of Homes
The article you wrote provides a very good understanding of the state of homelessness in Canada. As you said, the major problem does not reside in the increasing number of homeless people, but instead in the extended period that those individuals stay in the shelters intended to help them. In your article, you propose that the public should support the construction of transitional housing to remove the non-chronic homeless people from the shelters created for the chronically homeless populace. However, you do not further explain how those transitional houses differentiate from the typical shelters. The name suggests that admitted individuals will only be allowed to stay for a limited time, but it does not specify how the length of that period will be determined.
To confront this matter, you can use a utilitarian approach. Based on the teleological framework in ethics, this system aims more specifically to provide the greatest good for humanity. In the case of homelessness, humanity does not only include the homeless public, but also the rest of the citizens. According to the CBC article that you used for your post, shelters for long-term homeless people “account for more than half of the resources of the homelessness system”. Thus, a great portion of the taxes paid by the working population to support the current shelters mostly goes to those chronically homeless individuals. From this perspective, you can argue that transitional homes would contribute to reduce the costs of the homelessness system, which represents a benefice for the entire society.
Indeed, to satisfy everyone, it is necessary to find an appropriate center. The most important part involves the transitional houses. Those institutions need to set a program to maximize the reintegration of those “transitional homeless”. The faster those people start to work again, the less time they will spend in those transitional houses, which reduces the costs of those establishments. The second part requires, as you mentioned, the financial contribution of the non-homeless population. However, we want to reduce the needed amount of resources to please also the working citizens. Once that middle is established, the society would function more efficiently and be more cost-effective in regard of that matter. Nevertheless, since that perfect line has not being discovered yet, your final argument could be that transitional housing focuses on finding an adequate middle to beneficiate both transitional homeless and non-homeless people.
Reply to: Riot In Baltimore
First, thank you for bringing up a very current and relevant issue, the fact that the riots have caused such drastic actions from the government is a sure sign that something big might be happening in Baltimore. However, I’d like to address the fact of the matter that it is not exactly police brutality that is being protested. Police brutality is an ongoing issue in the United States, however, it was more of a general negligence that caused someone in police custody to die. There’s evidence of the death of Freddie Gray was originally caused by what could be self inflected wounds. It doesn’t seem like there’s a defined Summum Bonum, in fact, I don’t see the point at all in destroying your own city by rioting, and actions like arson and looting. Hundreds of people have been arrested, flooding the system as a result. The problem here is to fight the police with violence, and destructive actions that will only harm the society. The final goal isn’t established, there’s no “greater good” that the rioters are looking for, it just seems like people blowing off steam. I think to have any chance of a better future and stricter regulations on police officers, there needs to be a civil and peaceful conversation.
Reply to: Moderate Training Better Than Overtraining
I really like how you explained the issue. I completely agree with your conclusion because I find it true that people must ‘know their body’ in order to exercise in a safe way. In effect, over-exercising is not only scientifically-proven to be bad for your body, but it is unethical from a teleological point of view. Teleology (from the Greek ‘telos’ meaning ends) is a theory of ethics which determines an action ethical by evaluating the ends. In this case, the result people want is to be healthy, strong, and achieve that ideal body physique. However, over-exercising has more negative consequences than positive ones; the body is working out without the sufficient rest it needs in order for it to regrow, repair, and replace all types of cells. As well, the “do-it-yourself” tendency is unethical because performing physical exercises without the proper technique can lead to torn, pulled, and sprained muscles. Even though the intent is to become healthy, the consequences are quite serious. For this reason, over-exercising is unethical from a teleological perspective.
Reply to: Capital punishment or life in prison?
I think that your post is extremely effective in shedding light on the issues that lie within capital punishment, shows what the people think, and gives a good representation both opposing sides.
In support of your stance against the death penalty, I think that using the law of retaliation could help set a good base for your arguments. This means arguing that, if by capital punishment we are showing that we condemn murder, killing the perpetrator as a means to achieve justice is extremely contradictory. Killing a murderer consequently creates another murderer in the process.
Another argument I think could be interesting would be that the death penalty does not discourage crime, and as you presented, a considerably better alternative would be life imprisonment. Capital punishment is a public and dehumanizing act, that was proven not to affect crime rates. This puts into question why such a barbaric act has to be committed when it is non-impactful.
In addition, there are so many other risks and disadvantages that come with capital punishment. The death penalty increases taxes, there is a certain percentage of murder charges that do end in capital punishment as a result of random choice or external factors (i.e: having a bad lawyer), and it is a possibility for the mentally ill and wrongfully convicted people to be subject to the death penalty. The residing issue here is that we are dealing with someone’s life and once this sentence has been applied, it cannot be taken back.
Ultimately I strongly agree with you, and think that the death penalty should be abolished, and in turn, we should try find ways to prevent the issue from occurring, rather than continuing with a non-impactful solution.
Reply to: Balancing Powers
Hello The Nommz! This article is very informative and effectively communicates the essential information one needs to understand the proposed Austerity measures in Quebec. It is always interesting to read about austerity as it is a concept many are opposed to, yet it continues to be used as a solution for many countries’ debt problems. You are right to be wary of the proposed cuts to education and healthcare in the province; social services such as these are essential to keep the population healthy and well educated two important qualities of a healthy society. Quebec already has deficiencies in these services (most notably healthcare); therefore, cutting funds for essential services that are already at risk is more likely to set Quebec on an even more slippery slope than it is already with its debts. Here, it is really a question of whether austerity is an effective and moral tool for balancing provincial and federal budgets. Is cutting these types of services justifiable? After all, not only the general population depends on them, but the effectiveness of these services also directly influences the success (present and future) of the nation. Thus your concerns are legitimate and important; balancing the country’s budget by imposing austerity measures is not a viable answer, but rather could contribute to further monetary and social problems.