Abortion could keep life as you want it to be (this is the post i had to redo)

Being a hedonist is being a person who wants to always feel good through pleasure in life, pleasure is the most important thing no matter what. I am a hedonist and abortion would be ethical because when you are choosing not to have a baby it is because you cannot handle it and would not give a good life to that incoming baby. This means that it would be a pleasure in a way because not having the baby would make you keep on fine with your life and so life it before. If you had that baby your life would not be the same and all pleasures that you had always had would not be accomplished because you would have to have the baby. Pregnancy is not always what you want, you can be achieving pleasure with relationships and getting pregnant could happen, not because you want to but because things do not go as you want. Then achieving pleasure would be considered in not having the baby because this would not be your own will, if you are not planning it. If you are a hedonist you would not care if you are killing a baby because everything is done so you get pleasure, so you get what you want and like. Pleasure body is the main chief to happiness but when things go wrong or not as you like in a relationship there is always a way to change back things as you please, so my hedonist opinion towards this statement would be that abortion is a good things if you know that way your life will not change in a way you don’t want it to. I am a hedonist and if my life has no pleasure then I would never chief happiness.

Freedom of Speech by Bentham

In my opinion, people should be allowed to say whatever they want. Freedom of speech is a right everyone has and it is part of the liberty one has as a human being. Therefore the government cannot censor people about what they can and cannot say. I once said that liberty is good because it is pleasant and brings pleasure, whilst the restriction of liberty is painful and therefore bad. Law also restricts liberty and is also bad and painful. Everyone should have the liberty to say and to publish whatever they want. Any government who tries to impose a censure on what can be said is doing wrong and is unethical. Liberty cannot be denied to anyone. Freedom of speech is never unethical. People often have new ideas that may seem odd, unfamiliar and inappropriate but these ideas could actually be very helpful and interesting if one took the time to analyze them. People should not conform into doing whatever a government tells them to do. On the other hand, they have all the liberty to express themselves and this could in many cases lead to finding the truth. All liberty brings pleasure and therefore liberty of speech is also good because it brings pleasure and no pain. Sometimes allowing somebody to express himself in times of oppression might indeed bring good to the greatest number of people. This would be marvelous and would prove that everyone has the ability to think and be entitled to his or her own ideas. Freedom of speech is therefore always ethical and should be allowed as a part of our liberty as humans. Censorship is unethical because everyone has the right to express what he or she wants. Jeremy Bentham (Alex Kawas)

Do the Math!

Euthanasia consists in a doctor-assisted suicide. This is very controversial although we can analyze it using logical positivsm. First of all let's clarify what euthanasia we will be debating. A common one will be voluntary active euthanasia which consists sometimes in a quick injection or other chemical that will automatically kill you. Of course this process will be done with the content of the patient. What could be the outcomes? Analyzing the real world we can surely say that having a painful disease is not fun at all. It is very hard to hold the pain and the best way to get relieved is killing you. Therefore, if you don't want pain, then you will be applicable for euthanasia. Now let's view things with math. Maybe the treatment will cost you $20,000 yearle and you have been suffering from such disease 3 years. That means you have spent $60,000. Euthanasia will only cost you $5000, but it must be done in one payment. In the treatment you pay about $8,000 monthly, $200 daily. In about 20 days, you will have the money to pay for euthanasia saving your family a lot o money. All you have to do is math, just like the logical positivists that trust this system to really make conlusions out of observational data and can help you take the best decision available that will ensure your benefit. Bertrand Russell (Melissa M)

LYING, CHEATING, STEALING, IS IT RIGHT?

Bias on the morality view in our current society, this three factors (lying, cheating, and stealing) are view as negative actions. This is an ethical dilemma because it is a choice that a person has to make, weather he does what it please him or does he comfort to society. Speaking as a Post Modernism, more specifically base on Friederich Nietzsche concept of “I”, I believe that if these factors are suitable for the person, then it is the right path for him. According to Nietzsche, people are responsible for their own actions; we make our own decision because we decide how we are going to live our live. No one tell us hoe live, what decision to make. Regardless of the kind of the decision we made, we are always responsible for the consequences. Lying, cheating, and stealing always bring negative consequence to a person that perform them, but if a person believes that these actions will bring more benefits to him, that it is perfect fir him, then according to his morality he is doing the right thing. But there is also the case for a person who believes that these actions are bad. In their morality, these actions are repulsive. Only good deeds will bring benefits for that person. It all depends on the person weather this actions are right or wrong.

- Fausto (Post-Modernism)

Euthanasia

I have may diffrent thoughts about this subject. The individual is free to choose, when terminally ill, to end his or her life in manner that does not cause pain. Humans ae born in a certain way that are able to choose their own choices and have a free will. Under extreme circumstances sucha as the ones mentioned, if one is terminally ill, one has the right to choose not to keep suffering that will only bring more pain. It is only logic to prevent pain. Not only the body must not be feeling physical pain, but the soul and the mind. On the other side, as a theologist I also believe that our soul is only taken by God, which leave us to theidea tha Go must takeour soul since he is divine. Thus tha idea that are soul is takenonly under God`s will, cannot include extreme situtions when both the body and soul are in extreme suffering.

searching for whats ethical

My cousin a utilitarian person tout me many things when it comes to lying, cheating and stealing. There are many cases were they believe that it is ethical to lie, cheat or steal he explained the circumstances which now for me seem pretty logic after a while o hearing how people that fallow this moral idea think. Happiness is the level were each and every person following this idea should be because of this is that in some cases it is said that it is ethical to lie cheat or steal. This happiness should be given to the majority number is what is really important in this type of idea. An example of how any of this lying, cheating or stealing can be ethical if it is helping a group which is the majority. Lying could be an ethical thing to do if it is lies that won’t heart anyone instead benefit the person. Stealing would be an ethical thing to do when it is done to help a group like a family who needs it and the person who was been steeled from doest find out and with time the group returns what they stole. When it comes to cheating it is said that cheating would be ethical if it something that will help and not damage or destroy. All this three things can be resume in the search of one word which is the main principle as my cousin told me and this word is happiness. At last what’s important is the happiness of the whole group.

Freedom

‘‘How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have; they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech’’.As the father of existentialism and a devoted Christian that thinks each person has a direct relationship and direct access with God, I believe in extreme individualism and the importance of freedom and taking responsibility for our own actions. Accepting free will depends on the individual choice. I consider freedom of expression to be ethical, the individual should be allowed to express their every thought in spite of the influence of other group on their choices, beliefs, decisions or desires. People should be influenced by the Freedom of expression and true commitment that allows us to enjoy our true existence, this is the only way we are true to ourselves, and we act and make decisions based on reason. We should be allowed to express ourselves without restrictions and limitation sharing our thoughts and ideas. If we choose free will, we must accept the consequences of that freedom. To express ourselves freely we must respect the freedom of others. It is unethical or immoral if our actions are lacking authenticity. People must make and judge their choices that can be either moral or immoral. Freedom of speech, actions, feeling and attitudes are left for each person to decide how they want to act. People should have complete freedom to create themselves.
Soren Kierkegaard

Is ending your life going to save the lives of others?

Humans do have the right to end their lives if terminally ill if the circumstances behind this atrocious act are the right ones. We wouldn’t consider ethic to kill yourself even if you are ill just for the reason that you don’t want to keep living knowing you are going to die but this decision depends on the person who is ill and how they are going to feel about it. Society as a whole is always more important than the individual, and thinking about a common good is always more rewarding. The thing is if ending your life will fulfill a bigger cause like saving other people is accepted. For example, suppose you are dying because you have this virus/sickness that is incurable and if this spreads within your community, the life of many others are in danger. The right thing to do in this case, in order to save society, is to end your life because as an individual you are going to bring chaos to others. In this case, it would be morally acceptable that you ended your life because you are not thinking just about yourself but you are trying others to be healthy near you and you are trying to stop this virus you have from spreading. We think that if someone is misfortunately sentenced to a terminal illness, we should have the courage enough to accept that we will die and accept our fortune even if we dislike it. It is up to the person suffering the illness to decide the right way to go, if to be patient and wait for death or take his/her life away.

Helena Velasquez (Virtue ethics)

Death Penalty

"Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the killing of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense."(Wikipedia) According to the existentialist point of view the individuals have the freedom to create their own destiny, taking into consideration that he must be aware of the positive or negative consequences that will result for his actions. Death penalty would be considered by most people as an unethical way to terminate a person’s life. According to my existentialist point of view there will be no right or wrong answer to decide whether death penalty is ethical or not. Again, each person has the right to decide from himself regarding the opinion or decision of others. If death penalty is considered ethical to a person then than person will choose to use that capital punishment, but always knowing what the consequences in the future could be. The other way around, many people would consider capital punishment as unethical so those people would decide to de against capital punishment. You can tell that the ones against capital punishment will not have any consequences in the future because they only have an opinion for it, while they don’t take action and apply the death penalty they would be considered safe. Existentialist, again, would agree that there is no wrong or right answer when determining whether or not capital punishment is ethical or not. The only thing they know for sure is that every person has the right and freedom to choose for him or herself, however knowing their limitations and the consequences for their actions.

War: Agree or Disagree?

As a post-modernist I totally agree with war; the world society is an outdated lifestyle disguised under impersonal and faceless bureaucracies. Post-modernism supports building and using weapons of mass destruction. The truth is relative and truth is up to each individual to determine for himself. The belief about war being a bad thing and war as unethical only exists in the minds of religious people who have followed their cultures beliefs and by consequence have always thought that war is bad. All our deepest religious notions have been introduced in our minds through religious upbringing and conditioning. As post-modernist we usually are atheistic and do not believe what we don’t know for sure; we prefer to live with our own rules and under a global, non-political government and searching for the socioeconomic equality for all people. There isn’t such thing as absolute truth and there isn’t such thing as right and wrong, you do what you want to do without thinking that somebody will question your acts or decisions; there is no authority to define truth or impose ideas. War is acceptable, especially when there are systems that lack equal distribution of goods and salary. If war is done, that deconstruction will reach its natural conclusion, we are left with a grand void: there will be nothing but from that nothing we can provide meaning, with a sense of direction, with a range to distinguish good from evil and to create a new world. Twyla Tharp expressed: “There's this expression called postmodernism, which is kind of silly, and destroys a perfectly good word called modern, which now no longer means anything. “

-Post Modernist Gustavo Vijil

Euthanasia

Euthanasia
Do people have the right to end their lives if terminally ill?

Committing murder or killing someone might be a bad thing to do, but killing someone by the means of Euthanasia is a completely different thing, therefore it is not something bad. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Although euthanasia is illegal in most countries, I strongly think that if people want to end their lives to stop suffering it is okay. My reasons for being in favor of euthanasia come from existentialism. As an existentialist philosopher I have always been in favor of euthanasia. Existentialist are obsessed with how to live one's life and believe that philosophical and psychological inquiry can help, if people suffer too much because of an incurable disease or something painful I think that the best way to end their suffering would be means of euthanasia. Another important argument about existentialist is that we don’t pay much attention to "social" questions such as the politics of life and what "social" responsibility the society or state has. They focus almost exclusively on the individual, so I don’t care what people might think about the practice of euthanasia but I care about each individual person and their well-being. We focus on individual existence and the "existential" struggles (that is, in making decisions that are meaningful in everyday life), so if someone takes a decision to end their lives to relieve extreme pain I think that nobody should disallow them to do so. One of our most important priorities as existentialist is freedom of choice so it is important to remember that the practice of euthanasia can’t go against the free-will of a person, if the patient suffering decides he or she wants to die then it is okay, but if the person doesn’t want to be “medically killed” his/her decision must be respected. There are some exceptions like when the patient is in comma and can’t take decisions for himself.

Stealing Intellectual Property is a crime just like killing someone

Often human beings have the intention of getting things the easy way. Does getting things easily means they are correctly? The answer is no, people often do not think if something is right or wrong, they just care if its easy. Humans never think if they are hurting someone else because of stealing their work or their ideas. Simply because humans practice it everyday and they steal music, books or anything that they require means that they are right? No, this is the base of many problems in society. Individuals often get involved in conflicts just because they have stolen the rights of others. Some people don’t bother if another person grabs their property without permissions, but what brings many problems to society is that often the robber identifies what he stole as his property and his creation. This makes the action be double wrong because he didn’t only stole the property but lied to say it was his. As I stated earlier in one of my ancient writings, “Discourse of Inequality”. The first man was the one who when he got to earth he said “This is mine” and the other ones that were so innocent believed him.” As I say I believe that people have the intentions of getting power and that desire to be superior since the day they are born. They do not care if being better requires ruining the life of another individual. People should not steal music or any kind of work, because it belongs to another individual. Reason can say this but the only way that we can change the society’s’ mind is by giving them education because otherwise humans are like animals.
-Jean Jacques Rousseau

To die... Or not to die...

You feel puny, you feel like a wimp, you have seen that in life you have yet not accomplished anything, you have not been able to achieve those minor achievements or goals which you every other human being has.... it disgusts me just to imagine that person, luckily I Nietzsche have never even been close of being to becoming one of those low status people. Those that disgust me even more are those that believe in god, and put that as an excuse to not terminate your life, some say that the religion will not accept that, how is religion going to ever come before your own decisions, it is your life, and if you feel worthless, and just don’t want to die seeming like as if it were an act of suicide, then I would say yes to accept euthanasia, because its not the actual killing of yourself, instead its just stop taking the medication that keeps your worthless piece of body alive. I believe that one must take actions in his life, and NOBODY can take them for you... there fore I vote yes for Euthanasia and don’t even dare believe that in another life God will punish you, because that is all just a piece of fallacious concepts and ideas, absolutely nobody will punish you for being able to take your own decisions, they are your decisions and it is your life! Do not let anyone make you forget that, not even for one second, because that my friends, is what will make you different from all others. Gute Nacht!

I want to live whether I am ill or not

Euthanasia (Do humans have the right to end their lives if terminally ill?)

Hi my name is John Stuart Mill and I am an English philosopher who advocated utilitarianism. In my opinion a human being can decide to end the life of someone who’s terminally ill only if this action produces you happiness. For example if you have a relative in coma, than you are constantly suffering because you are sad. So, if the doctors determine that your relative might never get out of the coma, than you can say its right to end someone’s life because your are seeking for your happiness. But if you have happiness and someone is ill then you don’t have a right to end someone’s life due to the reason that you already have happiness and it’s useless to seek happiness through the end of someone’s life because it doesn’t affect you in any way. It doesn’t intersect between you and your happiness. I think euthanasia in the occasion of terminally ill people means that these people are in pain. Many of the ill people don’t want to still be living for the time they have left because they are suffering, so they can chose if they want to still live or not. On the contrary many people who are ill and feel pain sometimes achieve happiness and want to still live for the time they have remaining. Ending your life is a decision each person makes because it’s something personal and you decide whether you want to still live or not. It all depends in your happiness and pleasure of still living.

-John Stuart Mill (Camila Chicas)

Immanuel Kant- Genetic engineering is perfect!

Genetic Engineering has throughout modern times been subject to major debates. Whether it is right or wrong to genetically modify human beings or to clone is usually a hot topic and always encounters different perspectives. I am very much in favor of scientific exploration and in technological progress. I once said that scientific exploration is the key to an ultimate comprehension of things-in-themselves. I have always been a big fan of the scientific method and Newtonian thought and I am confident that these help scientists ascend to better understanding and control of nature. I am in favor of genetic engineering because I view this as progress and helps us as human beings develop better understanding of nature and how our genetics work. Genetic engineering can help us improve the human race greatly and our genetic codes. This way, diseases would be every time less common within the human race and everyone would be one step closer of being “perfect”. Cloning humans and to genetically engineer humans is the right choice and shows that humans are capable of developing strong and advanced technologies. Even though many people could argue that a cloned human would be ethically wrong, we should also consider that it would be a great technological achievement and would help us progress scientifically. Imagine living a world where no terminal diseases exist and everyone lives a fulfilling and happy life. I know there would be a problem of overpopulation, but that is something that could also easily be controlled through genetic engineering. We could genetically modify everyone to be capable of having only 2 children. This way, the world’s population would always be stable and the world would be a happy and modern place to live in.
Immanuel Kant (Luisito Armando Zuñiga Puerto)

Cheating, lying, and stealing are PLEASURE in a HEDONISTIC LIFE

I live in a hedonistic world where everything should me base on pleasure and pleasure is the only important think to chief happiness. Pleasure is one of the hardest things to chief because one pleasure is never enough for a human being you always want more than what you can actually get. When you get something you always desire more and more. For example I had a girl friend and she was everything to me, but there was this other girl so hot that would always be there tempting on to cheat on my girlfriend, I finally did it and it was so good and felt lot of pleasure for it, therefore this was not wrong for my type of life because pleasure means happiness and pleasure is the way of life of an hedonistic way. Lying would never be something bad in my hedonistic life because pleasure is one of the most important things and when you lie is just to make things good toward yourself this would be a sort of type of pleasure because you would achieve what you want, this would cause pleasure and pleasure is happiness. Stealing finally is a pleasure because you can steal money and money would be pleasure, you could satisfy many pleasures in life if you still, also by stealing you could stop suffering from lack of money or of some kind of object that would make better your life and this would cause pleasure towards you. Cheating, lying and stealing could be a sort of an example as morally right because all this things would be done to satisfy a pleasure in life, something that you need or that would make you happy in your life. In a hedonistic life pleasure is the only things that matters so if some of this three things are done to make you happy in some sort of way they would be having your happiness so it would all be morally right.

I have terminal cancer? Then let me just rest in peace!

Someone who is terminally ill can in many circumstances be allowed to end their lives in order to end their suffering. Especially if someone has a mental incapacity and cannot live a life with happiness and normality would be a great example about when someone should have all the right to end his or her life. I once said that an unexamined life is not worth living for a human being. If someone has a mental condition that incapacitates him from examining life to the fullest, then he should end his life if he wants to since living a life would have no purpose. We should look at the example of John. John is mentally retarded and can barely speak and do normal things. At the age of 10, John is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. He cannot really understand what is really happening to him because he does not have the mental capacity to understand what lung cancer is in the first place. His family would definitely feel compassionate towards him and some would be against killing him for his own sake. On the other hand, most people would think that this would be the perfect case to allow someone to end his life when terminally ill. I know there will always be much debate in these cases, but we should try to use our logic and by doing that we should see the truth, namely, that John is not capable of living a life worth living and therefore should be allowed to rest in peace. I am a very intelligent person and therefore I know that humans should have the right to end their lives when terminally ill because it would be the moral and the right thing to do. Socrates (Jason Galo)

War: One of the worst ways to resolve conflicts

Since the earliest of days, humans have resorted to war as their primary method to deal with conflicts. Now in the 21st century, the tendency to solve conflicts through war has not decreased at all, it has actually become worst, the capability for mass destruction nowadays is really frightening. The fear of mass destruction is certainly one of the points of why many argue against war, but why is war really such a huge problem? It is necessary to seek more into the human factor of war to see why it is such a problem for mankind. War has been one of the main causes of human deaths in the last 100 years, millions died between World War I and World War II, Vietnam, The Gulf War, Iraq, Aghanistan and other conflicts that have risen in recent years have also been culprits in taking human lives. I really don't see why politicians send the young men of the nation to die, why are they sent to fight for causes they probably don't belive in or by problems they did not create? It just seems senseless. "Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die", this is a quote that is very true, I really question older politicians methods, by sending our youth out to die, we damage the human race, but how so? Well there are various factors, but the most important of them are that in war, valubale citizens who contribute to the country for good reasons are killed off and also many families lose the most important member and that causes instability in homes, especially if the family has children. It is important to point out that death is not the only damagin effect war has on mankind. One has to think about the survivors of war as well, most people who do survive conflict are never the same again, some can have mental problems or disorders based on trauma, others might be permanently scarred because of the atrocities they might have seen, while in some extreme cases the trauma of war can lead soldiers to suicide. When you think about war and it's consequences in a thorough manner, do you think it is really a good way to solve conflicts? Is it necessary to do so much damage to human beings just to solve a problem and reach a resolution? The answer is no, human life should NEVER be used as a bargaining chip in conflicts.

Richard Dawkins (Andres Rosenthal)

Is animal testing ethical? Is eating meat ethical?why or why not?

Is animal testing ethical?this may be a question that some people make themselves when they are going to use a shampoo or a product that is testing in animals firts that we use them . Sometimes in this testings animals are not treated properlly as the should be treated , but because people well mostly of the people dont think about how are animals are treated when they use them to make this experiments for the products they are selling . Some places that are in charge of selling beauty products or others are not consious about what animals feel or how they should be treated.This is nothing ethical because animals have rights to and have the right to be treated correct as humans are treated not only because they are animals they dont have the rights of being treated correctly.Why eating meat is ethical, well eating meat is ethical because is something that humans need to survive in life because animals were made my good to satisfy our needs , so animals have some properties or proteines that us humans dont have so they are used as a sorce of living.
Epicurus

Lying, Cheating, Stealing

There is a point in which people know the difference between doing what is correct, of course that some lie, cheat, or steal because they want to, just for something bad. But, in life there are no opportunities for other people, because not everybody has the same economic resources to buy things, and this are occasions in which certain people need to steal, no matter what if they want to feed their family, even though there is a lot of unemployment. It is unethical to do this type of things since, we can't steal private property, or lie to other people because of no good reasons. There are circumstances that we are going to do this unethical activities, even though it is considerate bad, because no one has the right to this to anybody. We have to treat each other the way we like to be treated, this is way there a is point of boundary between people. Many people that are unemployed have a certain kind of exception, peopl with low status meaning tat they don't have the same chances as other to be in a high position on their job, is difficult to maintain themself and their own family. This is way it is important to choose a career in which you know you will have a great understading about things, and choose it according to what things you like. People can consider stealing, lying, and cheating in different manners, sometimes we need this because we want to have things that we are desesperate for. We need to fight for things we want but no do the bad stuff, because then we are never going to learn things.
(Averroes)-Ricardo S.

War? You conformist...

War, discussing whether or not war is ethical is absurd, because war itself does not exist. The idea of two belligerent oppositions, both supporting different viewpoint is idiotic and radical. Who thinks about things of such immense proportion? It’s a disgrace to think that people still believe in the 21^st century that everything is real. From my nihilist point of view, nothing is real. The idea of flying lead penetrating bodies just makes me sick. I find myself disgusted with it, not because it’s unethical, but because it does not exist. I find myself typing this blog trying to make my opinion be heard and let everyone know that nothing exist. This whole life is a mere recreation in our own brain. Defending a standpoint in a discussion would be wise if the discussion existed in the first place. The world doesn’t exist so there is nothing to defend in the first place. Having said that everything in this world doesn’t exist makes me want to bring out another topic, the stealing of imaginary things, which I’ll write on my next blog, For now let us continue with war. War, as we might as not mentioned, is a state of armed conflict between two or more different groups. This would be a rational statement if we lived in a real world, but as we know we don’t. According to history books, war has been in our planet since almost the creation of man where different tribes would fight for the resources in an area. Those are just lies told to the conformist nations because if nothing exist now, nothing exists back then; nothing can exist in the future as nothing can come out of nothing.

Do humans have the right to end their lives if terminally ill?

From my point of view a human has no right to end a life other than if it is really necessary. If the person is suffering, then why leave them alive? If we can end the suffering, I’m a strong believer that if it benefits the person than you should end with the person’s life. I believe this because I see it as an external reason why to terminate someone’s life, if the doctors have diagnosed the patient to be suffering and have no chance of living perfectly again, like when people are in coma, you could perfectly end a person’s life. As family and friends you suffer more than any patient in a coma does, or any patient who is suffering for which you should be able to decide for them if it’s ok to end their life. The only decision that would count would be your own judgment, since it’s the only one that really matters. The principal social basic ethic of the objectivism is that no man has the right to judge. Which means, that if you decide to end the life of someone who is terminally ill nobody can judge your opinion if you decide to end someone’s life. So in the end whose opinion counts is depending on what the doctor told you about the sickness and the family’s decision. So at the end it’s the person doing the action who knows if it was correct to do what she did. Nobody should judge your decision, no matter what.

-Ayn Rand (Alexa Bobadilla)

War only when needed!!!!

As my way of thinking in a philosophical way, I believe that war should only take place when needed. War is a very serious action. It is not the solution for problems. Even though war exists between people, it also exists between countries, which is the most common we see. But any kind of wars has its rules, obviously established by me. The first one consists on that the war must be started and controlled by the authority of state or ruler. This means that for a war to be just, only the head of the nation can start it. It rules out civil war and rebellion. The second rule is that there must be a just cause. Meaning that war may not take place just because countries want to, there needs to be a cause or a good reason for it. This also means that anyone and everyone being fought against must truly deserve it. A just cause would not include revenge or pride, but it would include protection, self-defense and prevention of a worse evil. The third rule established for war consists that the war must be for good, or against evil. Law and order must always be restored. This means that no one should ever find themselves on the side of evil for any reason, whatever the politics involved. It also means that there is a duty to return to a life of normality after the war is over. These are three rules that are essential for those countries that like to have wars between them. Somehow, these will make countries think twice what they want to do, ether go to war or not.

-Thomas Aquinas (Nathalie Wolozny)

Cheating and Stealing is only ethical to those with no morals...

I grew up in a house in which my mom always told us that any action that only benefits us is not acceptable. Stealing, cheating and lying were not accepted behaviors in my household. As I grew older human justice became to me something that I knew I had to fight for. Stealing, cheating and lying all go against human justice. it is not fair for a man to work 12 hours a day and has to put up with screaming bosses in order to get a paycheck, and on his way home he get mugged by a person who sat on their butts all day, it is simple not fair. I believe that stealing cheating and lying are from from ethical, they are not and will never be ethical. The word ethical means dealing with morals and the principals of morality, people with no morals in their life are the ones that commit these acts. Some may argue that if you steal out of necessity then it will be ethical. Well...WRONG! Not even the most extreme conditions make stealing and lying ethical. I normally do use the bible as references but to demonstrate that I’m not the only one who thinks this way, one of the 10 holy commandments states that you will not steal under any circumstances. Bottom line; stealing lying and cheating are note ethical and when done, the person should pay for the consequences of their acts. That is my opinion... take it or leave it.
Gandhi (Carol Wood)

NO to War

Buddhism believes in the idea of non-violence, all violence and killing is wrong. As a Buddhist I promote peace and a war is totally unethical. There is, perhaps, a belief in a “Just War”, that are wars that are right because they are perceived to be the interests of justice and should be fought according to just rules. By the other hand there is the belief in “Holy War”, is when the God of a religion is perceived to ask, or command its followers to make war on those who do not believe in that religion. These two beliefs are the only ones accepted in the range to make or participate in war. Mahatma Gandhi said: “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.” Siddhartha Gautama believed that human suffering could be overcome by following a particular way of life, he teaches the first precept in Buddhism: non-harming. We totally reject violence and we think that is “better to be killed than to kill.” In the Vietnam War we promoted peace and offered reconciliation between American and Communist armies. In our religion there existed some Buddhist monks who burned themselves to death in self-sacrificing protest against war. Monks are totally forbidden to kill even in self-defense. War is not ethical; avoid killing or causing harm to any living thing. “In times of war give rise in yourself to the mind of compassion, helping living beings abandon the will to fight.”

Sentiments Rule When Stealing

The other day I was heading back home when I witnessed a robbery right in front of me. I was very in awe, I couldn´t help the lady who was being robbed. I went to the authorities though and told them what I witnessed, later that day they fou8nd the thief. Under no circumstance is it ethical to steal others belonging, that´s a an offense to anyone. People work very hard every day to be able to afford their belongings and it is unfair to steal others since you are taking advantage of other’s work. The actions that lead to that individual to steal from another person was because of what they felt at that particular moment, humans are lead by their sentiments and they do not reason until they have acquired an experience, then they recognize what is good and wrong. They use their sentiments as an excuse to produce bad actions or good actions. It is not logical to not involve reason in the daily actions we perform and we often leave reason behind morality. The reasons that lead the thief into stealing from the woman could be the following: The individual is poor and wanted to steal the object to be able to sell and gain profit to be able to eat, the individual desired the object because of the beauty of it, or the individual wanted the object to get revenge of the richness of the second individual. Therefore the individuals’ actions were lead by hunger, desire and revenge, sentiments that are strong enough to inflict an unethical action.

David Hume (Claudeth Peña)

Health for Genetic Engineering

I’m already dead but from high above I came to know about the recently topic known as Genetic Engineering. I believe it is the manipulation of the organism’s genes; which makes it able to clone human beings. Genetic engineering is recent and very modern now and can be very useful and very dangerous which brings disadvantages. In my opinion I would not support the use of genetic manipulation in a society only if these tests would bring positive consequences for the place. Such as prevent epidemic diseases that bring dismay, horror and panic to a society. Scientists and researchers are often in the quest of searching antibiotics to fight diseases, this would no longer be necessary with the help of genetic engineering. The irresponsibility and desire of human for power can take genetic engineering in a bad use, not for the good of society but for the good of oneself. Society won’t be equal; they might use it only for the upper class society instead of the lower class society; that’s why I insist upon state control over a practice like human genetic engineering. I am against this time of thinking God made us by his image and it would be unrespectful in every religion to change or challenge his methods. Genetic engineering shouldn’t be used as a weapon for change in one’s image but to use it for the well being of society and of the world. I conclude that yeah we should continue with the way we use Genetic engineer not by cloning humans but by helping society overcome diseases and other uncontrollable diseases that daily occur within our society.
Plato (Ofer Ronen)

What about being unethical?

Society and human being thoughts have been widely bombarded with negative unethical ideals. These ideals have been the backstage reason of why many societies have not develop. Among the common unethical actions, there are three that emphasize the most: Lying, cheating and stealing. According to my theory of living on pleasure and complete mental peace; I have to disagree to these actions. No human can live on this world with complete peaceness if they either cheat, steal or lie. Maybe youre asking yourself: But what about proffesional robbers, drug dealers and scammers? They live happy with money and everything that comes with it. But the other side of the coin is that they dont live a plenty life with mental peace. Unethical people, like the ones mentioned before, tend to live frustrated and worried about the crimes they have commited and the day on which they will get trapped. Some juvenile delincuents like to arrogantly state that they feel no remorse for the wicked things they have done; meaning that they have mental peace. Even though if this is true, they still have on their conscious the thought that they will sooner or later will get caught by authority, and not reach mental and physical pleasure. Because of these type of people and ways of thinking many societies worldwide find themselves submerged on economical crisis. Leaders, politicians and business man leading a country can be well educated and target the benefit of society. But if they dont begin to learn which way to choose, either good or bad, the whole process will be in vain. Theres no perfect society either perfect individual. But for sure I know, that the best society is that one that has more moral and ethical values in action amongst themselves.

- Epicurus (Rafa Zambrano)

Yes to Freedom of Speech

All of my life I have believed in the right of freedom of expression. No one should be afraid to give their opinion no matter how crazy it may sound. For every opinion now accepted was one peculiar. I have been put in jail for giving my opinion, but never will I keep myself from saying something important. I was granted with the Nobel Prize in Literature in recognition of my humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought. I support the idea that each opinon we make should be formed on the basis of reason, science, and logic. Never should an opinion be influences by authority. As I once said, "Freedom of opinion can only exist when government thinks itself secure". We should have the right of liberty to do what we like. Everyone should respect public opinions but these opinions should always be made wisely, based in facts and with intelligence. No one will ever make me stop giving my opinion. Bertrand Russell (Melissa M)

Eating meat is PLEASURE and pleasure is happiness

Why would it be wrong to eat meat... pleasure is the most important thing in life if you really want to achieve happiness. Taste is a sense and all senses give pleasure... so when you eat a delicious file mignion and you really love at and ask for another piece aren’t you feeling pleasure? Then why would it be wrong to kill and eat animals if all you are doing is satisfy one of your senses that then becomes one of the greatest pleasures of life and that is eating delicious food. Epicurus a Greek philosopher that lived during the fourth century agreed that pleasures of mind were the most important to achieve happiness. Eating meat is a satisfaction in life a hedonist life, it’s a pleasure and it would never be wrong. After you feel satisfaction on eating one piece of meat ull keep on eating until you feel satisfied and your taste sense is satisfied… this would be pleasure for you and by it being pleasure and by being a hedonist you would achieve happiness … so there would be nothing bad at all on eating or killing a animal or whatever treat meant you give him if it is all done for pleasure. Jeremy Bentham my great instructor once told that hedonism was feeling pleasure toward any sense you could have as Epicurus also did so this is why I do believe as an hedonist person that killing a animal and eating meat would be achieving happiness because you would satisfy one of your senses… this would give you pleasure and pleasure is happiness.

Animal testing is unethical!!!

Animals, as we know it, are living beings. We have known since the beginning of times that animals have existed since before our creation, or in other words, our development into modern human beings. Humans would actually be considered very young in the table of existence, whereas animals such as crocodiles have existed since the times of the dinosaurs. Therefore, they must be respected and treated as living things. Animal testing is definitely not ethical because it puts animals in a uncomfortable position they would not like to be in and can most of the time cause them pain. I have always been in favor of nature and its belongings, as are the animals. As I teenager, I studied philosophy and biology in depth and then I became a lover of nature. Many animals suffer nowadays because human beings use them to test new products, ranging from medicine to cosmetic appliances. These tests are not taking into account the feelings and the life and comfort of the animals. Animal testing also tends to be very cruel especially when it comes to testing new medicine that is considered too early in development for human beings. Therefore, the feelings and well being of the animals are not taken into account. When it comes to meat eating, I believe that that is a different story because we as human beings have needed animal meat in order to survive. Since the early humans, we have often during our history had no choice but to kill animals and eat them in order to survive. All in all, animal testing is definitely not ethical but meat eating is different because that is required for survival and for health.
Immanuel Kant (Luis Zuniga)

Sacrificing animals, and saving humans!

Animal testing isn’t ethical according to virtue ethics because we are killing innocent animals but we also have to think that by testing on animals we are saving human lives. We should not focus only on the main damage but we have to look at the damage that would be caused if products weren’t tested on animals before being out on the marketplace. Our philosophy claims that we have to think not only on the consequences of actions but as well we have to think about the final outcome and moral choices of those same actions. By testing on animals we prevent sicknesses and we prevent death and health problems of many humans because imagine a product that isn’t tested on animals first turns out to be dangerous to humans; many people that bought the product would suffer the consequences. Even though there are more methods of testing, testing on animals provides a more accurate result. Eating meat is ethical because humans have to eat. The meat provides humans of vitamins and other ingredients that help us be stronger and prevent us from starving, yet there are many other food we can eat, meat is one of the basic foods for humans. Killing animals show that we aren’t good persons which go against our theory but if we think beyond it we have to admit that in order to save the human existence we have to sacrifice others through the process and even though it isn’t right it is what it is. We have to think that to do a final good we sometimes have to do actions that don’t go according to our way of thinking.
Helena Maria (virtue of ethics)

Death Penalty

One of my works involved tha state and the individual. ´´The sate has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of te state``. This states that the state is beneath government an society, but doesn´t consent the idea of death penalty. There ae always going to be ppsite sides and idas between people. This will lead to comitting extreme acts f violene and conflict. The state should punish those who go beyond the normal acts of conflict. The individual owns his own body, thus death penalty to be lawful it shouldhave the consent of the individual of his own death. I think more of the reformation of theindivdual, rather than taking away his/her life. Moreover, those who conent an act such as murder, should as well know that he/she will be punished with the same severity. The state should condemn a pucish that has the same effect of the at commited. throghout history, it has been and is understood that crime deserves punishment, ad it should be donde to the criminal according to his act. The state has the right to impose the death penalty when the act committed by the individual involves the murder of a human being.

The Soul of Abortion

I was concerned of how many women are practicing abortion now a days; I imagine how many more women will practice this abortion on the future. The reasons why women abort I don’t know, because it’s an issue no one talks about, nor face-to-face. Men don’t dare to look at the women when they are pregnant, so it must be worse when they know they have aborted. Going through the process of abortion is a painful procedure, many women go too far they harm themselves; they harm their own body. I think that they should’ve known better than sleeping with others, drinking like men or roaming alone during late hours. Some women during their pregnancy despise their unborn child, because they believe it’s the unborn child’s fault that they have lost all beauty. Then they decide to get rid of it when the child is several months old in the womb. Then abortion is not tolerable, the women is killing an innocent human being. The unborn child has a soul already therefore abortion is not an option. Christian religion believes once the fetus has grown several months then a soul becomes part of their self. Abortion is not tolerated during that far of the pregnancy. When the women learns that she is pregnant and it’s very recent then abortion can be accepted, other than that it is not convenient. Women have to be more conscious of their own actions; they can’t be changing their mind constantly because they end up hurting themselves and above all the innocent child.

-Plato (Ofer Ronen)

Pay, DON'T steal.

Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images and designs used in commerce. I believe it’s not correct to steal music, movies or book without paying for them. The goal of my teaching is to bring order to society, and stealing doesn’t do that. There are five encouragements: courtesy, integrity, perseverance, self control and indomitable spirit. To follow the first one, courtesy, you should always show kindness, politeness and consideration towards others, being respectful at all times. Integrity refers to being confident and doing your best in using your freedom. We should all have self control, and this applies a lot to stealing, since you should never let your weaknesses to overcome the mental discipline. Stealing goes against the virtue of honesty and taking somebody else’s possessions affects our society and others wouldn’t trust us. If you don’t have the money to pay for the product, then don’t buy it and control yourself, but stealing might bring bad consequences. Would you like it if someone stole something from you? I don’t think you will, so why do to others what you don’t like others would do to you? That’s the Golden Rule, another of my teachings: do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself. I also believe that using someone else’s work as your own without any recognition is not an ethical act. This would be the same as cheating, which is an unfair act because the stealer, or cheater, would be receiving recognition and introducing a work that’s not originally made by him or her. To stop this behaviors and decisions people make, human beings should get a more extended education that emphasizes in justice and sincerity so that it can be practiced in all social relationships.
-Kongfuzi (MJ)

Should Abortion Be Acceptable or Not?

Abortion is the execution of a pregnancy by the elimination or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo. I believe there are many Gods, but you can believe in many of them, there are times when a baby is good to have, but other times you have to be indifferent meaning that you have to control yourself. Abortion can be stressful for young women, who aren’t capable of handling their own child because they still are too little. You got to make the best decision, if you know you are skilled to raise and maintain that child, then keep it and make them learn important things in life, as well as educate them. No one, has the correct decision of killing another person, even though it is starting to form. No matter what, while having a baby on a mother’s fetus it is considered alive, and it’s life must be respected and taken care of. People around the world don’t consider the consequences of a killing a young born, we are here for reasons. The abortions methods can be surgical or medical, either both you have the same risk of killing either the pregnant woman or their child. The belief is crucial to people whether or not murdering is important to someone or not, all around the world people have fight against this sort of problems, and taken the decision that abortion is prohibited. No one can take another person’s life when they are in progress. It’s sad that many people don’t reason things and realize that everyone helps everybody. (Averroes) –Ricardo Sanchez

An Abortion Experience

We found ourselves surrounded by a society that believes Abortion is wrong. They believe is morally wrong because it implies killing a person. Society states that anyone who kills a person then they should serve a punishment for committing such an injustice act on someone who can’t speak up for himself. Society doesn’t fully understand why a person aborts; the individual may have many reasons to do it. Can society judge those persons who abort, even though they haven’t experience an abortion? Can we say we don’t like pizza, even though we have never eaten it? So society doesn’t have the power or to tell the world what is wrong without fully experiencing abortion. It is not reason what drives us to perform our actions but our sentiments and affections. A woman who has been raped or sexually abused becomes the product of pregnancy. She won’t like the idea of having a baby of the man who has raped; the child will be a living memory of that hideous day. Her experience, the way that situation has made her feel will drive her to have an abortion. The individual will not think what is morally correct instead will want to get rid of all the memories and feelings. Society can’t judge what it hasn’t undergone first, what it hasn’t experience yet. After it has undergone an experience then the ability to judge can be realized. I say facts are neutral in a given situation, society might know everything there is to know about the issue of abortion but after it has come to experience it, then it should judge what is moral.

David Hume (Claudeth)

Cheating, Lying and Stealing: Ethical?

Cheating, lying and stealing, can all be summarized in to a precise definition; a dishonest or unfair action to gain advantage. To gain unfair advantage is wrong because it is not honest. Rights and responsibilities make up common everyday life. Everyone has responsibilities to fulfil in order to claim their rights. Cheating, stealing and lying all go against this past phrase. Having completed these responsibilities brings satisfaction to ourselves, which makes us happy. If you were to say, lying to a madman who wants to murder someone is ethical, guess again because you are wrong. You have to be honest everyday of our time because it gives us that mental tranquillity that we are no lying. Stealing because you are starving is also wrong, this brings us back to our responsibilities in which states we should not take what is not ours. Cheating off a grade in order to not fail the school year is never going to be ethical because you are lying to yourself and your teacher, and as we said before, lying does not gives us that internal peace. If a toddler were to steal a candy bar from a grocery store, it would be ethical because in the child’s world he has no responsibilities. If this child were to be in the serious world, his actions would have been considered unethical.

-Simone de Beauvoir (FM)

Death Penalty: A Really Unethical Way to Punish Criminals

It must be stated that the death penalty is the least effective way to deal with criminals and I believe that the increasing crime rates backs up my opinion. That being said, you may wonder why the death penalty is such a ridiculous way to deal with criminals, and you also may incline yourself to believe that if you take away a criminal life, then there is one less problem as one of these scums disappears from the face of this earth. I will tell you why the death penalty is ineffective and unethical. Humans must learn to take care of each other and see for the welfare of the whole, when the state uses the death penalty as a punishment, they are advocating murder, they are trying to make us think that killing is correct as long as it is done to punish other for things that they have done, but the truth is that killing can't be justified for any reason at all, even if you are dealing with the worst kinds of criminals. Maximum security prisons or solitary confinements are harsh punishments already, what must be done is to mix together punishment with rehabilitation, instead of killing our fellow human beings off there should be a huge effort to try to rehabilitate these criminals so they can have a better life and contribute positively towards society. The emphasis of being human is that we must take care of each other and try to fix our problems and flaws, this is why the death penalty is a failure and should be eliminated. Life over death is crucial for society.

Richard Dawkins (Andres Rosenthal)

ietzshes freedom of speech

It is what i believe, what the superhuman believes, and what each and every person believes, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO say absoultely ANYTING that coames to my mind, in my times if someone even dared to correct or try to prove me wrong! They once tried to bring me down with religion.... I just lauged to religion in their face! How can religion ever affect my understanding of what I believe in. It s my freedom to say absolutely what I want, Whenever i want!, one thing is true though, there are some with very stupid and very idiotic awnsers, however even though they are very idiotic they still have their freedom to speak whatever they please. I say whatever I want to say, like it or not ! There is something that is not ruled by god, nor by the human beings, or by society itself , and that is saying what you believe in. Absolutely nobody can solve what you believe in your mind, it is your own little world and nobody can take that emotion away from you! It is the freedom of what you believe in! it is your personal mind and what you believe in life. In other words why was I created by this god that tries or intends to banish this so called freedom of speech. He created us for a reason, after being created we decide what we want. We choose our livestyle, our favorite color, etc. Thats freedom of speech, not only to say or express whaterever you want but also too have the freedom nd the right to choose.

Abortion Ethical?

Since everyone creates his or her own meaning, every meaning is equally valid. Today we see Existentialism in abortion when women call themselves “pro-choice”. To them, it makes no difference what the woman decides, only that she makes an authentic and ethical choice. Whatever she chooses to do is right for her. “Pro-choice advocates are not interested in any objective information that might have a posture on the morality of abortion.” (The History of Western Thoughts). Data about the fetal development, facts of abortion and its consequences, and arguments of the sanctity of a human life are all meaningless evidence for a women´s private choice. According to this view of the world, the choice is God. A woman would not consider it ethical or unethical to abort and terminate a human being´s life. If a women wants to abort she is creating her own destiny, therefore she is also responsible for her consequences. Existentialism is based on Post-Modernism. Post-Modernism rejects the idea of an absolute right answer. The same goes with existentialism, your answer would be somehow based on a term called unaided human wisdom, which creates a meaningful validity only for yourself and not for others. In existentialism there is no such thing as right or wrong, in this case the woman decides that good is whatever the individual wants to be good. Using Christian virtue ethics as a guide, it can quite easily be concluded that abortion is wrong. The existentialist does not even struggle with the issue of abortion. To the existentialist, there is no right or wrong with regards to abortion. The existentialists simply do what they do without the help of the outside world. It is absurd for them to even rationalize the morality of an action.

experimenting with different perspectives!

Providing happiness to a whole group is one of the main principles and the most important for us utilitarian’s. We want the best for a whole group; we want groups to feel good and have all the things they want. In simple words it is what’s best for the group that we are looking for. Abortion comes to be a problem as a utilitarian since you need to see from all the perspectives who are involved with it. For example it is not human or ethic to kill a living human just because you don’t want it because for this there are many options one of them can be adoption. When it comes to a problem is when there is more than one person included and also pain is involved. An example of this may be where there is a mother a father and many children and it is said by the doctors that they can only save one of the life’s or the mother dies and the baby lives or the other way around the mother lives and the baby dies. This is a hard situation because the mother would prefer the baby to live but there is a whole family that needs the care of a mother and she can’t leave them alone. In this case it would be ethical to abort since there is a whole group who needs to be happy and killing the mother will only makes things go wrong with them since the presence of a mother is essential in the family!

Freedom of Expression

Everyone is free to express what they desire; our opinion can’t be judged by anything or anyone. There is no such thing as the truth, so nobody can contradict what you think. Nobody can say you’re wrong. There is no objective truth, there is only interpretation. We allow freedom of speech to those who share our Leftist political views on issues like feminism, affirmative action and free enterprise. People don’t need to care if the words you say or what you give your opinion on, contradict others. As Warren Buffett expressed: “You’re neither right nor wrong because people agree with you. You’re right because your facts and your reasoning are right. In the end that’s all that counts.” In our present world there should be rules for anything, if you don’t like something just SAY IT! Morality is meaningless, there shouldn’t be stupid debates on what is right or wrong, we are so biased by our race, class and gender that knowledge is impossible so who knows what is right or wrong? Who knows that your opinion isn’t right? NOBODY! We need to construct our own reality, and our reality needs to be based on what we think. Living gives you the freedom of happiness, equality, freedom and expression.

Post-Modernism(tavo vijil)

Freedom of Speech? Heck Yeah

I grew up seeing how everyone was beat when they said something that they were not allowed to say. Well I say “Screw them,” I should be able to say what I want to say when ever I want to say it. In the situation of my country if you stand up for what you believed you would be shot by those who are not man enough to here another point of view. I am a FIRM believer In freedom of speech, because by saying what I believed in, a pacific way I was able to give my country their freedom from the British. Freedom of speech is something that ever person in the world should be entitled to, it is very important for others to hear and respect what you have to say. For many freedom of speech is not important and they do not give it the respect that it deserves, but what I think is that freedom of speech is a key pillar in a society. Everyone should have the right to express there feelings and not be criticized for thinking the way that they do. Some people… and I don’t want to mention name think that the only way to solve a problem is by fighting, but no fighting should not be the firth option it should be the last. The civilized way to settle a discussion is by talking about it and hearing what other have to say about the situation and even though it may not agree with yours, you should never relay on fighting.
Mahatma Gandhi (Carol Wood)

Treatment of Animals: Is it ethical to treat animals as if they were humans?

Why should animals be treated as if they were humans? No way, come on! Get serious, animals can't be treated the same as people because they are not human beings. They don't deserve any kind of charity given by human beings. I clearly can't stand people that treat, love, or have animals. I can't even see people treating animals as if they were persons. Animals are not humans!!! They can't be treated the same way as us, humans. Otherwise, it would be unlawful to use them as food. However, this doesn't give us humans to be cruel to them, for cruel habits might carry over into our treatment of human beings. Following my point of view, as philosopher, it is not ethical at all to treat animals as if they were humans. You may never compare human beings with animals, they are just different. Human beings do not behave as animals, well, they must not do. And animals do not behave the same way as human beings do! These are some of the reasons why people should not treat animals just like people. There are some people that do not care what is ethical and what is not, but they must know that treating animals in a very good way is not ethical. I hope these kind of people think once again what must be ethical because it's very important to know about treating others. I hope I made my point clear enough so that you all may think over you actions towards animals.

NO to Death Penalty: People Can Change

One of the main precepts in Buddhist teachings is not to kill or even harm something that is alive. There are a series of Buddhist principles that talk about Buddhist opposition to the death penalty; it definitely includes no deliberate taking of the life of any person. We believe in the universal law of cause and effect, once all humans understand this law, we will be in a more forgiving world. Killing other human being to make justice for their acts is not the way to make them pay for what they did. Things and people are always changing; there is the implication that all beings and all people possess a capacity to transform themselves. People who have done horrible crimes and murders and even rapes have the possibility to change and lead their life to a positive path that will make the world a better place. Everyone needs to have compassion and wisdom to understand that death penalty is NOT the way to make people learn from their mistakes. Death Penalty fails to serve to stop violence and murder; it raises the seed of violence that exists within each of us. Before execution we should consider if the criminals are negative harmful people. We should try to prevent such horrible acts in society; there are other ways before getting to death penalty. Dalai Lama expressed “The death penalty fulfills a preventive function, but it is also very clearly a form of revenge. It is an especially severe form of punishment because it is so final. The human life is ended and the executed person is deprived of the opportunity to change, to restore the harm done or compensate for it.”

-Gaby Gonzalez (Buddhist)

Why are lies easier than to say a simple truth??

Why are lies easier than to say a simple truth??This question is a question some people make themselves every day , sometimes people think that by saying a simple lie everything is going to be ok but what they dont realize is tha t when thy start with this is something that you cant stop as easy as it looks because they are so used to saying lies that when is time of saying the truth is difficult for them becuase they are already used to saying lies. A lie is easier than saying a simple truth becuase there are times that saying the truth to someone may be is going to be nothing that they are going to like or something that may be for them.Thats why some people prefer to use simple lies but the bad thing about this is that its hard to stop and is something that isnt good in any way.
Epicurus.

Let God play to be God

Throughout time science and religion have always been in constant contradiction. Genetic engineering is just another way of challenging religion principles of creation. Cloning or creating copies of any organism with a fragment of DNA is against nature. Religion has always argued that the discoveries made by science are against the church and any belief they carry on. Therefore I believe genetic engineering is unethical under Gods judgment. Between God and his works there exists an absolute relationship. The works of God are such that only God can perform them, he knows what to create, when to create and if it’s right to create it. God is the only one qualified to create life. No science can play God. Cloning a human? It’s just like creating a new being, and therefore I can’t consider it as ethical. I believe that only God has the right judgment to decide what life is created or taken. It’s him who created the world and we shouldn’t play with Gods creations or how he has decided to create it, I do not accept genetic engineering because it’s doing the work of God. The entire concept o genetic engineering raises the pride and arrogance of human nature. Through the bible speaking, genetic engineering causes man to become like the Great Deceiver who said, "Ye shall be as gods”. Therefore genetic engineering is not morally acceptable.

Soren Kierkegaard(Alejandra Handal)

Lass uns kämpfen!!! Let there be war!!!

War has always existed since the beginning of mankind. Wars have influenced in a huge way the path humanity has taken. Whether war is ethical or not is often discussed. I personally believe that war is ethical as long it is ion service to the state. When the state is in trouble and needs men to fight in name of the state, people should have the moral responsibility to accept such tasks and join the armed forces. You never know how your contribution to the armed forces can positively influence the state. The state is the entity with all the power over your people and represents what you and all your family are. It should be an honor to represent it and even to die for it. When it comes to ethics in war, I believe that the killing of women and children should be strictly forbidden as it represents a great injustice regardless of the circumstances the war is on. Other ethics I think should be taken seriously in war include the prohibition of attacking the injured and members of the enemy armed forces who are defenseless and severely wounded. I myself was a soldier of the Athenian Army and served with great honor and followed the duty every person has to his personal state. Although I personally was not exactly injured, I believe that dying for the state deserves respect and is something everyone should be willing to do in case of call of duty to fight. War is something I definitely consider ethical as long it is in defense of the state.
- Socrates (Jason Galo)

Euthanasia=Ataraxia

The act of killing someone deliberately to prevent longer suffering is totally acceptable. The real purpose of humans in this world is to prevent pain. So why suffer by no reason? Humans should always be capable of transmitting to others and mentally be conscious that what you truly want is reach pleasure. Our constant quest towards "ataraxia" or (perfect mental peace) has to be part of our natural instincts. Every single human being in this world has the right to choose what to do with their bodies. After all, they are the ones who take care and benefit or not from it. It doesnt matter if its voluntary o involuntary euthanasia; the final purpose is to release pain from someone, and that is, the final goal of life. Throughout our lives, humans seek for PLEASURE. We are in a constant journey with a single destiny which is feeling good. Through the journey, we reach by obstacles that may stop us or inspire us. These obstacles include taking moral or morally wicked decisions. You may not agree with me, but the truth is simply present before your eyes. We decide between good and bad, pain and pleasure. Many people are totally against euthanasia actions. But I ask those people: What if you are suffering from a terrible disease and the doctors definetely say that it would be better if you Rest In Peace rather than being suffering so much?? What if a beloved one tells you he cant stand the pain of his amputated right leg? Euthanasia is the most simple way of getting rid of pain and achieving that mental peace that we all desire.

Epicurus (Rafa Zambrano)

IS ETHICS IMPORTANT

As Jean Jacques Rousseau I sustain that ethics, the study of morality is very important. One of my most famous work is title “The Social Contract”. In this work, I make great emphasis on the idea that human being have natural brutish condition, that is, we are born good, our real motive is to cause no harm to others. People wouldn’t distinguish between evil and good, what is right and what is wrong. Imagine a society in which people would murder others when they are angry or just feel like it. Or when something is missing, people would just steal, take it from others and wouldn’t know that they did something wrong. Morality, in simple terms, is the ability for humans to distinguish if something is wrong or if something is right. In my work, I wrote that people need laws, punishment in order to preserve peace in a society, in others word the benefit of the “greater good”. Ethics is important, substantial in order to have a status . Living in the 21 century, were now, in everyone can posses a gun, although not by legal means, and have more liberties or freedom, it is important for people to distinguish if their actions by essence is bad or good. A society will only endure when its people live happily. If we see the problem from a more open aspect we can perceive that the main problem is not the individual, the problem is society. Society corrupts individual and makes it mean, and create bad to other individuals.