Abortion: There is no right or wrong!

Gorgias once said... "that nothing exists, that even if something does exist, it can never be known, and even if something does exist and can be known, it can never be communicated. He said that it can never be communicated because people use words to communicate, and words are nothing but symbols. No symbol can ever be the same thing as the thing it symbolizes." as a result of this Gorgias said that knowledge of moral truths or facts cannot be communicates.... nihilism is the belive that there is no good or right because moral do no exist. So if there is no good or wrong why would it be wrong to abort a baby and killing a human being? a nihilst person would say that killing someone or something, without giving importance of the reason no matter what it would not be wrong. Nihilism is the way of thinking that nothing exist soo if we dont exsist why would it bad killing a supposly baby if you cant know if it exists, and if it does not exist you would not be doing anything bad because there is nothing good or wrong... there are no moral truths.

Genetic Engineering

Cloning or genetically altering the natural composition, union or formation of human genes is totally absurd and unnecessary. Epicureanism supports the fact that humans should live a simple and modest life. Trying to clone other humans is something that steals time and is a waste of money and neurons. Theres no real importance in trying to change or alter human genes. Theres the fact that supports the consistency of improving day by day. But the truth of the matter is, we have lived through out the past decades and are actually living and succesfully developing thanks to how we are right now. Epicureanism states that we should focus on peaceness and realize that the best we can do in this world is remain humble in the presence of others. By focusing on and having modest pleasures will keep us away from fear and will attain a state of tranquility. Trying to engineer or modify genetic information, alters your mood and attitude since you may get frustrated by not having the findings or results you have hoped for. The proper living way humans should have is by focusing and trying to interact with is as simple as possible. Trying to satisfy basic needs and living your life not encouraged on high standards. Genetically changing other humans DNA is somehting unethical to do. Humans body and cells should be respected and leaved alone by the way they are. Nature has already provided us with the right homeostasis, cardiovascular and cellular capabilities. Trying to change it would be something done against humans existance. The major basic formula of enduring happy and pleased in this vast world is to (keep it simple). The more we try to have more or improve or change something will just cause frustration and will suddenly lack persistance. Epicurianism declares that humans should live day by day with simple purposes and humble pleasures. The basic idea is not to give away our desires, but to focus on a practical living style.

Killer Penalty?

The state does not have the right to kill other persons, we consider humans to be of great importance and also we consider humans’ values and just the fact of being to be important. The truth is it doesn’t matter what an individual has done or even if that individual has committed felony acts, or serious injuries like stealing, bankruptcy or being member of a gang, the state shouldn’t have the right to take his or her life away just because of a human mistake, an error that anyone can do. Imagine if we were considering a “criminal” for death penalty just because of evidence accusing him/her, he/she gets killed and later on we find out in reality he/she wasn’t guilty, there is no reverse in that situation, the state has committed an immoral act by sentencing the wrong person. We should think that humans are not perfect and that we can commit mistakes very often but not because of this the state has the right to lead us to death. Death should arrive when necessary, no other human has the power enough to bring death to others. This is not a human choice therefore there is no excuse for this kind of penalty. Even if breaking laws is something serious, measures to deal with offenders should be severe, they could try jail or heavy work but there isn’t the need to decide upon someone’s death. Humanists looks for the best interest of humans and this kind of death can’t be allowed, one must respect the life of the others. It is inhuman in our opinion to even consider the fact of death penalty or trying in any way to attempt against someone’s life just because of an offense done to another being or property.

War (Is war ethical? What are the ethics in war?)

My name is Georg Hegel. As a young man, interested in the French Revolution. I was a supporter of the autoritarian state, and a hater of democratic measures. All historical events emegre from a conflict between opposing forces. These forces create a thesis which encourages the emergence of an opposing ideology. In order to solve a conflict, a compromise must be reached between the two forces. The forces that have created the conflicts normally have the same goal in mind. Therefore, this is the only reason and cause of the conflict. The greatest of all is the conflict of ideoliogies, since there is where opposing view points emerge. The goverment, I must say, allies with other forces in order to control and persuade the masses. Being in conflict between two or more groups, countries, is not ethical in any sense since it is utterly absurd to kill and destroy simply because of opposing ideologies. As a man who has had studies on theology, it is unethical for men to be in conflict.The primary feature of this behavior (war) pattern is a certain state of organized violent conflict that is engaged in between two or more separate social entities. Such a conflict is always an attempt at altering either the psychological hierarchy or the material hierarchy of domination or equality between two or more groups. The ethics invloved with war are the following: there must be a concise reason for the conflict involved, and most importantly, to be done in a non-violent manner.

What does abortion and the restitution of Mel Zelaya have in common? Both are ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL!

I believe that abortion should be illegal and that is not ethical. Abortion is terminating the life of a living being that is meant to be born and live a life with a purpose. Thus taking a life by killing someone would be the same as abortion, which also takes the life of an innocent creature. I believe that abortion brings pleasure to many people because they no longer have to take care of their future babies nor worry about the expenses and problems that baby would bring. Part of my moral philosophy is that pleasure is worth having only if it does not give up some fundamental morals. The pleasure that an abortion would bring would indeed require giving up something very ethical, and that is the right to live. Abortion is killing; and killing is not moral. If a young woman gets an unwanted pregnancy, it was her fault as well as the male’s fault that that happened. It was their irresponsibility that caused the pregnancy. They probably did not use birth control effectively, even though there are thousands of new, modern methods created every year to provide better birth control. Aborting the baby would bring the worried couple pleasure and satisfaction by the simple fact of knowing that they will not have to take care of the baby anymore. Nor will they need to spend their money and time on him or her. However, this pleasure would cause a wrong moral decision because they would be terminating the life of someone, which is more commonly known as murder. Therefore, abortion should be illegal and it is not ethical. Immanuel Kant (Luis Armando Zuñiga Puerto )

Death penalty to those who deserve it....

I am a person who believes that objectivism is the way of living. Therefore if the states thinks that the person must die, then the person has to die. Reason is my guide and if the states truly thinks that it is reasonable to kill somebody because of a crime then it is ok to kill him. It is ethical if the man deserves to die. The way I see the things is that if the state has the facts that indeed this person deserves to die then the state is correct. Facts are facts, if a man killed another man than he deserves to die exactly how he killed the other person. You shouldn't judge your decision based on feeling or faith. If the person that is about to be killed deserves death than there is nothing that will be against what he has already done. The state has laws and as any other citizen this laws must be followed by everyone. If you are willing to break them than you must accept the consequences, no matter the reason why you did it. The principal social basic of objectivism is that no man has the right of looking for value through physical force. No man has the right to use the physical force against others; the only exception is when you are defending yourself. So, in my opinion if the man did something wrong and the law says that he should have death penalty. Then the state does have a right to kill a person.

-Ayn Rand (alexa bobadilla)

DEATH PENALTY with an utilitarianism thought

I am a person who likes everything that is ethical I consider myself an utilitarianism person. Utilitarianism states that whenever you have the opportunity of making a choice you must consider before anything the likely consequences of the act and from this act choose what you believe will generate most pleasure. Since I believe in utilitarianism when it comes to the discussion of death penalty I completely agree with the idea that the state has the right to kill another person. I often support human rights in a legal sense because as an utilitarian person I support laws that cause more good than harm. I believe in the idea that producing the biggest quantity of good for the greatest amount of people is the right thing to do In other words the ethical thing to do. This is why I say that death penalty is the right thing to do because there shouldn’t be a person alive who is going to do the wrong thing and possible harm others. If it is confirmed that this person who is accused with the death penalty is guilty for doing something unethical than he or she should be killed because we want security for the community where they can live in peace without worrying about someone who might do something wrong to harm them and it is out there doing unethical things. So as me being utilitarianism I wouldn’t think things twice if the person is guilty I would approve the death penalty because its one person against many other lives and the safeness of the group is the one that counts. adriana

Lying, Cheating and Stealing: Unethical Acts

In my opinion lying, cheating or stealing are not ethical acts or decisions, they all go against the virtue of honesty. We all like and love sincerity; these acts are totally against ethics. So, this will separate us from the virtue resulting in a lack of harmony with all the people around us: if you cheat, or steal and never say the truth, you will be a person unfair with yourself and others because you have a conscience that stops us from the bad, which you cannot deceive. You will not like to leave in a society where everybody lies, cheats or steal. So, if you don’t like this to be done to you, do not do it to others (The Golden Rule: do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself). The fact of committing those unethical acts goes against justice, since those are unfair for the person itself and for the victim. For example when cheating, it’s not fair for the cheater to receive a grade which he does not deserve and at the same time, the cheater is losing the opportunity of acquiring a good education, since knowledge is a privilege for any human being. Many problems in the world have been caused by lying about the honor and reputation of many people, causing fanaticism and going against the virtue of honesty. Taking somebody else’s possessions also affects our society and deprives us from being a person that others can trust. To avoid these behaviors we need to educate the human being emphasizing personal and governmental morality, so justice and sincerity can be practiced in all social relationships. To achieve this goal we need to find virtuous leaders that can create a society with true values and a better moral practice.

-Kongfuzi (Maria Judith Torre)

Jeremy Bentham: Dead Penalty

Jeremy Bentham: Dead Penalty

Does the state have the right to kill another person?
The death penalty is unmoral and unjust. Capital punishment will bring no healing or justice therefore I strongly think that it is not right to kill another person as a punishment and capital punishment should be abolished. I lived in an age where death penalty was imposed no matter the degree of offense. I’ve always been against this unfair treatment. Since my ideas have always been against death penalty I proposed the idea of “panoptikon” prisons where prisoners would be under constant supervision just like modern prisons. Although I am against death penalty, I think that people who brake the law should still be punished in a more ethical way and I think prisons are a fair type of punishment. Capital Punishment is immoral in principle, unfair and discriminatory, no one deserved to die. I reject the idea of doing to criminals what they do to their victims, for example the punishment for rape cannot be rape. I am more in favor of severe punishment. In my Constitutional Code I address the need for punishment, but punishment such as death penalty are terrible for society and for human rights. I have always been concerned with ethics and morals, that’s why I proposed “Utilitarianism” and my single simple rule was “Act so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number” In other words good is happiness, and happiness is pleasure therefore only good is pleasure.

Abortion: Ethical or Unethical?

Abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. The subject on whether abortion is morally ethical or not has carried on for years, making it one of the most controversial subjects in history. Throughout my studied I have noticed that most people that are against abortion have religion as their main justification on why abortion is unethical and should be prohibited. Religious groups and people have said that abortion is taking away a life, and that the only one that can give or take away a life is God, I disagree with this, I believe that those who are against abortion have minds that are absolutely dependent on religion, something that hinders the development of humans. I once said in my book “The God Delusion” that “Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.” This is not to say that atheist and humanists do not have an ethical code, which we do. As a humanist I believe that the only wrong moral actions in life are those that cause suffering to human beings. Abortion definitely does NOT cause pain, given that an embryo, which has not developed a brain or a nervous system, cannot suffer, therefore there is nothing morally wrong in aborting an embryo. Also, there is the case of free will, why should a young teenager be forced to have a baby when she is not ready to be a mother? Why should a woman who was raped be forced to give birth of such a horrendous crime? Free will is what makes us human beings, people have the right to control their life and when someone aborts it is because they are not ready for such a big change in their lives, and that is something that should totally be respected. I conclude my dismissing the claims made by the Church or any other religious group about the immorality about abortion. Humans have the right to dictate how their life should be. Abortion is not unethical because it is a component of free will.

Richard Dawkins (Andres Rosenthal)

Genetic Engineering and Human Cloning: Ethical?

Cloning a human has to do with science and science does not know anything for sure. Their research can’t be proven; the truth is nothing more than an illusion. We each construct our own world according to our own perception. There is no objective truth, only our own perception of what is true. The truth is an illusion of our perception which appears to be real. By cloning a human, science will seek new forms, new ways to analyze which is totally acceptable in post modernism but the question is, how will they know what they’re doing? How can they try to change science or move a step forward in humanity if they can’t change the world for their own purposes? We deny the equivalency of scientific truth and absolute truth, which is the one we think we know. Cloning a human doesn’t have the right amount of observations required to learn and create a process like human cloning. It is not ethical to try to make a copy of a person, try to copy their anatomy and physical characteristics when scientists in modern era don’t completely know how to reason ability and knowledge. Scientists can never be certain of the “truth” of what they think is right. It is not ethical to clone a human or use genetic engineering, the truth can be found by other ways rather than doing something we don’t know is for sure is right as scientists always try to do in their “new experiments.”