Philosophy

With each quote or statistic, you are to first state clearly what the author’s point and implied argument is, and then you are to personalize and expand the argument demonstrating your understanding of the debate as well as your own critique of it. (Quotes from 7th ed of “Social & Personal Ethics”. Note on your paper if you are working from another ed. It will be noted by grader.)

1.
Hardwig (pg95)
“The individualistic Fantasy, though occasionally liberating, is destructive”. In my own interpretation Hardwig is saying that living in a fantasy as if you are separated and unconnected and your choices don’t affect anyone is very damaging and unhealthy, it’s a way to block out death. Hardwigs main argument is that we should all regard ourselves as having a duty to die, for it may give us an understanding and acceptance of death. My understanding of hardwigs quotes and arguments is that living in a individualistic fantasy is a way of ignoring death, an putting it off whereas looking at life as if it is a duty of death is a way to understand death which helps us to accept death as it approaches.
I agree with Hardwig he states that living in a mind frame were we feel unconnected and separated is very unhealthy. Life without connection is meaningless. When life has no meaning I feel it is hard to accept death because you don’t have anyone to continue the things that represent you. Whereas, viewing life as if it were a duty to die helps you find a meaning in death an when there is meaning it helps finds a way to accept death.

2.
Hursthouse (pg 131) “So, for example, I have claimed that some abortions, done for certain reasons, would be callous or light-minded; that others might indicate an appropriate modesty or humility.” In other words I feel she is saying that not all abortions that are done are insensitive but some are done with decent reasoning, what’s wrong to some may be right to others. Hursthouse argument is the moral; status of the fetus and the competing rights of the mothers rights, and her decision to terminate a pregnancy in order for her to live a good human life.
I feel like Hursthouse is correct, on the mother’s rights to choice what is best in regards to live a good human life. Simply because everyone has a different lifestyles and everybody has different hardships in life, if they decide it’s not the right time to be a mother for whatever the reason, that choice should be available. Hursthouse stated “in harsh circumstances abortion does not manifest a lack of respect for human life.” Meaning that it would be ethically problematic and potentially devastating making that decision. You have to look at the big picture, if you’re not ready to be a mom for whatever the reason, then you’re not ready, and for the next to say its cowardly when they know nothing about the situation seems cowardly to me.

3.
Engel-(pg 149) “Animal agriculture is also extremely nutrient inefficient.” Engel is saying that meat is an unnecessary part of our diet, but our society believes that it is a healthy part of our diet. Engel main argument is not predicted on the wrongness of speciesism, but argues on the immorality of eating meat predicted on your beliefs as a society. So Engel is saying the more prepositions you believe the greater your commitment to the immorality of eating meat.
I personally disagree with Engel, because he stated “all of our beliefs implicate eating meat is morally wrong.” Some people use meat as a ritual to god, I’m sure that if it was wrong it wouldn’t be used as a sacrifice to god. I was taught that the animals were put on earth for us to feed on. Also if we don’t eat the animals they are going to over-populate its part of the circle of life. So I totally disagree it Engel, even if meat may be an inefficient nutrient doesn’t make it wrong to eat the animals.

4.
Mills-(pg174) “In the part which merely concerns himself; his independence is, of right; absolute over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” In other words Mills is saying that the individual is his own boss and is in control of his own actions, until he tries to harm another individual. Mills argues” that the justification for society limiting the liberty of an individual, whether by government or the force of public opinion, is to prevent harm to others.” Mills is saying that in exchange for the protection that society offers, individuals show have a modicum of respect for their fellow members of society.
However, if they don’t choose to do this they are eligible to be punished either in legal or social circles. Mills also argues that “Society may not compel the individual to do (or not do) something solely because society judges that it would be in the individual’s own interest to do it.” To my understanding Mills is saying that society does not have the right to dictate the individual’s behavior against the free will of the individual self.
I agree with Mills that every individual is accountable for they own actions, and if one over steps his boundaries by causing harm to fellow members of society, then he shall be punished. It just seems fair when you think about it; one shouldn’t have to suffer the consequences of a crime they did not commit, simply because it would not be justice or fair. So it’s only right that a person be accountable for they own actions and not anybody else’s. Mills is also right that society doesn’t have the right to dictate some ones behavior because they feel it is in the person’s interest. That’s just wrong because who’s to say that the society dictation are correct, and even if they are correct that person should be able to behave anyway they want to on their own free will, after all, they are held accountable for their own actions.
5.
Corvino (pg 207) “In sum, there is nothing inherently risky about sex between persons of the same gender.” So in other words Corvino is saying that not everyone is Seeing Eye to eye on the topic same sex gender. Corvino argues for the morality of homosexuality, that they should be able to love and get married just like the rest of us.
Corvino is absolutely correct, who are we as a society to tell a person who to love, let alone get married to? I believe that every individual is entitled to choose whether they want to be head sexual or homosexual, at the end of the day it’s not about gender is about love and love doesn’t discriminate. What is wrong to some may be right to others. Homosexual or not still doesn’t give society a right to belittle or judge another individual.