My First Blog Post

The more you think about the picture the more you realize it has nothing to do with the blog?

The Running Man 1986

I think Thomas Hobbes and Joey provide good examples in proving psychological egoism. Hobbes’ example is better than Joey’s tho. Joey’s example about Phoebe only helping her brother because it makes her feel good can only go so far because from what I have heard pregnancy is not easy. Phoebe is going out of her way to help her brother. If the goal was to make herself feel good she could just help her brother find another surrogate. She might not feel as good for helping her brother in this way but it is still a possible route for the psychological egoist to take as there is less pain involved.

Thomas Hobbes’ example is stronger than Joey’s with people locking their doors at night. People lock their doors and safes because they are distrustful of their neighbors. From the view of psychological egoism people protect themselves out of their own best interest. But do people arm themselves because they think everyone is out to get them or because there is someone unknown who may be malevolent. If a man does not lock his door it is not guaranteed that his home will be vandalized. It could be based on simple statistics that there is a higher chance of being robbed if you keep your door unlocked. Hobbes did not have modern statistics but this is a modern example that may refute Hobbes. This can be countered by but the person still locks their doors because they want to be safe. I am still struggling to find a way to strengthen this case.

Final Paper

For my final paper I was planning on expanding on my first paper on crispr gene editing and utilitarianism. I left out some information to keep the first paper within three pages. I can talk about utilitarianism and then describe how crispr can be used to cure people of genetic diseases. Then I will write about some of the draw backs to crispr. This is when I can write about the use of crispr on an unborn fetus and how this can prevent genetic diseases on next offspring.

I also found some articles about in vetro tests with crispr that could change the way I argued in the first paper. In the first paper I said that the use of crispr on unborn fetuses may cause birth defects in search of a technology that ends up not working leading to unneeded suffering. If there is promising information on new trials then this could change the way I argue either for full use of crispr gene editing or against. I am still getting some information together.

R & R 4

While Aristotle’s view of ethics seems simpler than Kant’s deontology it is more demanding. In deontology Kant requires everyone to process their action through the categorical imperative. This process mostly works with bigger ethical decisions in life. Aristotle’s method is to work towards an ethical medium between two excesses. This requires daily work to build to and maintain an ethical medium. His process effects even small decisions like what to eat for breakfast, a decision that does not work well in the categorical imperative.

While Aristotle’s method requires daily work it seems to use than Kant’s. It requires analysis of many small factors of your life but as you work towards a good habit it becomes easy to maintain these good habits. These is also more leeway for decisions allowing for cheat options based on a type of lifestyle. If you work towards frugality with money it allows you to occasionally splurge and buy something unnecessarily expensive as a reward for hard work. Aristotle’s method has more demands for daily practice but gets easier with work and is allows for certain cheats.

R and R 3, Deontology is Easy

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tqg6RO8c_W0/maxresdefault.jpg

I think the complexity of deontology makes it work as a moral system. It does not leave much room for loopholes that people can use to serve their own purposes. Doing the right thing is not always easy so systems developed on ethics are bound to not be easy as well. Often it goes against our gut reaction and what we want to do. It also expands on the golden rule of treating others as you would want to be treated. If you can not place yourself in the scenario or maxim then it is not moral.

While Kant thinks it is never moral to lie, I think with his tools it can be made moral. If you put lying in the maxim experiment then it is bound to be something that people do not want. Is it moral to lie if it will save an innocent person’s life? I am to lie about an innocent person’s location when they are being hunted. Everyone should do this. Imagine. Is it rational? Yes. Could I choose to live in a world where people do this? Yes I could. Looking at every decision like this would not be easy but as I said earlier, if it was easy then people go get away with doing immoral things using an ethical system.

R and R 2

• 

Before class today I was thinking of writing about the ethics of crispr gene editing from the view of utilitarianism. Crispr cas9 gene editing can be theoretically used to prevent genetic diseases in new born babies. Hearing David Singer’s view of what is the equivalent of Spartans leaving miss-formed babies on a hill to die helps me narrow down the author to use for my argument. I just need to figure out how I am going to argue because I do not know which stance to take.

This technology has the possibility of providing a large number of people the benefit of correcting their genetic disease. One area of use is in treating Alzheimer patients. The ethical problem comes with the use in fetuses. Will this treatment be what the grown up fetus will have wanted or does the ease of mind the parents have cancel this out in the utility calculation? Is it right to use this on a fetus to prevent down syndrome? How do you measure the quality of life for someone who has a genetic disease. I remember seeing an advocacy group speaking in front of congress about the legality of aborting a known fetus that has down syndrome. People with down syndrome testified saying their lives were worth it.

Introduce Yourself (Example Post)

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.