ETHICS FINAL: Essay Questions
1. Gandhi's Worldview
In Gandhi’s autobiography, Gandhi depicted the important events in his life in chronological order and illustrated his thoughts at different stages of his life. Though Gandhi did not use exact words to express all of his ideas, his worldview can be seen throughout the work both directly and indirectly. One thing to note is that Gandhi’s attitude toward the world has changed over the course of his life. When facing unfavorable events, the young Gandhi has chosen to accept and adopt. Later on Gandhi learns to accept but not to adopt. In the end, Gandhi has learned to stand up for his beliefs and also to change the world for the better with his own hands. This transformation to become someone with a strong mind has helped Gandhi in establishing his world view and ethics.
One of Gandhi’s most important beliefs is self-control. Gandhi believes that people can achieve great things; however, they must first gain this power to achieve things through self-control. Gandhi feels that most people know right from wrong, but are unable to act according to their ethics. By practicing self-control, Gandhi learns not to give in to desires. For example, Gandhi used to see his wife as subject of sexual desires. However, he learned to overcome his sexual desires and finally see his wife as whom she is – someone who supports him unconditionally. This theory of self-control is also applied on his world view: Gandhi feels that the Indians had actually allowed the British to dominate the subcontinent because they gave in to the comforts of Western civilization. Therefore, Gandhi urges the Indians to practice self control as a mean to achieve freedom.
Some other important beliefs of Gandhi include duty and equality. Gandhi is known as a defender of human rights. Gandhi dislikes discrimination and has made strong efforts to protect the Indian community. Being a humanist activist, Gandhi however feels that true humanity is highly associated with duty. Gandhi thinks that people need to perform their duties to the people around them faithfully. And by the performance of duty, people earn their rights. Therefore, every individual is independent. Gandhi’s clearly shows his emphasize of duty in his autobiography. For example, Gandhi lent out trust-money based on assumptions, and later realized that the money could not be recovered. He blamed himself for disobeying the cardinal teaching of the Gita, viz., “the duty of a man of equipoise to act without desire for the fruit”.
Moreover, Gandhi believes in nonviolence. Gandhi thinks that anything can be achieved through nonviolent means. For example, Gandhi was once asked to go into a van compartment when he held a first class ticket because a white man felt Gandhi’s colored appearances disturbed him. In response, Gandhi refused to go to the other compartment and sat in the waiting room to wait for the next available train. Gandhi neither fought with the people there nor complied with their unreasonable request. Gandhi chose the most passive, nonviolent way to show his resistance, which was waiting for the next train. Later in Gandhi’s life, nonviolent methods were used in his quest for freedom and self-rule.
2. Gandhi v. Singer
Mohandas K. Gandhi was an Indian nationalist and spiritual leader who developed the practice of nonviolent disobedience. Basically, Gandhi lives by rules and focuses his life very much on his duties. From this, it is easy to see that Gandhi’s ethical view is highly associated with the performance of duties. Because Gandhi thinks a person should have self-descipline and are obliged to perform his duties, he always blames himself before he blames others. In situations in which Gandhi faces oppositions, he will first analyze if he has performed his duties well and/or had enough self-discipline in retrospect. Then, he will try to change himself for the better if he has decided that his own imperfection has led to such unfavorable situation. By constantly perfecting himself, Gandhi finds power within himself. Only through such practices can Gandhi finds no guilt in himself and accumulate more and more courage to fight for the right cause. Gandhi’s ethics revolves around the the performance of duty.
Peter Singer is an Australian Humanist and philosopher and the author of book Practical Ethics. He is an expert in the area of practical ethics, and he is famous for approaching the ethical issues in the area from a utilitarian perspective. Being an utilitarian, Singer regards an action “as right if it produces as much or more of an increase in the happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not” (Practical Ethics, 3). In Singer’s point of view, morality is associated with happiness and moral conducts are those that brings happiness and prevents suffering and vice versa. Singer also believes in equality especially for animals and supports the minimization of pain. He thinks animals are like humans in many ways, and should not be discriminated against and be viewed as food. So, he calls people who discriminate against animals “speciesists”.
Mohandas K. Gandhi and Peter Singer are both advocates of human rights. They share many principal ideas such as nonviolence and equality. For the most part, Gandhi is concerned about civil rights of Indians under the governance of Great Britain. He does not believe in colonialism because he thinks it is unethical for people to achieve happiness through dominance, which is at the expense of other people. Peter Singer, on the other hand, is most concerned about animal rights and equalities. He supports vegetarianism because he feels people should not find happiness in the taste of flesh at the expense of poor animals. The ethical views of these two vegetarianism supporters are quite similar when it comes to the matter of equality and unselfishness.
Despite the strong similarities, Gandhi and Singer are also quite different. In my opinion, Gandhi and Singer share similar beliefs, but they approach things in a whole different manner. For one, Gandhi values abstinence and tries to limit his desires. He feels that the comfort of the body usually comes at the expense of the soul. Therefore, his control on the earthly desires liberates his mind and soul and gives him the power necessary to help him achieve his goals. Singer, on the contrary, believes in happiness. He does not make any emphasis on the separation of body and soul. Singer simply believes in “practical ethics” in which people just do the right thing. I think Gandhi will disagree with Singer here and thinks that he is not serious enough. Singer makes good arguments; however, he does not consider the fighting for his ethics his duty. However, I feel that the terms “duty” and “responsibility” should not be pre-defined but may be constantly re-defined to match current conditions and needs. Therefore, I think Singer can illustrate his point of view without making it his duties.
3. Lane v. Singer
David Lane is an utilitarian writer who urges people to be vegetarians. He argues that humans are socialized to emphasize with beings of their own species but not with other species, meaning animals. People also do not eat animals that show higher brain functions such as apes and dolphins because they are considered highly evolved species just like humans. However, Lane says the common, less evolved species of animals have central nervous systems, sophisticated receptors, and inter-neuronal communicative powers, and the capacity to feel pain, too.
Peter Singer is an Australian Humanist and philosopher and the author of book Practical Ethics. He is an expert in the area of practical ethics, and he is famous for approaching the ethical issues in the area from a utilitarian perspective. Besides supporting human rights, Peter Singer is also a strong advocate of animal rights.
Applying his utilitarian views on animals, Singer wrote books such as Animal Liberation with the intention to support the movement of animal liberation. The book Animal Liberation is written entirely for animal rights. The book Practical Ethics is a comprehensive work of Singer’s perspectives on ethics. Since animal rights is one of Singer’s major focus, Singer has included a few chapters on the topic of animal liberation in Practical Ethics.
Singer’s utilitarian ethics regards an action “as right if it produces as much or more of an increase in the happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not” (Practical Ethics, 3). In chapter three of Practical Ethics, Singer discusses the topic of “equality for animals”. Being a utilitarian and advocate of equality, Singer supports the minimization of pain in all beings, including animals.
Singer argues that while people commonly reject racism, they accept “speciesism”. In Singer’s view, this general acceptance of such an obvious prejudice is a major setback of the quest for true equality. Just like how racism is defined as the discrimination on the grounds that a person belongs to a certain race, Singer defines speciesism as the discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. Therefore, Singer calls people who discriminate against animals “speciesists”.
Singer believes that the interests of all beings capable of suffering should be worthy of equal consideration. “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration,” comments Singer (Practical Ethics, 57). Singer’s view clearly states that the making or allowing animals’ suffering is simply morally wrong because all beings are equal.
To accentuate his argument that animals are the same as some humans, Singer made a lot of comparisons between animals with infants and severely retarded humans in his book. He argues that “nonhuman animals and infants and severely intellectually disabled humans are in the same category” (Practical Ethics, 60) because they all show equally diminished mental capacity and intelligence in comparison with the majority of normal adult humans.
Lane’s neuro-ethical argument to promote vegetarianism is very similar to Singer’s argument to not take lives of animals. Both Singer and Lane are utilitarian philosophers who support animal rights. Their arguments are both based on the grounds that animals are as likely to feel pain as humans do. Nevertheless, Singer’s argument is still a little more comprehensive in that he incorporates more ethical standpoints than Lane.
5. My View on Animal Rights
I believe that animals should have moral rights as humans do. Animals are very similar to humans in that they have various emotions such as jealousy, depression, enthusiasm, etc. in addition to being sentient. Experiments and studies have shown that animals have human like responses in many situations. However, many animals are treated inhumanely.
The mistreatment of animals is unjustified in the field of ethics. Many philosophers like Peter Singer and David Lane support vegetarianism and are strong advocates of animal rights. Philosophers in the past, on the contrary, do not explicitly express their view on animal equality. However, a few assumptions or conclusions can be drawn from their main ethical statements.
John Stuart Mill is an intellectual heir of the Utilitarian movement in England who abides by “the greatest happiness principle”. He states that the moral systems are established based on an action’s tendency to generate happiness. According to Mill, something that is morally right shall produce happiness, which is pleasure, and something that is morally wrong shall produce unhappiness, which is characterized by pain and the privation of pleasure.
Mill thinks of morality as the greatest happiness for the greatest population. There are a lot of animals in this world, exceeding the number of humans. Therefore, it should only be moral to consider the happpiness for animals and humans alike. To take lives of animals for the sole happiness of human is wrong according to the utilitarian principles. Moreover, being an utilitarianist, one of Mill’s biggest principles is the minimization of pain. To kill animals and make them suffer is clearly a violation of this principle of Mill’s.
David Hume is recognized as one of the most influential figures in the history of thought. His philosophical writings focus on the discussion of role morality versus sentiment in ethics. Initially, Hume raises the question of whether the source of morality resides on human’s rational nature or passional nature or both. Later on he elaborates on the discussion using his personal observations.“According to Hume, however, there can be no compromise about which of the two, reason or sentiment, is the ultimate source of morality” (Great Traditions, 136).
In Hume’s arguments, reason is incapable of being the source of morality; however, it plays an essential role in rendering moral decisions.After recording of his observations and extensive analysis of these recordings, Hume decided that an individual’s morality is based on sentiments that have their origin in concern for others. According to Hume, “such sentiments are universally shared, because they are not affected by the relativism of any personal considerations” (Great Traditions, 141-142).
David Hume is a philosopher who thinks morality is raised from sentiment. From the above statement, I expect Hume to be someone who supports animal rights if he comes across the subject. According to Hume, people have universally shared concerned for others. Therefore, people will feel very negative when they kill others including animals because of compassion is part of human nature. This negative feeling is a demonstration that the act of killing is immoral.
Another philosopher in the history that should support animal rights is Benedict de Spinoza. Spinoza is a Dutch philosopher and theologian whose controversial pantheistic doctrine advocated an intellectual love of God. “In Spinoza’s ethical theory, human effort to acquire knowledge and virtue is accounted for by a striving for self-preservation. In human beings, whose essential nature is rational, this striving is directed toward the perfection of the intellect. The happiness enjoyed by rational individuals accompanies their ‘knowledge of the union existing between the mind and the whole of nature” (Great Traditions, 107).
According to Spinoza, morality is achieved through self-preservation. Therefore, people need to surrender the pursuit of earthly goals such as riches, fame, and pleasure. Spinoza argues that the material comforts compete with the pursuit of intellect in terms of the consumption of mental energy. The practice of eating animals is a form a pleasure. People can survive by eating vegetables, fruits, and nuts. However, people kill animals because meat tastes good. This unnecessary killing for the purpose of pleasure should be considered immoral in Spinoza’s view.
6. Singer's View on Abortion
Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher and writer who support the minimization of pain. He is also the author of Practical Ethics. In his book, Singer discusses many ethical issues including the most highly-debated topics such as abortion, euthanasia, and poverty.
Being considered as one of the leading modern day ethical theorists in America, Singer has an interesting stance on abortion. His take on abortion is not simply pro-life or pro-choice. Rather, he gives an in-depth view of the development of the fetus, especially the fetus’ central nervous system.
Singer opens the discussion of abortion by stating, “at 14 days, the first anatomical feature, the so-called primitive streak, appears in the position in which the backbone will later develop. At this point the embryo could not possibly be conscious or feel pain” (Practical Ethics, 137).
From the utilitarian viewpoint, abortion should only be carried out when the killing can be done as painlessly as possible. According to the excerpt above, Singer suggests that if a fetus cannot feel pain, then it is not yet a human because humans have capacity to feel, self-consciousness, etc.
Some other arguments that Singer has made include comparison of fetus to animals. Singer feels that since people kill animals for appetite, then the mother should not have the right to kill its fetus since fetuses and animals are alike.
Lastly, Singer says that a fetus is a potential person, and it is unjustifiable to say that a potential person should have the rights of a person. Here, Singer made another comparison between abortion with contraceptives: If abortion is wrong in depriving the world of a future person, then contraceptives are also wrong, too.
7. Singer's View on Euthanasia
Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher and writer who support the minimization of pain. He is also the author of Practical Ethics. In his book, Singer discusses many ethical issues including the most highly-debated topics such as abortion, euthanasia, and poverty.
In the case of euthanasia, Singer made his argument by categorizing euthanasia into three major types: non-voluntary euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, and involuntary euthanasia. Singer thinks that non-voluntary euthanasia is justifiable because the subject has never had the capacity to choose to live or die. Examples of include severely disabled infant and adults who has been profoundly intellectually disabled since birth.
Singer thinks voluntary euthanasia is also justifiable because it is an act of the person’s will. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when the subject requests to end his or her suffering by death. The last and only type of euthanasia that Singer does not justify is involuntary euthanasia, which occurs when the subject is capable of consenting to their own death but does not consent. Singer comments that involuntary euthanasia is morally wrong because it is against the subject’s will.
Personally, I agree with Singer’s view on euthanasia on the most part. I think he has made excellent categorization of the types of euthanasia. I support that voluntary euthanasia is justifiable because an individual should have the right to choose between life and death. In cases in which the individual’s suffering is almost unbearable, euthanasia seems to be the best solution.
I also think that involuntary euthanasia is unjustifiable because again the individual should have the right to life unless the person is a big criminal such as a serial killer who is sentenced to death row. However, I have doubts in the case of non-voluntary euthanasia. The individual may be intellectually disabled, however may not want to die. Their lack of the ability to express should not lead to their death.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, I think Singer will consent the use of enthanasia because she was in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). A persistent vegetative state is a condition of patients with severe brain damage in whom coma has progressed to a state of wakefulness without detectable awareness. Because patients in a persistent vegetative state are usually considered to be unconscious and unaware, Singer will probably categorize her in the non-voluntary group and think euthanasia is justifiable in her case.
8. Singer's View on Poverty, Refugee, and the Environment
On the issue of poverty, Singer discusses the topic of whether the rich have the obligation to assist the poor. The forward argument supports that the fighting of poverty, which is something bad, should be a universal effort. The reverse argument says people should take care of themselves rather than helping others. After illustrating both viewpoints, Singer expresses his support for the forward argument by saying that helping the poor does not equate to not taking care of oneself if one has extra wealth to spare.
Then, Singer comments that people should leave the task of fighting poverty to the government. He comments that privately run charities allow the government to escape its responsibilities of dealing with poverty. On the last note, Singer questions if the obligation to assist is too high a standard for people to attain.
Singer also mentions the issue of refugees: “the situation of refugees today raises an ethical question about the boundaries of our moral community – not, as in earlier chapters, on grounds of species, stage of development, or intellectual capacities” (Singer, 249). Singer says that people commonly distinguish “genuine refugees” from “economic refugees” and think the later do not deserve assistance. However, Singer argues that both are in equal need of refuge.
Singer begins the discussion of environmentalist ethics with Hebrew and Greek traditions: human beings are the centre of the moral universe. The Bible states that when God wanted to punish humans for their sins, He drowned almost every innocent animal on the earth; Aristotle said the existence of animals is for the sake of man; and Aquinas said “there is no possibility of sinning against non-human animals, or against the natural world” (Singer, 267).
Despite the traditions’ light regards to nature, Singer argues, the traditions do not rule out the concern for the preservation of nature as long as the concern is related to humans. Moreover, the scarcity of wilderness in the modern world gives it a new high value as well as a new drive for preservation. The appreciation of wilderness has never been higher than it is today, says Singer.
Singer’s argument for preservation is based on several reasons. The first one that he discusses is the wellbeing of future generations. Singer feels that natures have long-term value, and should not be exchanged for short-term benefits. “Wilderness is valued as something of immense beauty, as a reservoir of scientific knowledge still to be gained, for the recreational opportunities that it provides…” (Singer, 271). It is almost impossible to regain wilderness once it is lost. Therefore, Singer urges people to preserve nature for the sake of their children and grandchildren.
After illustrating the values of wilderness and also asking people to preserve these values for future generations, Singer asks people to think for the “sentient beings,” or the animals. Singer says there are undeniably values in the experiences of non-human beings; however, many people often disagree with this idea and view non-human animals as less significant.
Having pointed out the disagreement in the values of animals’ lives, Singer goes on to “extend ethics beyond sentient beings” and discusses the reverence for life. Then, Singer brings in the views of deep ecologists who wanted to preserve the integrity of the biosphere for its own sake. Here Singer emphasis again that “the value of preserving the remaining significant areas of wilderness greatly exceeds the economic values gained by its destruction” (Singer, 284).
In addition to acting morally and ethically on the issue of wilderness preservation, Singer expresses that people should act morally in the first place. Singer feels that as people become more aware of their situation in the world and more reflective about their purposes, they will acquire an ethical point of view that offers a meaning and purpose in life. This ethical point of view is the point of view of the universe that “transcend people’s inward-looking concerns,” and it will eventually return in the way that fulfills people’s ultimate self-interest, which is true happiness.
I do not agree with Singer’s view on fighting poverty. His arguments, including the part of leaving the task to the government, are overly idealistic. Economics needs to be handled in response to the society’s changing demands and not a set philosophical rule. Nevertheless I agree with Singer on his environmentalist ethics and on the issue of refugee. People should not discriminate against someone in need of help. Also, the protection of wilderness will preserve a better land for future generations.
What I can do to personally provide in these areas is minimal. On the issue of poverty and refugee, I will donate money to non-profit organizations and work as a volunteer when I have spare time. On the issue of environmental protection, I will recycle and save energy. Also, I will join clubs like Tsu-chi whose volunteer tasks include collecting trash and do recycling as a group.
9. Cloning
Cloning is a method that biotechnologists use to create identical copies of an original organism or the entire living thing. Technically, it is the transplantation of a nucleus from a somatic cell into an ovum, which then develops into an embryo.
There are many medical applications of cloning. Therapeutic cloning, for example, creates stem cells genetically compatible with the patient and provides a way to grow organs in a host carrier, which may replace the original diseased host organ with the hope of extending human life or maintaining the quality of life. Cloning of a gene can also successfully identify the gene’s association with certain phenotype of the host.
Despite the enormous scientific benefits, cloning faces great oppositions. Theologians, ethicists, and religious figures hold opinions strongly against the cloning of humans. The issue of morality of human cloning has been in debate since the first sign of possible human cloning and has not yet reached consensus.
The concerns people have for cloning humans are raised from a solid ground. “It took the scientists who created Dolly 277 tries before they got a healthy viable lamb. Because cloning humans is more complicated, even more death and lethal birth defects can be expected during experimentation” (Fox, Technology).
From the religious point of view, each human being is a unique individual created by God, and thus the cloning of human is against God’s will. The official opinion of the Roman Catholic Church is that “every possible act of cloning human is intrinsically evil” (NBAC 54). Roman Catholics believe that cloning violates the dignity and sanctity of man’s existence and objectifies children by manipulating and duplicating their lives.
From the ethical point of view, human cloning might harm the physical and psychological welfare of the child. In Dolly’s case, there is an accelerated aging process because the mitochondria from the host gene are as old as the original host. This problem has not been fixed yet and therefore people are afraid that cloning is not safe enough for humans.
Moreover, even if the clone child is created completely health physically, the child may feel a loss of individuality and personal autonomy. Ethicists have concerns for both possible psychological harms to the child and possible degradation of the quality of parenting and family life. Parents, especially the mother, may not love the child as much as if they have been through the natural process of pregnancy to give birth to the child.
And like the Roman Catholics, ethicists feel that cloning may generate possible objectification of cloned children. Since technology allows parents to do cherry-picking with desirable traits of the cloned child, paying to clone children is almost like buying products. Ethicists are concerned that in an attempt to create a more superior offspring, people will give up on traditional reproduction method altogether and use cloning as a general practice to have kids.
There are many possible benefits and hope that comes with the technology of cloning. However, as people from both the ethical and religious fields reflect, there are doubts in the morality of such practice in addition to the immaturity of the technique, which on the other hand raises concerns for safety. Cloning humans may have a prospective future but it still has a long way to go.
In my perspective, the practice of cloning is morally justifiable if used for the right cause. I am a biotechnology student and a science person. Personally, I feel the idea of stem cells and clones is fascinating. It brings the hope of curing many currently incurable diseases in the future. Of course, scientists should not go beyond the limit of morality for the sake of science. However, it is also unwise to impede the advancement of science in the name of ethics.
10. My Favorite Class Material
Out of everything I studied this term, Greene’s evolutionary psychology has had the most impact on my thinking. Evolutionary psychology, as proposed by the Joshua Greene, a post-doctoral researcher at Princeton, is the study of how people’s responses to questions and occurrences are shaped by evolution. Utilizing modern technology, the MRI brain imaging, Greene is able to use science as a foundation for the study of the associations among evolution, brain activity, and morality.
According to Greene, moral principles are codes that human ancestors have transformed from their sense of fairness, and they are a product of evolution. Humans use their brains to make moral judgments, and Greene has found the direct correspondence between neuron activities and the making of moral decisions by MRI imaging. As Greene has found in his experiments, “the crackling clusters of neurons” can interpret the so-called moral responses of humans. MRI scans of a person’s brain reflect the person’s decision-making process and results.
Greene identifies that the brain has both intuitive and reasoning networks. One situation or question may trigger one of the networks and a different situation or question may trigger the other. When people’s intuitive networks are activated, they make decisions intuitively. On the other hand, when people’s reasoning networks are activated, they make decisions based on reasoning. However, there are situations and questions that activate both networks, and this is when people become trapped in a moral struggle.
More specifically, Greene proposes that instinctive responses such as a lot of our deeply felt moral convictions are quirks of our evolutionary history. Moral responses based on intuitions are those that make people feel good. There are areas in the brain responsible for emotions known as the posterior cingulated and the precuneus; they are activated when people face personal decisions. Impersonal decisions as well as non-moral questions, on the contrast, trigger a region in the brain called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is vital for logical thinking.
Greene’s studies have offered scientific evidence for the reasons behind human behaviors. The findings of the studies also justify people’s wrongdoings: Criminal or cruel acts are results of an abnormal level of neurotransmitters; and criminal psychopaths show that there are puzzling gaps in perception within the criminal’s brain. In Greene’s view, “evil doesn’t exist on a neuronal level”.
As a reader, I am amazed at Greene’s findings. Similar to the author’s conclusion, I feel that the understanding or believing in Greene’s evolutionary psychology may promote more tolerance. It is interesting to know there is a connection between ethics and science. As the field of neuro-psychology becomes more developed, there may be methods invented to “cure” criminals by fixing the problems with their neurons.
Greene’s theories are revolutionary. If his theories were completely accurate, evilness may be viewed as a disease in the future, and by treating the disease there will be no more criminals. After reading about the evolutionary psychology article, I believe it is possible to have a world without violence in the future.
In Gandhi’s autobiography, Gandhi depicted the important events in his life in chronological order and illustrated his thoughts at different stages of his life. Though Gandhi did not use exact words to express all of his ideas, his worldview can be seen throughout the work both directly and indirectly. One thing to note is that Gandhi’s attitude toward the world has changed over the course of his life. When facing unfavorable events, the young Gandhi has chosen to accept and adopt. Later on Gandhi learns to accept but not to adopt. In the end, Gandhi has learned to stand up for his beliefs and also to change the world for the better with his own hands. This transformation to become someone with a strong mind has helped Gandhi in establishing his world view and ethics.
One of Gandhi’s most important beliefs is self-control. Gandhi believes that people can achieve great things; however, they must first gain this power to achieve things through self-control. Gandhi feels that most people know right from wrong, but are unable to act according to their ethics. By practicing self-control, Gandhi learns not to give in to desires. For example, Gandhi used to see his wife as subject of sexual desires. However, he learned to overcome his sexual desires and finally see his wife as whom she is – someone who supports him unconditionally. This theory of self-control is also applied on his world view: Gandhi feels that the Indians had actually allowed the British to dominate the subcontinent because they gave in to the comforts of Western civilization. Therefore, Gandhi urges the Indians to practice self control as a mean to achieve freedom.
Some other important beliefs of Gandhi include duty and equality. Gandhi is known as a defender of human rights. Gandhi dislikes discrimination and has made strong efforts to protect the Indian community. Being a humanist activist, Gandhi however feels that true humanity is highly associated with duty. Gandhi thinks that people need to perform their duties to the people around them faithfully. And by the performance of duty, people earn their rights. Therefore, every individual is independent. Gandhi’s clearly shows his emphasize of duty in his autobiography. For example, Gandhi lent out trust-money based on assumptions, and later realized that the money could not be recovered. He blamed himself for disobeying the cardinal teaching of the Gita, viz., “the duty of a man of equipoise to act without desire for the fruit”.
Moreover, Gandhi believes in nonviolence. Gandhi thinks that anything can be achieved through nonviolent means. For example, Gandhi was once asked to go into a van compartment when he held a first class ticket because a white man felt Gandhi’s colored appearances disturbed him. In response, Gandhi refused to go to the other compartment and sat in the waiting room to wait for the next available train. Gandhi neither fought with the people there nor complied with their unreasonable request. Gandhi chose the most passive, nonviolent way to show his resistance, which was waiting for the next train. Later in Gandhi’s life, nonviolent methods were used in his quest for freedom and self-rule.
2. Gandhi v. Singer
Mohandas K. Gandhi was an Indian nationalist and spiritual leader who developed the practice of nonviolent disobedience. Basically, Gandhi lives by rules and focuses his life very much on his duties. From this, it is easy to see that Gandhi’s ethical view is highly associated with the performance of duties. Because Gandhi thinks a person should have self-descipline and are obliged to perform his duties, he always blames himself before he blames others. In situations in which Gandhi faces oppositions, he will first analyze if he has performed his duties well and/or had enough self-discipline in retrospect. Then, he will try to change himself for the better if he has decided that his own imperfection has led to such unfavorable situation. By constantly perfecting himself, Gandhi finds power within himself. Only through such practices can Gandhi finds no guilt in himself and accumulate more and more courage to fight for the right cause. Gandhi’s ethics revolves around the the performance of duty.
Peter Singer is an Australian Humanist and philosopher and the author of book Practical Ethics. He is an expert in the area of practical ethics, and he is famous for approaching the ethical issues in the area from a utilitarian perspective. Being an utilitarian, Singer regards an action “as right if it produces as much or more of an increase in the happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not” (Practical Ethics, 3). In Singer’s point of view, morality is associated with happiness and moral conducts are those that brings happiness and prevents suffering and vice versa. Singer also believes in equality especially for animals and supports the minimization of pain. He thinks animals are like humans in many ways, and should not be discriminated against and be viewed as food. So, he calls people who discriminate against animals “speciesists”.
Mohandas K. Gandhi and Peter Singer are both advocates of human rights. They share many principal ideas such as nonviolence and equality. For the most part, Gandhi is concerned about civil rights of Indians under the governance of Great Britain. He does not believe in colonialism because he thinks it is unethical for people to achieve happiness through dominance, which is at the expense of other people. Peter Singer, on the other hand, is most concerned about animal rights and equalities. He supports vegetarianism because he feels people should not find happiness in the taste of flesh at the expense of poor animals. The ethical views of these two vegetarianism supporters are quite similar when it comes to the matter of equality and unselfishness.
Despite the strong similarities, Gandhi and Singer are also quite different. In my opinion, Gandhi and Singer share similar beliefs, but they approach things in a whole different manner. For one, Gandhi values abstinence and tries to limit his desires. He feels that the comfort of the body usually comes at the expense of the soul. Therefore, his control on the earthly desires liberates his mind and soul and gives him the power necessary to help him achieve his goals. Singer, on the contrary, believes in happiness. He does not make any emphasis on the separation of body and soul. Singer simply believes in “practical ethics” in which people just do the right thing. I think Gandhi will disagree with Singer here and thinks that he is not serious enough. Singer makes good arguments; however, he does not consider the fighting for his ethics his duty. However, I feel that the terms “duty” and “responsibility” should not be pre-defined but may be constantly re-defined to match current conditions and needs. Therefore, I think Singer can illustrate his point of view without making it his duties.
3. Lane v. Singer
David Lane is an utilitarian writer who urges people to be vegetarians. He argues that humans are socialized to emphasize with beings of their own species but not with other species, meaning animals. People also do not eat animals that show higher brain functions such as apes and dolphins because they are considered highly evolved species just like humans. However, Lane says the common, less evolved species of animals have central nervous systems, sophisticated receptors, and inter-neuronal communicative powers, and the capacity to feel pain, too.
Peter Singer is an Australian Humanist and philosopher and the author of book Practical Ethics. He is an expert in the area of practical ethics, and he is famous for approaching the ethical issues in the area from a utilitarian perspective. Besides supporting human rights, Peter Singer is also a strong advocate of animal rights.
Applying his utilitarian views on animals, Singer wrote books such as Animal Liberation with the intention to support the movement of animal liberation. The book Animal Liberation is written entirely for animal rights. The book Practical Ethics is a comprehensive work of Singer’s perspectives on ethics. Since animal rights is one of Singer’s major focus, Singer has included a few chapters on the topic of animal liberation in Practical Ethics.
Singer’s utilitarian ethics regards an action “as right if it produces as much or more of an increase in the happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not” (Practical Ethics, 3). In chapter three of Practical Ethics, Singer discusses the topic of “equality for animals”. Being a utilitarian and advocate of equality, Singer supports the minimization of pain in all beings, including animals.
Singer argues that while people commonly reject racism, they accept “speciesism”. In Singer’s view, this general acceptance of such an obvious prejudice is a major setback of the quest for true equality. Just like how racism is defined as the discrimination on the grounds that a person belongs to a certain race, Singer defines speciesism as the discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. Therefore, Singer calls people who discriminate against animals “speciesists”.
Singer believes that the interests of all beings capable of suffering should be worthy of equal consideration. “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration,” comments Singer (Practical Ethics, 57). Singer’s view clearly states that the making or allowing animals’ suffering is simply morally wrong because all beings are equal.
To accentuate his argument that animals are the same as some humans, Singer made a lot of comparisons between animals with infants and severely retarded humans in his book. He argues that “nonhuman animals and infants and severely intellectually disabled humans are in the same category” (Practical Ethics, 60) because they all show equally diminished mental capacity and intelligence in comparison with the majority of normal adult humans.
Lane’s neuro-ethical argument to promote vegetarianism is very similar to Singer’s argument to not take lives of animals. Both Singer and Lane are utilitarian philosophers who support animal rights. Their arguments are both based on the grounds that animals are as likely to feel pain as humans do. Nevertheless, Singer’s argument is still a little more comprehensive in that he incorporates more ethical standpoints than Lane.
5. My View on Animal Rights
I believe that animals should have moral rights as humans do. Animals are very similar to humans in that they have various emotions such as jealousy, depression, enthusiasm, etc. in addition to being sentient. Experiments and studies have shown that animals have human like responses in many situations. However, many animals are treated inhumanely.
The mistreatment of animals is unjustified in the field of ethics. Many philosophers like Peter Singer and David Lane support vegetarianism and are strong advocates of animal rights. Philosophers in the past, on the contrary, do not explicitly express their view on animal equality. However, a few assumptions or conclusions can be drawn from their main ethical statements.
John Stuart Mill is an intellectual heir of the Utilitarian movement in England who abides by “the greatest happiness principle”. He states that the moral systems are established based on an action’s tendency to generate happiness. According to Mill, something that is morally right shall produce happiness, which is pleasure, and something that is morally wrong shall produce unhappiness, which is characterized by pain and the privation of pleasure.
Mill thinks of morality as the greatest happiness for the greatest population. There are a lot of animals in this world, exceeding the number of humans. Therefore, it should only be moral to consider the happpiness for animals and humans alike. To take lives of animals for the sole happiness of human is wrong according to the utilitarian principles. Moreover, being an utilitarianist, one of Mill’s biggest principles is the minimization of pain. To kill animals and make them suffer is clearly a violation of this principle of Mill’s.
David Hume is recognized as one of the most influential figures in the history of thought. His philosophical writings focus on the discussion of role morality versus sentiment in ethics. Initially, Hume raises the question of whether the source of morality resides on human’s rational nature or passional nature or both. Later on he elaborates on the discussion using his personal observations.“According to Hume, however, there can be no compromise about which of the two, reason or sentiment, is the ultimate source of morality” (Great Traditions, 136).
In Hume’s arguments, reason is incapable of being the source of morality; however, it plays an essential role in rendering moral decisions.After recording of his observations and extensive analysis of these recordings, Hume decided that an individual’s morality is based on sentiments that have their origin in concern for others. According to Hume, “such sentiments are universally shared, because they are not affected by the relativism of any personal considerations” (Great Traditions, 141-142).
David Hume is a philosopher who thinks morality is raised from sentiment. From the above statement, I expect Hume to be someone who supports animal rights if he comes across the subject. According to Hume, people have universally shared concerned for others. Therefore, people will feel very negative when they kill others including animals because of compassion is part of human nature. This negative feeling is a demonstration that the act of killing is immoral.
Another philosopher in the history that should support animal rights is Benedict de Spinoza. Spinoza is a Dutch philosopher and theologian whose controversial pantheistic doctrine advocated an intellectual love of God. “In Spinoza’s ethical theory, human effort to acquire knowledge and virtue is accounted for by a striving for self-preservation. In human beings, whose essential nature is rational, this striving is directed toward the perfection of the intellect. The happiness enjoyed by rational individuals accompanies their ‘knowledge of the union existing between the mind and the whole of nature” (Great Traditions, 107).
According to Spinoza, morality is achieved through self-preservation. Therefore, people need to surrender the pursuit of earthly goals such as riches, fame, and pleasure. Spinoza argues that the material comforts compete with the pursuit of intellect in terms of the consumption of mental energy. The practice of eating animals is a form a pleasure. People can survive by eating vegetables, fruits, and nuts. However, people kill animals because meat tastes good. This unnecessary killing for the purpose of pleasure should be considered immoral in Spinoza’s view.
6. Singer's View on Abortion
Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher and writer who support the minimization of pain. He is also the author of Practical Ethics. In his book, Singer discusses many ethical issues including the most highly-debated topics such as abortion, euthanasia, and poverty.
Being considered as one of the leading modern day ethical theorists in America, Singer has an interesting stance on abortion. His take on abortion is not simply pro-life or pro-choice. Rather, he gives an in-depth view of the development of the fetus, especially the fetus’ central nervous system.
Singer opens the discussion of abortion by stating, “at 14 days, the first anatomical feature, the so-called primitive streak, appears in the position in which the backbone will later develop. At this point the embryo could not possibly be conscious or feel pain” (Practical Ethics, 137).
From the utilitarian viewpoint, abortion should only be carried out when the killing can be done as painlessly as possible. According to the excerpt above, Singer suggests that if a fetus cannot feel pain, then it is not yet a human because humans have capacity to feel, self-consciousness, etc.
Some other arguments that Singer has made include comparison of fetus to animals. Singer feels that since people kill animals for appetite, then the mother should not have the right to kill its fetus since fetuses and animals are alike.
Lastly, Singer says that a fetus is a potential person, and it is unjustifiable to say that a potential person should have the rights of a person. Here, Singer made another comparison between abortion with contraceptives: If abortion is wrong in depriving the world of a future person, then contraceptives are also wrong, too.
7. Singer's View on Euthanasia
Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher and writer who support the minimization of pain. He is also the author of Practical Ethics. In his book, Singer discusses many ethical issues including the most highly-debated topics such as abortion, euthanasia, and poverty.
In the case of euthanasia, Singer made his argument by categorizing euthanasia into three major types: non-voluntary euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, and involuntary euthanasia. Singer thinks that non-voluntary euthanasia is justifiable because the subject has never had the capacity to choose to live or die. Examples of include severely disabled infant and adults who has been profoundly intellectually disabled since birth.
Singer thinks voluntary euthanasia is also justifiable because it is an act of the person’s will. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when the subject requests to end his or her suffering by death. The last and only type of euthanasia that Singer does not justify is involuntary euthanasia, which occurs when the subject is capable of consenting to their own death but does not consent. Singer comments that involuntary euthanasia is morally wrong because it is against the subject’s will.
Personally, I agree with Singer’s view on euthanasia on the most part. I think he has made excellent categorization of the types of euthanasia. I support that voluntary euthanasia is justifiable because an individual should have the right to choose between life and death. In cases in which the individual’s suffering is almost unbearable, euthanasia seems to be the best solution.
I also think that involuntary euthanasia is unjustifiable because again the individual should have the right to life unless the person is a big criminal such as a serial killer who is sentenced to death row. However, I have doubts in the case of non-voluntary euthanasia. The individual may be intellectually disabled, however may not want to die. Their lack of the ability to express should not lead to their death.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, I think Singer will consent the use of enthanasia because she was in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). A persistent vegetative state is a condition of patients with severe brain damage in whom coma has progressed to a state of wakefulness without detectable awareness. Because patients in a persistent vegetative state are usually considered to be unconscious and unaware, Singer will probably categorize her in the non-voluntary group and think euthanasia is justifiable in her case.
8. Singer's View on Poverty, Refugee, and the Environment
On the issue of poverty, Singer discusses the topic of whether the rich have the obligation to assist the poor. The forward argument supports that the fighting of poverty, which is something bad, should be a universal effort. The reverse argument says people should take care of themselves rather than helping others. After illustrating both viewpoints, Singer expresses his support for the forward argument by saying that helping the poor does not equate to not taking care of oneself if one has extra wealth to spare.
Then, Singer comments that people should leave the task of fighting poverty to the government. He comments that privately run charities allow the government to escape its responsibilities of dealing with poverty. On the last note, Singer questions if the obligation to assist is too high a standard for people to attain.
Singer also mentions the issue of refugees: “the situation of refugees today raises an ethical question about the boundaries of our moral community – not, as in earlier chapters, on grounds of species, stage of development, or intellectual capacities” (Singer, 249). Singer says that people commonly distinguish “genuine refugees” from “economic refugees” and think the later do not deserve assistance. However, Singer argues that both are in equal need of refuge.
Singer begins the discussion of environmentalist ethics with Hebrew and Greek traditions: human beings are the centre of the moral universe. The Bible states that when God wanted to punish humans for their sins, He drowned almost every innocent animal on the earth; Aristotle said the existence of animals is for the sake of man; and Aquinas said “there is no possibility of sinning against non-human animals, or against the natural world” (Singer, 267).
Despite the traditions’ light regards to nature, Singer argues, the traditions do not rule out the concern for the preservation of nature as long as the concern is related to humans. Moreover, the scarcity of wilderness in the modern world gives it a new high value as well as a new drive for preservation. The appreciation of wilderness has never been higher than it is today, says Singer.
Singer’s argument for preservation is based on several reasons. The first one that he discusses is the wellbeing of future generations. Singer feels that natures have long-term value, and should not be exchanged for short-term benefits. “Wilderness is valued as something of immense beauty, as a reservoir of scientific knowledge still to be gained, for the recreational opportunities that it provides…” (Singer, 271). It is almost impossible to regain wilderness once it is lost. Therefore, Singer urges people to preserve nature for the sake of their children and grandchildren.
After illustrating the values of wilderness and also asking people to preserve these values for future generations, Singer asks people to think for the “sentient beings,” or the animals. Singer says there are undeniably values in the experiences of non-human beings; however, many people often disagree with this idea and view non-human animals as less significant.
Having pointed out the disagreement in the values of animals’ lives, Singer goes on to “extend ethics beyond sentient beings” and discusses the reverence for life. Then, Singer brings in the views of deep ecologists who wanted to preserve the integrity of the biosphere for its own sake. Here Singer emphasis again that “the value of preserving the remaining significant areas of wilderness greatly exceeds the economic values gained by its destruction” (Singer, 284).
In addition to acting morally and ethically on the issue of wilderness preservation, Singer expresses that people should act morally in the first place. Singer feels that as people become more aware of their situation in the world and more reflective about their purposes, they will acquire an ethical point of view that offers a meaning and purpose in life. This ethical point of view is the point of view of the universe that “transcend people’s inward-looking concerns,” and it will eventually return in the way that fulfills people’s ultimate self-interest, which is true happiness.
I do not agree with Singer’s view on fighting poverty. His arguments, including the part of leaving the task to the government, are overly idealistic. Economics needs to be handled in response to the society’s changing demands and not a set philosophical rule. Nevertheless I agree with Singer on his environmentalist ethics and on the issue of refugee. People should not discriminate against someone in need of help. Also, the protection of wilderness will preserve a better land for future generations.
What I can do to personally provide in these areas is minimal. On the issue of poverty and refugee, I will donate money to non-profit organizations and work as a volunteer when I have spare time. On the issue of environmental protection, I will recycle and save energy. Also, I will join clubs like Tsu-chi whose volunteer tasks include collecting trash and do recycling as a group.
9. Cloning
Cloning is a method that biotechnologists use to create identical copies of an original organism or the entire living thing. Technically, it is the transplantation of a nucleus from a somatic cell into an ovum, which then develops into an embryo.
There are many medical applications of cloning. Therapeutic cloning, for example, creates stem cells genetically compatible with the patient and provides a way to grow organs in a host carrier, which may replace the original diseased host organ with the hope of extending human life or maintaining the quality of life. Cloning of a gene can also successfully identify the gene’s association with certain phenotype of the host.
Despite the enormous scientific benefits, cloning faces great oppositions. Theologians, ethicists, and religious figures hold opinions strongly against the cloning of humans. The issue of morality of human cloning has been in debate since the first sign of possible human cloning and has not yet reached consensus.
The concerns people have for cloning humans are raised from a solid ground. “It took the scientists who created Dolly 277 tries before they got a healthy viable lamb. Because cloning humans is more complicated, even more death and lethal birth defects can be expected during experimentation” (Fox, Technology).
From the religious point of view, each human being is a unique individual created by God, and thus the cloning of human is against God’s will. The official opinion of the Roman Catholic Church is that “every possible act of cloning human is intrinsically evil” (NBAC 54). Roman Catholics believe that cloning violates the dignity and sanctity of man’s existence and objectifies children by manipulating and duplicating their lives.
From the ethical point of view, human cloning might harm the physical and psychological welfare of the child. In Dolly’s case, there is an accelerated aging process because the mitochondria from the host gene are as old as the original host. This problem has not been fixed yet and therefore people are afraid that cloning is not safe enough for humans.
Moreover, even if the clone child is created completely health physically, the child may feel a loss of individuality and personal autonomy. Ethicists have concerns for both possible psychological harms to the child and possible degradation of the quality of parenting and family life. Parents, especially the mother, may not love the child as much as if they have been through the natural process of pregnancy to give birth to the child.
And like the Roman Catholics, ethicists feel that cloning may generate possible objectification of cloned children. Since technology allows parents to do cherry-picking with desirable traits of the cloned child, paying to clone children is almost like buying products. Ethicists are concerned that in an attempt to create a more superior offspring, people will give up on traditional reproduction method altogether and use cloning as a general practice to have kids.
There are many possible benefits and hope that comes with the technology of cloning. However, as people from both the ethical and religious fields reflect, there are doubts in the morality of such practice in addition to the immaturity of the technique, which on the other hand raises concerns for safety. Cloning humans may have a prospective future but it still has a long way to go.
In my perspective, the practice of cloning is morally justifiable if used for the right cause. I am a biotechnology student and a science person. Personally, I feel the idea of stem cells and clones is fascinating. It brings the hope of curing many currently incurable diseases in the future. Of course, scientists should not go beyond the limit of morality for the sake of science. However, it is also unwise to impede the advancement of science in the name of ethics.
10. My Favorite Class Material
Out of everything I studied this term, Greene’s evolutionary psychology has had the most impact on my thinking. Evolutionary psychology, as proposed by the Joshua Greene, a post-doctoral researcher at Princeton, is the study of how people’s responses to questions and occurrences are shaped by evolution. Utilizing modern technology, the MRI brain imaging, Greene is able to use science as a foundation for the study of the associations among evolution, brain activity, and morality.
According to Greene, moral principles are codes that human ancestors have transformed from their sense of fairness, and they are a product of evolution. Humans use their brains to make moral judgments, and Greene has found the direct correspondence between neuron activities and the making of moral decisions by MRI imaging. As Greene has found in his experiments, “the crackling clusters of neurons” can interpret the so-called moral responses of humans. MRI scans of a person’s brain reflect the person’s decision-making process and results.
Greene identifies that the brain has both intuitive and reasoning networks. One situation or question may trigger one of the networks and a different situation or question may trigger the other. When people’s intuitive networks are activated, they make decisions intuitively. On the other hand, when people’s reasoning networks are activated, they make decisions based on reasoning. However, there are situations and questions that activate both networks, and this is when people become trapped in a moral struggle.
More specifically, Greene proposes that instinctive responses such as a lot of our deeply felt moral convictions are quirks of our evolutionary history. Moral responses based on intuitions are those that make people feel good. There are areas in the brain responsible for emotions known as the posterior cingulated and the precuneus; they are activated when people face personal decisions. Impersonal decisions as well as non-moral questions, on the contrast, trigger a region in the brain called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is vital for logical thinking.
Greene’s studies have offered scientific evidence for the reasons behind human behaviors. The findings of the studies also justify people’s wrongdoings: Criminal or cruel acts are results of an abnormal level of neurotransmitters; and criminal psychopaths show that there are puzzling gaps in perception within the criminal’s brain. In Greene’s view, “evil doesn’t exist on a neuronal level”.
As a reader, I am amazed at Greene’s findings. Similar to the author’s conclusion, I feel that the understanding or believing in Greene’s evolutionary psychology may promote more tolerance. It is interesting to know there is a connection between ethics and science. As the field of neuro-psychology becomes more developed, there may be methods invented to “cure” criminals by fixing the problems with their neurons.
Greene’s theories are revolutionary. If his theories were completely accurate, evilness may be viewed as a disease in the future, and by treating the disease there will be no more criminals. After reading about the evolutionary psychology article, I believe it is possible to have a world without violence in the future.
posted by Mavis Chao at 7:04 PM
0 comments
