final BLog

(1) Question:

Do human beings have the natural tendencies to do good, or natural tendencies to evil?

(2) Conceptual Clarifications:

 

Humans have tendencies to do certain things. Tendencies are things that people are more likely to do. So they either have a tendency to do good or evil. Good is something that is morally accepted as the right the thing. Evil is an action or thing that is thought to be wrong in society. Implications are logical relations between two propositions that fails to hold only if the first is true and the second is false.

 

(3) Answer:

 

I think most people are initially good, but then they become a product of their environment. Some people can have a bad experience and that can leave a negative impact on them. This can cause them to do evil. I think people have a predisposition to do bad things for personal gain but I think a lot of people over come them. In situation of crisis people usually pull together and help each other out. I think people who come from positive back grounds and are brought up well then they tend to be good. But  sometimes through negative experiences people can also do good. Some people may help other people based on sympathy. They have been in the situation before and know what the person is going through.

(4) Example:

An example of people leaning toward being naturally good is when a disaster strikes. When a tsunami hit Thailand many people from all over the world gave their efforts to help. That shows that good traits of people pass over cultures and countries. People are just naturally created to help each other unless they are taught other wise or have a negative experience that can cause them to give into evil. I think most people that would rather do evil than good use it as a defense mechanism because they are afraid of being hurt again so they hurt other people.

 

 

(7) References:

 

Ruggiero. (2008). Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues. McGraw Hill.

 

http://human-goodness-badness.blogspot.com/

Blog Asighnment 9

ASSIGNMENT PART ONE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this section, we're going to return for a moment to Chapter 7, to the section that discusses errors that are common in the analysis of moral issues (p. 89). Briefly explain each of the following errors in your own words, as if you were explaining the concept to a friend who had never taken this class (consider who, what, when, where, why, how, when); and then give an example of each one, preferably from your own past experience.

Unwarranted Assumptions: Unwarranted assumption are assumptions made without prove. They are kind of like a first impression on something. You make an assumption about something without any proof. An example would be that all cops are stuck up and just wan't to give you a hard time but I have actually met a couple nice ones, like two.


Oversimplification: When someone oversimplifies something they make something that is complicated into really basic terms. But the terms become so basic that it doesn't make something seem as important, difficult, or serious as it really is. Usually important information is left out. An example of this would be one time I told my friend who was 20 and never had a job to get one because he's a bum. At the time I was a delivery driver and he just said," Cool, put a sandwich in your car and drive around." He oversimplified what I did because it was a lot more than that.


Hasty Conclusions: A hasty conclusion happens when someone accepts a conclusion with really evaluating a situation very completely. An example of this is when I got a nice car but I skateboarded a lot and always wore really crapy clothes an didn't look very nice. When ever I would look at people they look at me not so nicley followed by a look of confusion when I got in my car. They hastily assumed that I was poor or something.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART TWO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Briefly answer the following "chapter opening" questions, in your own words, based on what you learned by studying chapter eight:

1. What do we do in situations where there is more than a single obligation? When we are in a situation were we have more more than one obligation we usually do the won that is most benificail for us or will cause the least harm.

2. How can we reconcile conflicting obligations? You can try to make arrangments to reschedule one of the obligations. But not all conflicting obligations can be reconciled.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART THREE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. In a nutshell, what is the most important thing, for you, that you learned from this assignment? I think the most important thing I learned from this assignmet was not to make hasty conclusions. Hasty conclusions can be far from the truth and sometimes what find out later isn't the outcome you like.

2. How will you apply what you learned in this chapter to your life? I will try to reach a full conclusion with the decisions I make in my life. I'll try not to come to quick conclusions thay may be false.

3. What grade do you believe your efforts regarding this assignment deserve? I believe I should get full credit. I read the chapter and tried to really put in my own words. I gave examples from my actual life and had to pretend I was a UNF student because my home computer crashed.

Blog Assignment #6

1A: Not all actions are moral relavent to the culture they are in. Some things can be considered immoral in any culture by another culture. Some things, like the Holocaust are considered by most cultures to be immoral. In fact, some would conisder it immoral not to think that it was immoral. Another problem with using culture to judge whether somthing is immoral is it follows the majority rule, which has already proven to be flawed.

1B: Arguable issue: whether or not it is correct to say all moral values are relative to the culture thy're found in.

P1: Majority rule is flawed
P2: Some things are considered immoral by everyone
P3: Cultures conflict

C: Therefore, it is not okay to say all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in.

2A: It is not ignorant to pass judgement on another culture. Some cultures are better than others due to technology and education. People who become advanced and civilized are much more prosperous than savage tribes people who don't know how to be community and help eachother to achieve full potential. Also some views in a culture may be hateful towardds another culture. It would seem stupid for them not to think the other person's views are not right.

2B: Arguable issue: Whether or not it is ok to pass judgement on another culture.

P1: Some cultures are more advanced than others
P2: Some cultures have bad views towards other cultures
P3: Some things are considered wrong by most cultures

C: Therefore it is ok to pass judgement on other cultures

Part 2

In some ancient cultures such as China, Rome and Sparta unwanted children were abandoned to die. This is very immoral. The children did not choose to be brought into the world, that was made by their parents. Abandoning them is irresponsible and a horrible thing to do. The child is hlepless, therefore by abandoning it the person is bringing an end to it's life so it's basically murder. Murder is considerd immoral in many cultures.

B: Arguable issue is whether or not abandoning babies is moral?

P1: It can be considered murder, muder is immoral
P2: It's irresponsible
P3: It was the parents choice not the babies to be born

Blog Assighnment #5

This video has to do with the whole chapter. He talks about the different types of conciousness. He also talks about how there are different types of conciousness and there is not a clear definition. He talks about how you can be physically concious like if some one pricks you with a needle but says there is also more going on in your head then you just feeling pain.
Argument: Whether this deserves 25 points or notConclusion:
This deserves 25 points
Premesis:
(1) I searched for a while to try and find the most relavent thing I could
(2) I explained what part of the chapter it identifies with
(3) I fullfilled the criteria and whatched the a video on conciousness

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jTWmTJALe1w

Assighnment #4

Part 1: Relationship b/n Religion and Ethics

A. The relationship between ethics and religion is that ethics is an attempt to figure out what is right and religion gives a clear cut guide line of what is right. Ethics judges whether or not the religous guidelines are indeed moral or immoral. One thing that religion say is moral may be decided immoral by ethical philosophers. Ethical people make their decisions based on logic and reason where as a religious person follows the conduct code given based on faith. In the end though, ethical and religious people come to the same or similar conclusion.

B.I found this article and it really helped me to understand the difference between religion and ethics. It helped me to separate what part of my decision are ethics and what is religion. I learned about how religion is more based on a code that is given to the follower and ethics is a person's own judgment and reasoning. That was the main thing I got out of this article, but it was very useful in helping me understand the topic.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2006springsummer/donahue.html

C. Arguable Issue: The issue is whether or not ethics and religion complement each other.

Conclusion: Ethics and religion complement each other.

Premises:

(1) Ethics and religion usually come to similar or the same conclusions.

(2) They both try to do what is right.

(3) One can help solidify each others conclusions.

Part 2

1. The majority is just simply whatever side of an issue gets the most votes. It doesn't matter if it is 99 to 1 or 51 to 49. The majority rule is often considered the wisest decision even though it may not always be morally correct. This is the way many things are decided in a democracy. But some people may be corrupt in their motives for voting so the majority rule may not always be ethically reliable, but may be in best interest for the group.

Source: Ruggiero

Arguable Issue: Whether or not the majority rule is reliable for an ethical decision.

Conclusion: Majority rule is not reliable for an ethical decision.

Premises:

(1) People have their own motives when voting

(2) Everyone has a different set of ethics

(3) Some people are more ignorant or uninformed than other people

2. Feelings are the way your mind reacts emotionally to things or situations. Your feelings towards something can make you love it or hate. These feelings help determine what is right and what is wrong. By going with your feelings they can help you make moral choices on what you feel is right or what you feel is wrong. Everyone has different feelings about everything giving everyone different sets of morals.

Arguable Issue: whether or not your feelings area reliable source for ethical decision making.
Conclusion: Feelings are a reliable source for ethical decision making.
Premises:
(1) Studies show that going with your "gut" is usually right
(2) Your moral decisions are based on how you feel about something
(3) Everybody has different feelings so you decide what is ethical to you.

Part 3

1. I tried to put it all in my own words the best I could but I kind of had trouble explaining some things. I didn't consciously copy anything though. I thought of all my arguments and tried to word them the best I could but I found it kind of difficult.

2. The easiest part of the assignment would have to have been the reading. That was pretty easy and short. The hardest part of the assignment was trying to put the first part in my own words and have it make sense. I had trouble explaining the relationship between ethics and religion. That was the most difficult part.

3. I will think about my decisions a little more and in a different perspective. I will think about if my feelings are rational and my decisions are logical.

4. I think I did alright on this assignment. It was a little more difficult than most of the assignments for me. I had a lot of trouble focusing on this. But I think overall I got enough of my points across and tried my best.

Assignment #3

1. Explain what “to give an argument” means in this book.

This book states that "that to give an argument is to a set of reasons in support of a conclusion." The book is trying to make the point that an argument is not negative as many people often think. Arguments are not just verbal ffist fights and yelling. They can constructive and used to reach a conclusion.



2. What are the reasons Weston gives in support of his claim, “arguments are essential”?

Weston says that arguments are essential to find out which side of arguments have better views. He says that," not all arguments are equal, some are weaker than others. We need arguments to find which side has stronger premises.



3. Explain why many students tend to “write an essay, but not an argument”.
Most students tend to write an essay instead of argument because they do not actually understand what an argumment is. They only write elaborate statements but do not offer anything to support them. Also through high school the oonly thing they had to learn was facts. They did not have to learn anything that wasnt certain. Now they are being challenged in a new way and are not completely prepared.


4. Construct two short arguments (one "for" and one "against") as modeled in the Week 3 Assignment section in Blackboard. Put each one in "elements form".

Arguable Issue: Whether or not fast food is good for society

Conclusion : Fast food is not good for society

Premises:

(1) Fast food is leading to obesity

(2) It causes heart problems

(3) Runs small resturants out of buisness

Arguable Issue: Whether fast food is good for society or not.

Conclusion: Fast food is good for society

Premises:

(1) It provides a way for people to eat cheaply

(2) It creates jobs

(3) Its fast and non time consuming

5. Review the seven rules in chapter one. Briefly discuss how your argument demonstrates that each rule was applied, in the construction of your arguments above.

My argument uses wach of these rules. I my conclusion and premise are both well defined and my argument is an a natural order.My premises are also well proven facts and they contain now emotionaly loaded words. My premises are not vague and use consitant terms that dont change in meaning.

6. Review the three rules in the appendix named, “Definitions”. In your own words, discuss how you took these rules into consideration as you constructed your arguments.

My arguments follow all the definition rules. My words have clear definitions and are supported by facts. Using the word good might be kind of vague but I think is backed up by premises. And my case on words like healthy are clear and cannot be contested.
7. Good posts demonstrate:
Sincere reflection, effort, and analysis

Answers that are substantial (at least one large paragraph each)

Consistent mention, citation, and integration of the assigned readings (explained in YOUR own words, though)
Correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation

Correctly titled posts!
How many points do you honestly feel your post this week deserves? Justify your answer.

Well, I met all the requirements, but also I read the chapter and had consistent quotations. I tried my best on grammer. I tried my best to answer my questions the best I could. My argument was relavent to what is going on today and I put it in the correct form, so I think I should get full credits.

1. Were the questions on the Moral Sense Test difficult to answer (psychologically, emotionally, conceptually, technically, etc.)? Why or why not? Do you think your responses to the Moral Sense Test questions were consistent? Does this matter?
Some of them where a little strange to answer just because the person wasn't really doing anything wrong, just kind of wierd. Some of the ones that were kind of tough were if everyone around them did it because thats when social norms and contracts can come into play.

2. Should people always follow the law? Why or why not? When might one be justified in NOT following the law? Give examples.
I don't think people should obey the laws 100 percent of the time. I think under certain circumstances they can be broken and some laws are unreasonable. If some one has been bitten by a poisoness snake I think somebody should be allowed to speed to get them to the hospital. And thier are some wierd laws like you can't eat ice cream while riding a horse on Sunday.

3. In your own words, explain what "social convention" means. Give examples.
I think a social convention is a rule in society that is not written down but is generaly accepted by everyone. Breaking most social conventions is not illegal but can come across as rood or can isolate a person from society. Like if someone doesn't have good hygine or dresses wierd.

4. Should people always follow the conventions of their society? Why or why not? Give examples.
I don't think that people should always follow social conventions because some of them become outdated or are unreasonable. Like people tell me to take my hat off when I'm inside and some times it bothers really old people. But I don't care becasue I really see no logical reason why I should take my hat off inside, so I leave my hat on.

5. Should people always follow their own principles? Why or why not? Give examples.
I think that people should always follow their own principles. If you don't follow your own principles what is the point of having them. Your principles help define you. So if your against say stealing and you let someone talk you into stealing somethng then you are letting someone control who you are.

6. Explain in your own words the difference between socially acceptable, legally acceptable, and morally acceptable.
Something that is socialy is acceptable has to do with culture and what people in that culture accept as normal. Something that is legally accepted is something legislators have determined does not hurt anyone or need to be regulated. Something that is morally acceptable is someone making a thoughtful choice that does not harm anyone else and is not for thier self benefit.

7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
I think I should get full credit on this assignment. I answered all the questions as fully as I could. I tried to make everything I said relative and support my answers. I also had to mess with that online test for like an hour before I could get it to work.