Philo 171
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 

 BARON Questions for the Third Exam

Go down 

Posts : 70
Join date : 2008-11-25

PostSubject: BARON Questions for the Third Exam   Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:40 pm

1. Rev. John J. Paris, a bioethics professor at Boston College affirms Richard McCormick's statement in the article “To Save or Let Die” printed in the Journal of Medical Association that the beliefs that 'life is an absolute good' and 'death is an absolute evil' are two great heresies, or false doctrines, in our age. He argues that 'life was created and is a good, but a limited good...the obligation to sustain it is a limited one.' Do you agree or disagree with this? Why or why not?

2. After careful considerations of the various ethical theories/views we discussed, what “personal moral system or code” can you come up with and which you can adopt? Be sure to talk about the values, precepts/ideas, and other elements that should comprise this “personal moral system or code”. Include your conception of freedom and accountability in this given moral system and your view of what it means to be a moral individual.
Back to top Go down
View user profile

Posts : 7
Join date : 2008-11-24

PostSubject: Third Exam   Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:16 pm

Unang Tanong

First of all, I do agree that life is created. A woman, or any variant of the female species, be it a human or animal, produced life and brought it to this world. A union of the cells, breathe of the air, the heart’s pump for blood, although from a minimalist perspective, constitutes life. From what I understand of the statement, it seems as if life is somewhat compared to an economic good. A kind manufactured by industrial complexes (mother, father) with the use of raw materials such as a sperm cell or egg cell undergoing production means (pregnancy). Life is said to be a limited good, which entails that life is a scarcity or that living is scarce. Sustaining life is an obligation but a limited one instills a thought that the sustenance of life is presented with an array of limited choices. It seems as if life is created to be prolonged and preserved, according to the viewpoint of this statement.

From what I understand, life is attained or given to individuals and it is a duty for persons to respect, conserve and promote life. This perception comes into mind cases in which individuals are subjected to pvs or comatose. Arguments on how these people will live or die centers on issues like a person’s autonomy and the right to live or die. I do agree that life must be lived to the fullest, each of us our own persons and experiencing things that we want or need to experience. But if such a case like pvs is considered, where the individual cannot attain the life s/he wants to live, I think that the sustenance of life must be scrutinized closely. If the instances that the condition does not permit life others are experiencing, where the life of such individual consists of the heart just pumping, then I think that this life must not be sustained. I think that our moral obligation, which involves preservation of life, ends when the life that is being lived is not really worthy for the individual living it. As long as there is a chance for that individual to live a life of his actions, then I think it is our obligation to protect that life. Death is an event that we must not really run away from. For someone, it may be an event releasing all bounds and restraints.

Pangalawang Tanong

As I lived almost two decades of my life, I’ve thought about lots of things like things I want and not want to do. As persons moving, colliding with each other in this world, we think of ways of dealing with each other and how we ant others to perceive us. The experiences that I encountered molded a person I can call myself. For many years now, I search for the purpose of my existence and the worth of my existence to others. I learned not to openly judge others as I believe that what we do comes back to us. Though not really generalizing human nature, I feel compelled to act as expected of human beings. My judgments of right and wrong has never been absolute, but depend on what the circumstances permit. I tend to see things differently. I think being absolute, at least in lines of thinking, is not a very efficient way to perceive things. For me, the right things are in line with the principles I have which are grounded on reason. I believe that it is right not to infringe upon others. But this is not subject to absolutism as it is sometimes right to interfere with others as they induce harm on others or myself. I’ve learned that as human beings, we must do our duty but then we must consider the consequences of the duty we make. It must be able to satisfy or satisfice myself and others. Must lean towards happiness but more on well-grounded principles.

In terms of freedom, I think that we are free but not exactly free. It is true that there are limits to our freedom as our genetic codes dictate, but we are much more than these things. Our human body restricts us, but our mind is not regulated. We are free to deliberate on the choices we have to make. We are free to think of whatever we want to think and we are free because we are free. But then we are constrained by the choices and the resources that are presented to us. Through this selection of choices, we incorporate our responsibility to account for the consequences that our actions entail. As the one making the decisions, we know the extent of our capacity in handling our decisions. We learn and must learn that we must not blame others for the choices we have to make as our voice and reason is our own. A moral individual should incorporate humanity in her/his actions, do her/his duty on principles of reason and goodness and must account for her/his actions.

In sum, my personal morality inculcates characteristics of the Kantian perspective and existentialism.

Just a note
In addition, as I believe in a Supreme Deity(God), I think that somehow, our actions will somehow attribute Him. I do not really believe in pre-determination but instead I believe in the consequences of our actions. I still need a lot to work on to reconcile the DCT, Existentialism and the Kantian theories to create a POLISHED personal morality which I can live by and call mine as the span of three hours is not enough for me to improve it. Very Happy
Back to top Go down
View user profile

Posts : 7
Join date : 2008-11-24

PostSubject: an additional   Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:10 pm

On an additional note, as I believe in the consequences of my actions, I think that the choices I must make must coincide with the person I want to be. Very Happy
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content

PostSubject: Re: BARON Questions for the Third Exam   

Back to top Go down
BARON Questions for the Third Exam
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
» Official Obelisk Blue leader exam!!!!!!
» Brutal questions
» Assignment 5: Interview Questions Due Feb 13
» Red Baron reissued
» Questions booming in my mind

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Ethics :: Philo 171 B :: Third EXAM-
Jump to: