A Part of Human Nature

Through the questions posed in Q&A 11, the class has found several interesting facts pertaining to the intelligence and sentience of fish:
1. Fish have an intellectual ability comparable to dogs and perhaps learn faster than dogs.
2. Fish have a sentience level comparable to "higher level" vertebrates.
3. Fish have similar abilities to feel as amphibians and mammals, including humans.

Yet, we continue to harvest these animals and let them die through suffocation. We treat these beings as if they are brainless and feelingless like a vegetable being harvested from a field. Just because these animals do not have the ability to scream does not mean they do not suffer while suffocating on the deck of a ship. I think that this practice will continue and has continued for so long because it does not affect humans. As seen through various other environmental oddities that occur because of human influence, such as global warming and extinction of species, people will not change unless it affects their lives. Like the implementation of any change, people must be informed that these animals have these abilities and, therefore, deserve to be treated as if they have these rights. However, there is hope with the continued message from environmentalists and through government action, overfishing will not be tolerated and must cease. Yet this is just the beginning of the fight to have these beings be recognized and be given some moral status. I don't think that it will occur in the near future because of the ignorance of some many, but over time it has a chance with continued research and education.

The Arrogant Gaze

The arrogant gaze, as described by Acampora, is a gaze which demands some sort of exhibition by the object being looked at and these expectations can be very demeaning and compromising to an objects true nature. The observer will often expect certain results by employing this gaze and expect to feel a certain emotion after the object being viewed has performed its desired action.

In the world of zoos people use the arrogant gaze and expect animals to behave as they would in the wild. This expectation is wildly illogical and demeans the animals integrity. First of all, the animal has been taken out of its natural habitat and placed in a less than adequate sized facility where it is expected to perform natural functions. This habitat created for the animals often times does not suit the needs of many animals because of migration and, in the case of birds, does not allow them to freely fly where they please. Second, some of the animals being exhibited are nocturnal and because the zoos are only open during the day the trainers must reverse their natural instincts in order to create this exhibitionism that tourists desire. This is a direct violation of the animals rights because it compromises the animal's autonomy from humans and forces the animal to engage in acts that are not usual or unnatural for its species. Thirdly, the animals are expected to rely on the care their trainers provide for them for food, water, shelter and protection. The animals, being taken out of a natural habitat, become totally depended upon trainers because their rights of predation and gathering are taken away because most of their habitat is made of concrete or some other manufactured material. Also, some animals have their wings clipped or their claws clipped in order to prevent flying or harm to trainers; this takes away the ability of animals to escape predation or to become predators and again forces an unnatural situation upon them.

So, it is fairly evident based upon the unnatural settings and conditions the animals face that the functioning of zoos is morally wrong. It is also fairly obvious that severe reform must occur within the zoo world if people are truly concerned about the integrity of the animals and if humans call themselves protectors of animal rights. However, I am concerned if there will ever be a zoo that will protect the moral rights of the animals while at the same time give humans the exhibition and observation of the animals they desire. What do you think a solution could be?

Slavery + Zoos + a Pinch of Kant

Kant was a philosopher who considered the moral scope, what is a moral scope, what rights do those in this scope have and who is in the scope? In Kant's view, only humans were in the scope, however, harming a nonhuman could be considered wrong if it would lead to the harming of those inside the moral sphere. I think, like most Neo-Kanitians today, that Kant really wanted to include animals in his moral sphere, but thought the idea too radical for the period because in most instances non humans are included in Kant's moral sphere.

Now that the further establishment of Kant's moral sphere is out of the way, I propose that zoos are wrong because of their resemblance to slavery and, in a more traditional Kantian view, are wrong because they could lead to the slavery of humans. Zoos resemble slavery because of the sheer fact that the animals that are taken out of the wild and who are bred by scientists have little to no autonomy. These animals are simply watered down phantoms of their natural state; they are not allowed the predator-prey relationship, they are not allowed to live in their full range for their habitat and are forced to act in such a manner as to entertain the human population. These points alone can justify that the animals' situations are greatly resembling slavery, which, seeing non humans as worthy of moral considerations, is a total disregard for one of the most important rights, autonomy. Additionally, the slavery of these animals, from a more traditional Kantian perspective, could lead to the slavery of humans because of the purest example from our discussion in class about kicking the dog leading to kicking one's wife.

Condemnation

People condemn each other or each other's ideas because they are fearful of them and most people are fearful of them because they are ignorant. And there is a saying that ignorance is bliss, but I dont believe that is true because ignorance breeds fear. This concept of fear and ignorance arise from the general publics laziness and lack of motivation to learn. Therefore, concepts like Marxism or communism have become "dangerous" words to use in political and social arenas. People were too lazy to learn the ideals of these concepts and, instead, put ultimate trust in their political figures to interpret these puzzling theories. This is completely wrong and is just another demonstration of the bourgeoisie alienating the proletariat through a barrage of misinformation to force the lower social classes to conform to upper class desires.

Is it the fault of education that leads people to become fearful of these subjects? I dont think so. In fact, I think it is the problem of the political figures and heads of industry who are afraid of change and who are scared of something new. If you go around the business community, and I have been told this while look for opportunities of employment in industry, business people like what they do not know and avoid that which they do not. So, in order to avoid what they do not know and, thus, are afraid of, the business leaders exert their power over the innocent cogs of capitalism, the average person, to submit to their desires.

Is there a solution to break free from the chains in which we struggle under the bourgeoisie? I believe so and I also think that it has already begun with the collection of sources and ideas that can be found on the Internet. With the Internet people can read publications from Marx, Hegel, etc. very easily and readily. Once reading through this information the individual can make his own judgments on the matter and if enough people are informed, change one way or another can occur.

Hedonian View of the World

It is a Hedonian view that it is human nature for people to seek pleasure and avoid pain. They also adopt the view that most people hold in America today that work is toil. Therefore, the Hedonians make the connection that work is painful and people naturally will avoid work. I believe that this view is wrong because of a misinterpretation by America of how to run the hierarchy of industry and the Sayers view is a better interpretation of human nature and people's perception of what work is supposed to be. Like Sayers states in his article, humans are productive, creative beings and enjoy being productive and creative while overcoming obstacles in performing a profession. However, the current US economic system is designed much like the feudal system, in that their is a categorization of people into those employed and those who employ. From this the compartmentalization is broken down further into managers and supervisors and workers. This creates alienation within the workplace and this alienation leads to the work becoming toilsome. So, in the context the Hedonian view is correct, but, overall, the view is misguided because of the alienation that occurs within the current US economic system.

Salary as a Report Card and the American Dream

In the early 1900s the Industrial Revolution in America was occurring and captains of industry such as Carnegie and Rockefeller began to create companies much like the companies of today's business world. With the rise of these two men came the rise of the American Dream; of one day rising from poverty to a peak covered in millions of dollars. Many immigrants came to America in search of this dream and many Americans toiled daily in search of this dream. From this dream came an obsession with money and a thought process that money is success. This American Dream was the beginning of the school of thought that one's salary is one's report card for life. After the Industrial Revolution every person was in the fight to make a dollar and that fight was no holds bar. People would disregard friends, family and community just take get rich because people saw money as happiness and the path to being successful. This pattern continued and continues to this day without taking into account the value of family, friends, self respect, helping other, etc. All these things can label one as successful, but it is a more interpersonal form of success. So, with the judgmental, self conscious public out there salary will continue to be a measure of success, which is atrocious and plays directly to the base Americans have created for themselves in the Marxist view of society.

Privatization: A Tool of the Bourgeoisie

With the privatization of the business world individuals have had the opportunity to become independently wealthy and many have taken this opportunity to earn billions of dollars. With incomes this large these people are given great power because, in America and most places around the world, the more money you have the more power and influence you posses. With this power, as we have discussed in class, the bourgeoisie exploits the laborers by setting their wages as low as possible to obtain the most profit. A similar thing has occurred with the privatization of education. Many people have views that a private education is better because public funds cannot cover enough supplies or hire the best teachers. This is seen even locally with the Admissions slogan here at MCLA, "a public college with a private atmosphere..." With these slogans and the effort to privatize our society the elite class is working towards further exploitation of the proletariat. In private schools, administrators are able to charge outrageous prices and set their own guidelines for academic goals. It is thought that the private atmosphere will provide better opportunities because they have more money and better teachers, but this belief is just a phrase that has been ingrained in our minds to help further the oppression. So, by taking more income from the proletariat through private schools and training (educating) people as they see fit, the elite class furthers its oppression of the proletariat by the continued privatization of American society.

The Goal of Business:Profit

All businesses have the same goal, to be as profitable as legally possible. In order to attain this goal companies will go to any length and spend any type of money. As seen with the tobacco industry, it was found that tobacco is a very harmful drug and this threatened the tobacco industry's profit. So, to counter this they created such icons as Joe Camel and the Malboro Man to reach new markets such as children to keep profits up. Then, the talks of banning smoking and banning smoking in certain areas led to more demonstration of power by tobacco industries. The companies hired lobbyists to get in with top Congressional officials and thus influence the way America formed laws. This action to stop for no one in the search for profit and market share corrupts men and corrupts our society. And because of this greed for profit I dont think that ethics will ever hold a high rank within the business world. The greed of so many men and women overpowers the voices of the moral and ethical. The only way to neutralize the power of corruption is through government intervention, which has somewhat occurred with anti-trust laws and laws about fair business practices, but the companies found a new way to get around this, they outsourced and are moving business to China, Indonesia, etc. So, the community of applied ethicists and ethical global community has only one choice, to unite and form a governing coalition of international business. I think this may be the only way because it eliminates the option to hide and if the organization is given enough power business will be forced to back down or be shut down. I fear this is the only hope and that it will take serious, charismatic leadership as well as backing from the major industrial nations to work and eliminate the corruption, greed and total lack of ethics in business.

Taxation

Ever since the Industrial Revolution the business community has used more natural resources than the collective public. Year after year industry consume and destroy the air, water and land resources of the world. Yet, business pays less taxes to the government and has been lagging behind as a "friend of the environment" as so many executives have put it. If the business community had any ethical code at all they should be compelled to give back to the community in which they operate, whether it be through service or monetary compensation. The community that destroys the most natural resources should feel a need to return the favor to the public or at least nature, the source of their exploitation. However, since the business world is not willing to do this, the government should make some sort of legislation to clean up the bad business act. To counter this, business got into the pockets of legislators through lobbying and campaign support and the government officials had no choice but to follow the commands of their supporters. So, I think the only way for an ethical code to be established in business is for the public to take action and force legislators to act justly and follow their morals. Without this the continued exploitation of the communities in which business lives will decline and the world will cease to exist as we know it.

Minimum Wage

As discussed in class today, Marx once compare wage to slavery and his justifications for this claim come about because of his belief that labor is the only good or service in capitalism that is underpaid. My counter claim to Marx's ideas is that perhaps slavery would be favored to wage, more specifically minimum wage. Take for instance the Massachusetts minimum wage of $7.50, multiply that by 40 hours, the length of a normal work week, to get $300 per week, excluding taxes. From this figure multiply by 52 weeks per year to receive $15,600. Finally, multiply this figure by two thirds to obtain an approximation of personal income after government income tax to leave a person with $10,400. This income needs to be able to cover clothing, food, housing, utilities and more, and for the current value of the dollar on today's market that will be a formidable challenge. Also, Massachusetts now requires each citizen to have health insurance, so if one's employer does not provide it the individual must seek this service and pay for its entirety. All of these figures only influence one person and severely limit the possibility of getting married and having a family. So, one might as well pick the life of a slave because food, clothing and housing is taken care of, while the only sacrifice would be personal freedom. And although losing personal freedom may be a big deal in most Americans eyes, one would have to work more than one job to be able to support one self and it eventually amounts to the appearance of slavery just to keep living.

From the above discussion, I hope to raise concern about the need for a concerted effort to bring attention to minimum wage and this farce attempt at equality government and business impose. Companies within the United States generate billions of dollars of income in a single industry let alone the whole market and yet they lack the morals to compensate workers justly. This gap in business ethics must be closed in order to eliminate the claim that wage is just a better form of slavery. Perhaps capitalism must take a fall in order to accomplish this, but in any case, serious reform and action by the business ethics community must be sparked in order to give laborers what they deserve.

Business Ethics?

After the reading for the past Q&A about business ethics it leads to the questions, are there busness ethics or can there ever be business ethics?

Business ethics is clearly lacking in its approach to creating moral codes of conduct for the business field as seen through the hundreds of scandals and controversies each year. I think some of this problem is due to the late beginnings of business ethics (having began around 1960). Business was allowed to progress and took many steps to in its advance towards today's modern business community. However, this is not the only problem business ethics has to overcome. Business ethicists have to overcome the nature of business itself. Business is a machine based upon efficiency and in its quest for ultimate efficiency and desire to be the best, morals are irrelevant. The business community polluted water ways, streets, towns and air for decades due to this quest for perfection. This demonstrates the business giants' total disregard for life, the environment and any set of moral standards and is exactly why ethics in a business setting will never flourish unless some intervention in the business community is made.

The Farce That is a Presidential Race

Like I have mentioned in previous posts and like the class has discussed, the media has taken it upon itself, with the support of corporate America and the Executive Branch, to become a shaper of public opinion. Media has done this by deciding which news items to cover, how to cover each news item, what news actually is and what the public should know.

This new influence that media holds over the common people has greatly disrupted our society and continues to shape our government into a tool of industry, which directly violates the principles set forth by the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention and those present during the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. The influence of the media has extended greatly into the government by severely impacting presidential campaigns. Like Parenti describes in his article "Inventing Reality," the media makes judgments about candidates character and their potential effectiveness as President, as demonstrated with the media's focus upon Hilary Clinton's laugh, Howard Dean's yell and Al Gore's sigh. Using this tactic, the media attempts to downplay the integrity of a candidate, make a deliberate and misguided attack on a candidate's character and blatantly attempt to influence public opinion claiming that the candidate will have lost support due to their action, when in fact the public does not care anything about a laugh, yell or sigh. The media also influences the elections by deciding what is news worthy. In most cases, the media focuses on events such as a candidate going out and kissing babies or something of that nature instead of highlighting a candidate's policy and summarizing a candidate's response in lay mans terms from a debate from the night before.

This disgusting violation of the principles of media should not be tolerated because it is influencing public opinion and changing the way our government works. In the past corporations and government officials would be taken to court and the Supreme Court would rule certain things unconstitutional, but why the lackadaisical attitude towards media? I do not know the answer to that question, but I do know that the actions of today's media are unconstitutional and are changing the frameworks of the American government and without immediate action the election process and government will become a farce.

US Media vs. Others

During the late 1700s and into the early years of the United States the media took a very active role to ensure the elimination of tyranny. Media outlets performed this task by calling out certain groups and raising support for US based interest through the opinions of all. The media also published facts, either direct quotes from important politicians or excerpts from articles and books. The culmination of all of these sources and facts allowed Americans to be well informed and have an understanding of the policies of the United States, policies of other nations and policies of political figures. Over the past few decades the media has adapted itself as a tool of government, more specifically a tool of the Executive Branch, and a tool of industry by shifting towards the raising support for US based interests and detached itself from objectivity and fact-reporting. The media has done this through selection of the stories they cover and spins they decide to put on these stories due to the responsibility put on journalists by higher level officials and industrial leaders who own the media outlets. Evidence of this is clear as with the coverage of presidential candidates; the media focuses on the laugh of Hilary Clinton to attack her character and say that she will therefore be a bad president and also with the attack on Howard Dean's yell and attacking his character stating that he has mental problems. Although the active media of the US has been a good thing in the past, its new roles and coverage it provides has severely impacted the perception of Americans. And I was wondering if other nations have similar problems with their media or does US media shy away from this issue so as to eliminate the possibility of being uncovered themselves?

Democracy or Dictatorship: The Current American System of Government

With the reading for class about the "Media Control" and past investigation into the media and it's bias, it appears evident that our nation is headed toward a dictatorial form of government.

The Chomsky and Parenti articles on Third World Traveler present information that the government uses the media as an outlet to portray what the government wants the American people to know. The government's influence over the media causes a bias and, consequently, the media has resorted to covering topics that portray certain heads of state of other nations in ways that directly correlate with administration views and the media distracts the public from central questions, such as what is our exit plan from Iraq and why does the Bush Administration want blanket protection for communication giants who were involved in illegal unwarranted wire tapping, and turns focus towards different things. This control over the media has created a biased opinion to a body that prides itself on objectivity and presenting the truth.

To begin on another point about the media, I have completed previous research about the media as a possible Fourth Branch of government and now after years of not thinking about the subject, I do not think this to be a plausible; instead, the media has become part of the Executive Branch of government. This is evident through media coverage of the Bay of Pigs invasion, Saddam Hussein's global perception and the invasion of Panama. In each of these cases selected facts were taken in addition to administration policy and made into a story that would convince Americans that the administration's view was correct or that it was only a minor setback in the overall goal that government X should be overthrown. This disinformation that the media presents to the public creates a misrepresentation of what certain political parties of other nations or revolutionary groups of other nations and creates a view of these people that the government wants the people to have. With these facts, it seems that the US is headed towards a dictatorial form of government because the Executive Branch has disregarded its role and become a shaper of public opinion as well as a war monger because of its total disregard for Constitutional principles such as the power to go to war falls under the control of the Congress. I fear that without the publication of more articles detailing the media bias and without a general concern and awakening by the public the nation will revert back to pre-Revolutionary times, under the control of a tyrannical force.

Relation Between Naivety and Propaganda

In the documentary film, The Faces of the Enemy, Keen studies the propaganda from different nations around the world and finds that before a physical war happens, "we think each other to death." This means that political propaganda and other sorts of art that stir controversy are created and used to make the enemy into some sort of beast that will become permissible to exterminate. In almost all of the propaganda seen in the documentary several key images arise, that of exaggerated political figure, animals and demons, which are meant to symbolize the overpowering terror created by the enemy over the world. From this type of art comes hatred and enmity that force countries into war because they see other nations as beast or oppressors of the world that must be exterminated.

Although this is still present in today's society, such as the cartoon a couple years ago of Muhammad with a nuclear bomb from a Swiss paper I believe, I think that over the years Americans and the global community has become less naive. As seen in the documentary people of the World War II era and Cold War era disliked the Japanese and USSR respectively because of the pictures propagandists created. As cited in The Faces of the Enemy, when asked to describe communism most people could not tell you what it meant or stood for, they simply despise it because they were told it was a bad thing. However, over the past decade or so the world has become smaller due to great advances in technology, especially the computer as with e-mail and AIM, and this has created a tighter knit global community and a global community that accepts differences more than previous generations. From this communication and learned understanding of others, society has become less naive and realized that not everything governments say or portray is correct. Before people would simply condemn an entire race because the government said they presented a threat to a nation, but now society looks at this advice with a skeptical eye and considers the options and their consequences. So, although there are vast problems with foreign relations today, especially in America, the global society has become less naive and thus created a community that can function to its potential as far as decision making and has learned to keep a skeptical eye towards government, which is a definite change for the better.

Weasel Words and Political Agendas

The use of "weasel words," or words that are open to some fluctuation in definition, have become a staple of politicians and have become more prevalent over the past few years. This post arises because of the definition of torture that has come under intense study by the Bush Administration. The definition of torture on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Torture contains the weasel words, "extreme physical suffering," and "substantial curtailment." The specific words extreme and substantial are relative and are given no solidified form in the discussion of torture. From this point, the Bush Administration has chosen to redefine torture to include anything short of any action that will cause organ failure or death. As discussed in class, this opens the door to just about any type of torture because there are many other physical pains or mental pains that a person can be subject to without organ failure or death. While the Bush Administration is working around the Geneva Convention principles that no one will torture, I think that US politicians and especially the Bush Administration must be held accountable for their actions. The only solution to this ethical dilemma the Bush Administration has put the American people is to make an appeal to the United Nations and Geneva Convention participants as well as taking direct action to demand change from the government. If these changes do not occur I fear that the moral standards the United States has worked towards will be all for not because of the dire results of torturing.

Torture: A Few Thoughts

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Torture" states that torture is:

"(a) the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some
non-consenting, defenceless person; (b) the intentional, substantial
curtailment of the exercise of the person's autonomy; and (c) in
general, undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim's will."

(This definition of torture encompasses many aspects of what we now know as torture, but its sometimes limiting aspects will be ignored for this discussion.)

As stated in the article on torture on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and as most logical people will agree, torture is morally wrong and should not be permitted as a legitimate form of reconnaissance. The basis of the immorality of torture is based on the infliction of pain on another human being, the loss of autonomy, one of the most essential ethical rights of each human being, and the breaking of a person's will, which can leave permanent physical of psychological ailments that will influence the person's standard of living or quality of life in their post torture world. Despite the strong moral grounds that state that torture is immoral the practice still continues, but for what reasons can it be legitimate?

Despite the strong immoral territory that encompasses torture, it can be a legitimate option in some instances. In such cases as the "ticking bomb" scenario where a bomb has been planted and the police, who captured an accomplice in the crime, believe it to be their only option to use torture and believe torture will result in valuable information being gained to avoid detonation of the bomb. In such a case information must be known and criteria must be met in order for some moral justification to occur; the police must know (1) that the person going to be tortured has the information needed, that no other person has any information, and that the person going to be tortured is actually that person, (2) the information that the person knows puts them into guilt, (3) factual details of the situation such as there actually is a bomb, the number of people going to be effected as a result, etc. and (4) what torture consists of and if it will be a viable method in this situation. This information stated that must be known is not all encompassing by any means, but is a general criteria that I feel must be met in order for some moral justification to be made about torture in this instance. From this example we must recognize that these instances are few and far between and, by no means, should be used as support for legalizing torture. And while this information can be critical to saving thousands of lives, does it provide legitimate end to a very gray area of a heated ethical debate?

A few people will use this information about the "ticking bomb" scenario and try to make torture a legal action in times of war and in our country because we are affected by terrorism everyday. However, if this were going to become true, I think there would be a magnificent snowball effect that would ultimately undermine an sense of civility that we have tried to establish in the world today. Firstly, the legalization of torture in our country would send a message to the world that it is all right to torture because the leader of the world, the United States, says it is morally justified through the law. This would then create problems with the balance of power of our executive branch and the United States police forces because people would be able to be picked up and tortured just because they might have information in a case, which would seriously undermine the liberties prescribed by the Founding Fathers. Additionally, if we torture our prisoners of war this will provide for the door to open for our own soldiers to be tortured and that is certainly a result not desired by United States citizens or global citizens. Finally, if we were to legalize torture we would simply be reverting back to medieval times of violence and all progress made towards civility and the attainment of unalienable rights for all would be for not.

Despite the aforementioned reasons against torture I am by no means implying the absolutist view of torture, that it is wrong in all instances no matter what. I believe an absolutists view would be just as terrible as the legalization of torture because like laws and regulations, there is a gray area to morality. For instance, most people would agree that killing another human being would be wrong, however, the gray area arises in cases of self defense. Like this instance of murder, torture can be an effective means of preventing a catastrophe in such cases as the "ticking bomb scenario" if it is a last resort. So, while some cases of torture can be permitted, the actions of the United States to change the definition of torture so that the military officials can essentially "torture" people at Guantanamo and other containment areas will be taking a step in the negative direction of civil liberties and has severe consequences, as mentioned above.

Discrimination: A Hypothetical Situation

The theory of jus in bello and it's principle of discrimination are meant to limit the violence to a specific group, combatants, but what would happen if noncombatants were impeding combatants on their war path?

For one example of this I can cite the fear that the United States' strategists faced that Saddam Hussein could stockpile civilians in military bases to eliminate the possibility of a bombing. The question then arises, should we kill the civilians who are forced to hide inside a base that holds a large majority of an enemies stock hold? From here an examination needs to be made by military and civilian leaders of the attacking nation about the threat that the aforementioned stock hold possesses. If the destruction of this stock hold would severely impair the opposition and create a quicker end to war would it be ethical to kill those civilians quarantined inside with the weapons and/or supplies? I think that a great source of information on the target with civilians inside should be studied, but there could be an ethical way to kill those civilians. The only possible way for the death of the civilians to occur is if it is found that the destruction of the stock hold, and consequently the civilians, would provide an almost immediate end to the fighting. This is the only case I can think of that would permit the killing of innocents other than the innocents voluntarily become combatants.

The United States' Diplomatic Dilemma

In class today we briefly touched upon the sixth principle of jus ad bellem, war is the last resort after all diplomatic solutions are exhausted, and we also mentioned how the United States did not exhaust this avenue during World War II because the leadership "did not talk to or associate with evil." This was very true for the first portion of the war, when the world powers had the ability to place economic and other types of sanctions on Germany. Thus, the German superpower would have to rely on itself for its materials and therefore would not be able to flourish as it had. One such sanction could have been on a restriction to sell oil and gasoline to Germany because their armed forces heavily relied on these things to be mobile. However, this is a little off topic because I think that there was a point very soon after the war had begun when the diplomatic solutions no longer mattered and that point was when the world discovered the killing of millions of Jews, Polish, etc. by Nazi Germany. Once Germany decided to kill people by the millions in the concentration camps is when Hitler gave up his rights to diplomacy because the United States and other global powers had the right to protect those millions of people being slaughtered. From an ethical standpoint, this act of self defense for all humanity greatly outweighs the need for diplomacy because people's life and liberty, two extremely important ethical claims, were being stampeded. Therefore, I think that too much diplomacy occurred during World War II on the side of the United States and the neutrality principles practiced by the United States were unethical based on the ongoing suffering of millions in Hitler's concentration camps.

Child Warriors

The subsection of Just War theory, Jus in Bello, describes a need for discrimination and proportionality. I will focus on discrimination, which is the need to discriminate from combatants and innocent civilians as far as who is justifiable to be killed. This poses an interesting question especially valid to combatants in Africa, is it morally justified to kill child warriors who were raised and taught to fight by manipulative adults? On one hand there is the literal interpretation of the ethical claim and, thus, these armed combatants with intent to harm other combatants are fair game. However, these children have been raised in a military environment and have known no other way of life, so ethics would not subject these children to be killed because they are simply a tool of the monstrosities occurring in warring nations. I personally believe in the second of the aforementioned interpretations, but cannot condemn a soldier if he kills a child with a gun pointed to his/her head or if a child is shooting at a soldier because that would become a matter of self-defense, which is of course morally justified.

I'm curious to what others think. Please post comments as to your beliefs on the matter.

Mistreatment of Proper Authority

The concept of proper authority is becoming an increasingly vague line. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry suggests that proper authority "resides in the sovereign power of the state." To me, this is a very broad category ranging from government officials to the President to the Congress to the people as a whole and there is no definite notion on who this statement entails. With a foreseeable struggle of power the founding fathers created a clause in the Constitution that states, in order for the United States to engage in military conflict the Congress must first pass a declaration of war. As we all know the presidents of the past half century have taken it upon themselves to do as they see fit with the United States military, ranging from conflicts in Vietnam to today's present occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This hijacking of authority by the president should be condemned by Congress and the people of the United States, but instead we continue to fight conflicts with falsified targets and objectives. This action is not only unethical in practice, but jeopardizes the balance of power in the United States. Thus, I believe the people of the United States should demand a return to the principles of Jus ad Bellem, more specifically the declaration of war by a proper authority, by holding presidents accountable for their serious, unethical mockery of just war principles.

Jus in Bello: Means Must be Proportional to Ends

In the article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Just War Theory, it states, "In fighting a just war in which only military targets are attacked, it is still possible to breach morality by employing disproportionate force against an enemy." This claim states that no military force disproportionate to another should be used to it's capacity. That doesn't make sense to me because the point of war is to defeat the enemy and without using all available man power the stronger nation inhibits it's ability to win. The ancient Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu claims in The Art of War, a compilation of his principles of war, that a nation should not enter a battle unless victory can be possible. With this in mind, why should a nation not use all of its forces? Is it the violence the force could inflict upon the enemy? If that is the case, then could a strong ethical foundation within a military organization justify the use of unlimited soldiers?

Stem Cell Research Illegal?

In class we came to an assumption that everyone agrees that stem cell research has potential to be beneficial to human, but the disagreement arises from the extraction of these cells and where these cells are extracted from. This debate is completely logical based upon the beliefs of different individuals and organizations due to differing beliefs upon ensoulment or potentiality or the symbolic nature of an embryo. However, the government made an ethical judgment on a debate that is far from over and banned public funding of stem cell research and are in review on whether to permanently outlaw the research. (For more information on the controversy the government faces see the article by The Times Higher Education Supplement).

I think that there is a possibility of a federal case trying to legalize embryonic stem cell research and attempting to receive a part of the $20 billion dollar US medical research budget. Since abortion is legal, an argument could be made that these embryos are being wasted and that if only these embryos were used the research labs should receive a part of the government budget. Is this ethical to extract these cells from these aborted embryos? Since there is no judgment upon the moral status of the human embryonic stem cells there will be no ethical judgment upon this matter, but until that time I think there is a possibility of this court case occurring. However, once the moral status of embryonic stem cells has been established, the talks of this case occurring become extremely plausible.

Aborted Embryonic Stem Cells

Today in class we discussed the moral status of the human embryonic stem cells and came to two conclusions.

1. The stem cells have the same moral status as say a piece of skin tissue because
the stem cell at that point is simply a concentrated mass of human DNA and
other cell matter.
OR
2. The stem cells have the same moral status as a human being because of the
symbolic nature of these cells, in that in a few weeks they will resemble humans
and become self aware.

I most agree with the first statement and thus for the discussion below will assume that it is true.

---

Currently, the act of abortion is legal in the United States and thus millions of abortions are performed each year. I propose that these embryonic stem cells be used to conduct stem cell research. If there were a central organization that conducted this type of research, then this lab would be provided with millions of embryonic stem cells that were willingly given up by the woman having an abortion. So, in a sense, it is as if a woman was ridding herself of these cells, much like a cosmetic surgery, liposuction, or a more closely related action, masturbation by males. The embryonic stem cells could then be used because the woman having the abortion never intended for human life to proliferate and thus there is a simple comparison of this action to male masturbation, which most people deem a moral act. If this idea were to be allowed into commission, then, whether believing in the aforementioned number one view of the moral status of these stem cells, it should give some moral foundation to the practice. (And if not it still has the same moral foundation as say animal research.)

The Idea of Growing Animals to Strike an Ethical Balance

With all this talk about growing and developing animals in a laboratory setting leads me to only one conclusion... Why don't we just grow human beings in a lab?

If you take a look at it, animals, like us are sentiant, cognitive beings that develop from infant to toddler to adolescent to adult. If some find it ethical to grow these nonhumans in a lab why not try and grow humans. If we take artificially constructed sperm and eggs or frozen sperm and eggs and create a living human it will solve a few problems.
1. We will no longer have to deal with the difference in genes or
body systems that we experience during animals experimentation.
2. All data will be beneficial to humans, the supposed goal of animal
experimentation, and we will not have to unnecessarily harm animals.
Additionally, if we grow humans from fetal stages and provide no education we can essentially turn them into the animals we deal with now. This then elimates the problem of taking humans from the population against their will and enables testing to give positive, direct results to scientists.

So, with the above sarcastic treatment of growing animals in the laboratory I hoped I gave some insight as to the absurdity of this arguement and scratched the surface of the far unbalanced scientific research on animals.

The Ever Powerful Pharmaceutical Companies

On Monday, we discussed in class whether it was possible to strike an ethical balance between nonhuman animal suffering and potential gains to humans through animal research. During the discourse there were several points made about the treatment of the animals, how they grow them in labs and expose them to dangerous substances to gauge reactions in hope to aid humans. The other side of the argument then brought up points about how the animals are not taken out of the wild and exposing the animals to these substances is not so wrong because it may benefit the animals. This conversation of sorts all made sense and valid points were made from varying view points, but can there be an ethical balance?

I think it would be very difficult to do so and this difficulty arises because of the pharmaceutical companies and their influence. The article pointed out that little benefit is given to the species that are tested and the testing actually retards progress made towards benefiting humans. This is seen in the polio tests done on monkeys and the liver transplants on dogs. To me, this is not science or research it is an exploitation of animals because we can force them to do things against their will.

This blatant mistreatment of animals is not very well known in the average community, but has been known in the medical community for years because very few medical professionals cite animal testing as support for their hypothesis, as stated in the article. And the very reason for this oversight is that it is not exposed and written about in mainstream media. I believe this is due to pharmaceutical companies throwing money at a problem to keep it under wraps because animal testing has been the god send for pharmaceutical companies in court. The animal testing becomes a scapegoat and the lawyers say, "we have countless tests on animals and found that it has done no harm to these animals so it can be our fault." And due to this sweeping under the rug by mainstream media and pharmaceutical companies countless people suffer from the dangerous side effects of drugs, receive wrong treatments or go untreated. So, the ethical balance being sought for in our discussion can never be achieved under the circumstances because the overshadowing evil of large pharmaceutical companies casts too great of an unethical shadow it hinders the process and until drastic reform is made there can be no talk or further testing on animals.