Right or Wrong?

       Since I was a child, my parents                                                                                                        taught me right from wrong. They said never to steal for any circumstances whether we need it the money or not it is consider bad to do. My parent's teaching are still engraved in my head until this day like a tattoo. They say that if it is going to harm someone than you should not do it. My parents said that it is part of being an honest and loyal person.

                Last week in class we were discussion the different views of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. The thinking of these men got me thinking of the teachings of my parents. They also got me thinking of what is really considered right or wrong.  On one hand, John Stuart Mill believed in Utilitarianism. This is the belief of the Greatest Happiness. By this Mill, believe that if you do something for the greater good of society than it is okay to do it no matter what it is. He believes that the universal law is within the individual. On the other hand, we have Immanuel Kant view, which is Categorical Imperative. That is if you do something to harm someone even if the person is not an active member of society you are doing a bad. He believes that you need to follow the universal laws. He believes that a wrong no matter what your reasons are.

                Take for example murder in our heads we know that it is wrong to kill someone. So what makes some people kill others? Maybe they do it because they follow the thinking of John Stuart Mill, which is if it is for the better of society than its okay to do. So who decides if the death of someone in a society is for the greater good of a community? Well it all depends on the person who was murder. If the person was an active member of society than the person, who committed the act should be punish because he or she is not doing it for the community but for selfish reasons. However, if the person was just causing problems in the community than it is okay for him to die and the person who killed such person should not be punish. Now look at the examples I gave you above but in the view of Immanuel Kant. He believes that no matter if the person you killed was or was not an active member of society you should be punished for killing that person.

      I guess it all depends on what you as an individual thinks. If you believe as Mill, you should not go kill someone because you think that that person is no good for society because our government is not form with the thinking of Mill but with Kant's. Therefore, there is a chance that the court will find you guilty if you use Mill thinking as a defense. As for me, I follow Kant just because I was taught that since I was little and our government follows the same thinking. The point is that Kant and Mill are both great philosophers in their own way.

                 

Misconceptions..

                For the pass few day in my English class we have been learning about stem cell research and if it is ethical or not.  We learn that there are three types of stem cells: adult or Somatic, embryonic, and cord-blood embryonic stem cells. However, let us focus on the most controversial type of stem cell, which is the embryonic stem cell. There are only about 36 is our body. The good thing about that is that our body is able reproduce more in case we run out. Another thing is that the embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated pluripotent cells, which means that they could do anything, function. For that reason, they are the most controversial because they could produce to anything kind of cell that you please. These cells come from the womb before abortion.

                Now the embryonic are the most commonly use on research. Do you think it is ethical to use the cells to find cure?

                Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion about the topic but some philosophers' believe that one's personal beliefs should have nothing to do with what we believe about stem cell research.  After reading my course reader pg 103-110 by Ronald M. Green, I saw a new point of view about stem cell research. Green argued throughout the article that stem cells research should be able to be conduct. He states that unwanted or unclaimed stem cells are being thrown after awhile, so why not put them in scientist hand to conduct research. He states that instead of putting them to reset we could conduct research in order to find cure for diseases such as cancer and diabetes.

                I have to say that I agree with that. Even though we are manipulating cells for our benefit, those cells are still going to be throw away so might as well use them for some "good." That way we could help people in need and save future people that may get that disease.

                Another thing that got me thinking is the political cartoon that Professor Morse gave my group. The cartoon was about a stem cell that was in heaven, so to speak, and he or she was asked if he was a partial-birth abortion and the stem cell said "no stem cell research."  People believe that when you conduct stem cell research it is the same thing as conducting an abortion but the truth is that it not. They are different because an abortion is when the stem is planted on the egg but the cell is just a cell therefore it has not developed any form of living creature. Yes, the cell could have potentially become a human being but the point is that it was not therefore no abortion was committed.

                There are two ways to look upon stem cell research. Whatever way you look at it, you see the good and the bad. If you think, it is unethical to conduct stem cell research you are stopping research that could be done to save living people that have incurable diseases and you are wasting cell that could be use for good.  Now if you believe it is ethical then you are "killing potential humans" and messing with the cells, which eventually could led to cloning.