Blog 5 - How did the second contemporary issue effect your principles? Are you better able to see areas where your principles need adjusting? What adjustments need to be made? Which philosopher's position was least consistent with your own principles and why?

The second issue definitely questioned my principles.  It's definitely a difficult matter to determine when life ACTUALLY begins.  From my previous learning and knowledge, I have always believed it to be when the sperm and the oocyte fertilize to form a zygote.  From that point on the zygote rapidly beings growing and nine months later a baby is born.  But then there is the controversial issue that it would be murder if abortion were to take place, and I used to consider myself pro-abortion.  It was extremely difficult for me to choose one philosopher to agree with because both have good supporting arguments.  However, I feel like I agree with Noonan more because I agree with most of his principles.  The reason why I do not agree with Warren to the same extent is because some of her ideas are arguable.  For example, when she says that women have the right to control their own body, I somewhat disagree with.  If a woman is willing to engage in actions that lead her to become pregnant, she must then share her body with the growing fetus.  Also, I disagree with her list of personhood.  I feel that scientifically, there is much more to life than the ability to communicate and reason.This week I will be commenting on http://ndeahterry.blogspot.com

Blog 4- How did the first contemporary issue effect your principles? Did it challenge them? Were your principles helpful in working out your response to the issue? Which philosopher's position was most consistent with your own principles and why?


My principles were challenged by the idea of cloning, but I feel that my personal principles also assisted in determining what I agreed with and arguments I did not agree with.  I agree with stem cell research to find more insight into growing organs.  As a science major, I do see importance in the need of growing a person's organs with their own cells.  It will minimize rejection rates, and extend life.  However, cloning humans as a whole challenges moral and ethical rights.  There would definitely be expectations that the clone would have to become something greater that the original human.  I feel that we are all born, unique and diverse, and have to fight to become something greater.  If cloning becomes apparent, genetic engineering is not far behind.  Therefore, parents will be able to genetically make their offspring....perfect.  That then brings the question of how will the child manage under the stress of being "perfect"?  When parents have such high hopes for their child, anything done incorrectly would be problematic and confrontational.  
I feel like I agreed with Kass more only because as a whole, I generally am against cloning.  I agree that it is repugnant to want an offspring that is identical to oneself.  It does become a selfish right to want to outlive ones own death.  Childbirth is a beautiful and natural thing that has been occurring ever since life on earth.  It is a spiritual bonding between a husband and wife when they have a child, made up of both their DNA, because it is a mixture of each other.  However, cloning would take away the reproductive assistance of the male.  
This week I commented on http://jessbiondi.blogspot.com

Blog 3 - What Social / Moral Principles do you find compelling and why? How do these principles fit with the personal principles you identified in Blog 2? Do they conflict at all? Do you think you can live according to both? How will you go about doing so? i.e. Prioritize them? Adopt specific ones for specific contexts?


I think Sartre's existentialism is most compelling because one of his ideas is that there is no final judgement, we all just live and then we die.  The reason why I find his idea to be most compelling is because it seems that his way of thinking would just lead to chaos and inhumanity.  However, the realization is that his ideas might actually somewhat better society.  It allows the public to "live in the now" so to speak and find the overall good of society.  His principles are very similar to my own, and I feel that I have managed morals that conclude me to be a decent human being.  I have not based my life around the final judgement of God, however I still have been able to grow as a caring individual with good morals.  Despite my lack of faith, I would still like to believe that there is something after death.  I will not know until that time comes, but because of my hope in something after death, I suppose our ideas somewhat conflict.  However, it is possible to live by both because I don't base my entire decision making processes on faith, which is the principle of Sartre's existentialism.  I mainly use the idea of God as peace of mind. To do so, I will continue to take advantage of each second I am granted on earth.  When I make a poor decision, I will take blame for the poor decision.  It will be because of my morals, my ideas, my principles of life; not what I am guided to live by.  I will follow my beliefs and not judge others for theirs.  Because Sartre's existentialism allows us to all freely voice and adhere to our beliefs I will not look at other people's ideas as wrong or bad.


I have commented on http://lukedemuro.blogspot.com/

Blog 2 - What personal principles did you adhere to before entering this course and where did they come from? Were they taught to you? Did you develop them on your own? How have our readings and discussions impacted those principles? Of the principles covered which are you drawn to the most and why?




Early in my life, my parents taught me a strong sense of morals. Mostly the basic and obvious morals; treat other the way you want to be treated, put yourself in other peoples shoes, try you're best and never give up. But throughout life I have also learned from my own experiences. I've made mistakes, and learned to never make those mistakes again. But I have also tried new things, and learned to always try new things when given the opportunity. I never had a strong sense of religion. Because I never have though, it makes me more intrigued to other people's view towards religion. I appreciate how the world is diverse; we all have our own sets of standards and morals for living. Mine...you only live once so take advantage of every breath.




Our readings and class discussions really help me to appreciate each individuals ways of thinking. I am more of a listener than talker, but just because I don't always give my input, I do appreciate what each person has to say. However, our readings haven't really impacted my way of thinking, they have more just broadened my ideas. My favorite reading was Aristotle's because I agree with his idea of happiness being self-sufficient. I also really appreciated how he describes the two kinds of virtue, one being intellectual and one being moral. Intellectual virtue comes from experience and time whereas moral virtue is habit. I feel like my principles stem from this idea, and I agree with a lot of which Aristotle has to say.




This week I will be commenting on http://becksbradley.blogspot.com/ and http://illybueno.blogspot.com/