Halftime feedback on cannibalism

The articles from Theodore Dalrymple, "The Case for Cannibalism" and BBC "German Cannibal Tells of Fantasy". We all read about Armin Meiwes' who placed an advertisement on the internet for a young man to be eaten alive. That young man name was Bernd-Jurgen Brande who answer the advertisement in March of 2001. The only reason that Meiwes got caught he place another advertisement and the police were alerted

Now here are some responses to some of the questions posted by the pregamers.

• In the case where cannibalism is used as a ritual, such as sacrificing and eating their opponenet as revenge....then, does that make the act of eating another's flesh okay.
  

Our answer to that is in our society it is not correct or legal. In other society we have to realize that some tribes do not know anything but cannibalism. It is a way of living and survival, they are fulfilling religious rites. Tribal practices that predate the society that we live in and they find it a normal thing to do.

• Should an individual's rights (freedom) be restricted if he/she is "emotionally ill?"

Yes the individual's rights should be restricted look at Bernd-Jurgen Brande who agree to be eaten alive. He most had been "emotionally ill" to agree to be eaten alive.

Locke Questions

• Is there such thing as total freedom?

No there is no total freedom in our society or other societies. If we had total freedom it would be the beginning of the end in an anarchistic fashion. We have rules for the sole purpose to protect our rights and allow us to live as "free" as we can amongst one another with all of our differences.

• Can one be completely free?
  No one is completely free we all follows rules and laws from our society.

HALFTIME FEEDBACK

In conjuction with the discussinon that we were debating about banning yellow in Boston the halftime group is against it. We were discussing if the majority votes to ban yellow it will lead to other issues that will infringe upon our rights. It's like John Locke's philosophy is based on natural right meaning that certain rights belong to all regardless of where they live. We all believe in life, health, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Spreadsheet!

Use THIS SPREADSHEET to sign up for your timeslot for next week's oral exam!

Pre-Game: Locke/Cannibalism

Hey guys, here are the questions that we came up for the reading. Hope that they get you thinking! :)

Cannibalism Questions:

• We are familiar with cannibalism as a source of survival- where human flesh is eaten to avoid starvation. However, cannibalism is also used as a source of dietary and rituals.

• In the case where cannibalism is used as a ritual, such as sacrificing and eating their opponents as revenge…Then, does that make the act of eating another’s flesh okay?

• Should an individual’s rights (freedom) be restricted if he/she is “emotionally ill?”

• If everyone were giving the choice to do as they please, how would that affect society as a whole? Would it be beneficial to society? Or would it destroy it?

• If both parties agree to a crime, where one of them is going to die, is a crime still being committed?

• If someone is mentally ill, should they receive the same punishment as someone who is “sane”?

• Should the government monitor the internet to make sure that ads that intail a crime being committed is not posted? If not, should the government be looked down upon more than the person that committed the crime?

• Germany lets the public see and hear about everything that is happening in any case. Depending on the nature of the crime, should this be allowed?

• Do you believe that the “individual, not the state, is the judge of his/her own interests”?

Locke Questions:

• Is there such a thing as total freedom?

• Can someone have too much freedom? How much freedom is too much freedom?

• Can one be completely free?

• Which is more important in a society: paternal society or political society? Which is the most effective?

• If it right for a government to have its citizens all live at the same level? Or should the levels be earned, like in a game of survival of the fittest?

• If you were told that you had to share your, hard earned, wealth with other people who were not trying to make money, would you be okay with this?

Post Game - The Color Yellow

In general, the class agreed on the idea of preserving civil liberties. However, after listening to the discussion from the pre-gamers, they introduced the hypothetical situation of the discrimination of the color yellow could lead to gang violence, hate crimes, and segregation. Upon our discussions, the post game group arrived at the concept of the majority not always being morally correct. Just because the majority has the highest number of supports does not always mean they are doing the right thing. In this situation, banning the color yellow infringes upon the civil liberties of the individual. The suggestion to ban the color yellow is felt by the post gamers to only pacify the needs and feelings of the majority and is not concerned with the civil liberties of the individual.

Readings for the week beginning 9/25

NEW READINGS HERE!!


Know your rights!



Sandel, Chapter 3
Excerpts from Second Treatise on Government, by John Locke
Cases on cannibalism, prostitution, and suicide:
BBC "German Cannibal Tells of Fantasy"
Theodore Dalrymple, "The Case for Cannibalism"
Please read this blog post from the Philosophy Talk folks, which covers some cool ideas about prostitution.
CNN feature on Blick v. Connecticut, "Dying with Dignity"






And, thanks to a suggestion that I should draw your attention to this somehow to differentiate it from other posts: I am inserting a semi-random video.  This is the most recent song on my iPod.  The main purpose it serves in this post is to make it LOOK DIFFERENT.  You are not required to listen to the song.)


(But it's actually quite a good song.  You might like it. :) )

Pre-Game Blog

Thanks for the great summary, Post-Gamers!

Here are some ideas we'd like to invite you all to explore for the coming week:

Why does it seem societies treat different age groups differently?
Why does it seem the loss of childlike innocence leads to the making of poor choices as adults?
As others get older and begin to understand right from wrong, do we - should we - hold them to a higher standard?


How do we know when an action is worth of punishment?
How much punishment is enough?
Should we stop if the offender feels remorse?
Whose responsibility is it to intervene? Why?

Who creates the norms of society?
Why we allow them this final say?
Should different groups be subject to different moral code?
How do we decide who is worthy of our love?
Why do we make these classifications?
Why must some suffer for the actions of others?
What does this say about a society that allows this behavior?

Does the sacrifice of one's own happiness ever create a better environment for the many?
Is it ever morally acceptable to put a price of a human being's life?

Why do we seem to value statistics and the greater good instinctively, but find it upsetting when these situations are put in front of us?
Why does the "out of sight, out of mind mentality" make peace of mind come easier than facing the situation?
Why do some choose to stay uninformed? Why do some do nothing even when informed?
Why does the price of morality come from the suffering of others? Why, only after we are outraged, do we act?
How can mankind be capable of such horrendous behavior and still judge others?

What happens if our "duty to our fellow man" proves to be more than we are capable of delivering?
Why do we allow ourselves to feel guilt - even if we can get away with what we've done?
Is a situation ever really helpless?


Enjoy! And Have a Great Week!

Post-Blog

The Constitution and Dudley&Stevens case both reflect the important ethical belief of whether or not it is more important to focus on the greater good or individual rights of society. We believe that both cases show that society is more focused on the greater good over the individual rights. The Constitution was made for the benefit of everyone but was not able focus more on specific problems of the individual. The ratification made in the constitution represent the concerns of the rights of the people as individuals in the community. The Dudley & Stevens case showed that the greater good prevailing over the individual rights. The two sailors that thought up the idea to kill the young man and eat him for survival; only because they felt it was either all of them die or they kill the young man to survive. The individual rights was less important then the greater good in that circumstance.

Readings for the week beginning 9/19:
Sandel, chapter 2
Excerpt from The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula K. LeGuin

Please DO NOT read Mill, Utilitarianism.  I've changed my mind.  Just make sure you read chapter 2 of Sandel very thoroughly.

Week 1:The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens

Hey, sorry everybody for the late post!! Hopefully all of those who regularly check the internet might see this before class begins.

Alicia had some really good questions in response to the hand out. Here they are.

- Should we rate the value of another's life in comparison to our own?

- Who are we to decide if someone's reasoning behind their actions is "justifiable" to the circumstances of their situation?

- Is taking the life of another ever a true "necessity"?

- Should justification play a role of greater importance in law or morality?

- Where does the line between the law and morality blur? (Gray area)

- Who should be responsible for punishment? .. Should the individual's remorse be taken into consideration?

- When should empathy and mercy be shown when it comes to punishment?

This question of cannibalism reminds me of the story of an airplane carrying a rugby team that crashes in the Andes. The survivors sustain themselves on the bodies of the dead. They were stranded for over 70 days high up in the mountains. Here is a link to a documentary about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA2zYwp4XzY&feature=related

Pre-game team!  I'm dying to read what you've got!  Please post soon--I and your classmates are really hoping to hear from you soon to help us prepare for Monday's class! If you need any help, you know where to find me!

Hi all! Thanks for a good first class today! I'll look forward to resuming our introductions on Monday!

 Just a reminder: for next class, please make sure you read the first chapter of Justice, our textbook for this class, as well as The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, which I handed out in class today. You can read it here online if you missed the handout.

 Please also make sure you fill out the Google form linked on the previous post so you can get access to this blog.

 If you have any questions about the syllabus, as ever, ask me!

 PREGAME team: please make sure you post by 6:00 PM on Sunday! We're all counting on you to get us off to a good start!

Welcome!

Welcome! This is the blog for Ethics at BHCC with Prof. Monica Poole.

Please fill out this form: This is how you will get access to this blog, among other things. Filling it out BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST WEEK is important.