An article published today in the New York Times studies the relationship between beauty products (specifically those related to nail salons) and reproductive issues and cancers. It alleges that the chemicals used in the various polishes, solvents, glues, and hardeners have been linked to these sort of issues and can be especially problematic for salon workers who are constantly exposed to the products. Meanwhile, industry leaders continue to deny any causal relationship, claiming that the chemicals are used in trace quantities that render them harmless.
This strikes me as another case of miss-aligned incentives where business leaders can continue to make large profits by denying that there is anything wrong with what they are doing instead of working to deal with the issues. It is reminiscent of tobacco companies with lung cancer and fossil fuel based utility groups and climate change.
Here is a link to the article: <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/nyregion/nail-salon-workers-in-nyc-face-hazardous-chemicals.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news>
Friday, May 8, 2015
Net Neutrailty
http://business-ethics.com/2015/04/29/0921-examining-success-for-net-neutrality-a-lesson-in-digital-power/
As we move farther into the digital age, the issue of net neutrailty is sure to gain more and more traction. A recent failed merger between Time Warner Cable and Comcast was the result of public backlash at the idea of the internet being domineered by a single entity. But should we consider the internet a public or a provate good? In that vein, do we each have a right to thw internet, the same bandwith and speed, for just paying for wifi? Or should there be different tiers of charges where customers who pay more get faster services like streaming and high speed search engines?
My take on the issue is congruent with Obama's and recent FCC proposals. The goal would be to have net neutrailty become a virtual certainty by protecting and placing restrictions on what these media giant companies can charge and restrict. More regulation does not necessarily make a better society, but at the same time these regulatioms seem to surely prevent a hreat deal of harm.
Another thing to take into account is what value consumers place on the internet. Do they view it almost as a negative right? I certainly would be appalled if internet access was made slower to me simply because of my income standing. But, as always, there are 2 sides to the issue.
What do you guys think of net neutrality? Of the future of media?
As we move farther into the digital age, the issue of net neutrailty is sure to gain more and more traction. A recent failed merger between Time Warner Cable and Comcast was the result of public backlash at the idea of the internet being domineered by a single entity. But should we consider the internet a public or a provate good? In that vein, do we each have a right to thw internet, the same bandwith and speed, for just paying for wifi? Or should there be different tiers of charges where customers who pay more get faster services like streaming and high speed search engines?
My take on the issue is congruent with Obama's and recent FCC proposals. The goal would be to have net neutrailty become a virtual certainty by protecting and placing restrictions on what these media giant companies can charge and restrict. More regulation does not necessarily make a better society, but at the same time these regulatioms seem to surely prevent a hreat deal of harm.
Another thing to take into account is what value consumers place on the internet. Do they view it almost as a negative right? I certainly would be appalled if internet access was made slower to me simply because of my income standing. But, as always, there are 2 sides to the issue.
What do you guys think of net neutrality? Of the future of media?
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Follow-Up to Whistleblowing Presentation: Collateral Murder by Wikileaks
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
This is a link to the video mentioned during mine and Keer's presentation on whistleblowing.
It entails raw combat footage from the events that occurred that day. Viewer discretion is advised.
This is a link to the video mentioned during mine and Keer's presentation on whistleblowing.
It entails raw combat footage from the events that occurred that day. Viewer discretion is advised.
3-D Printing and Free Speech
Last night WIRED.com posted an article about a law suit against the state department filed by Cody Wilson, that claimed that the state department had infringed upon Mr. Wilson's right to free speech by requiring him to remove some of his company's blueprints from the internet. You may remember Cody Wilson's name because he and his company Defense Distributed released the first publicly accessible set of blueprints for a 3-D printed pistol roughly 2 years ago.
We talked in class a fair bit about what gun makers and sellers have a moral obligation to do in terms of controlling what they sell and who they sell it to. Defense Distributed's mission strikes me as a very interesting twist on that discussion because they are not actually selling or manufacturing weapons. They are, however, deliberately choosing to distribute the blueprints so that anyone can make a weapon if they have a consumer grade 3-D printer. On the one hand this strikes me as highly problematic. Is there really any moral difference between selling a gun to an individual with a high potential for misuse (think people with a history of violence or mental instability) and making guns available to them? On the other hand, restricting the posting of the blueprints does seem to violate the free speech rights of Cody Wilson. The blueprints really are essentially his ideas and thoughts in picture and schematic form (basically the same as an artist's paintings or sketches) and it does seem as though he has at least a default right to share them as a result of his right to free speech along with basic property rights. This does, however, strike me as a case of the type of free speech that we might be willing to restrict because it can cause immediate harm to others. We might want to prevent the publishing of this type of information for the same reasons that we make it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater but that doesn't necessarily mean that his rights haven't been violated.
In any case I would be curios to hear people's responses to this version of the firearms debate because I do think that it introduces new elements and conflicts between rights and a desire to reduce risk of harm. Here is a link to the original article for more information: <http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/>
We talked in class a fair bit about what gun makers and sellers have a moral obligation to do in terms of controlling what they sell and who they sell it to. Defense Distributed's mission strikes me as a very interesting twist on that discussion because they are not actually selling or manufacturing weapons. They are, however, deliberately choosing to distribute the blueprints so that anyone can make a weapon if they have a consumer grade 3-D printer. On the one hand this strikes me as highly problematic. Is there really any moral difference between selling a gun to an individual with a high potential for misuse (think people with a history of violence or mental instability) and making guns available to them? On the other hand, restricting the posting of the blueprints does seem to violate the free speech rights of Cody Wilson. The blueprints really are essentially his ideas and thoughts in picture and schematic form (basically the same as an artist's paintings or sketches) and it does seem as though he has at least a default right to share them as a result of his right to free speech along with basic property rights. This does, however, strike me as a case of the type of free speech that we might be willing to restrict because it can cause immediate harm to others. We might want to prevent the publishing of this type of information for the same reasons that we make it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater but that doesn't necessarily mean that his rights haven't been violated.
In any case I would be curios to hear people's responses to this version of the firearms debate because I do think that it introduces new elements and conflicts between rights and a desire to reduce risk of harm. Here is a link to the original article for more information: <http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/>
Further Research about Employee loyalty
Nowadays, employees tend to be less and less loyal to their company. Here is an interesting video about firms whose employees are the least loyal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U5pUKoT550
In my presentation, I introduced David E. Soles's three concepts of loyalty. He gives that conclusion that employees do not have any obligation to keep loyal. However, it seems not that true in the real world. It is one of the top reasons that company lose their customers. The high turnover rate plays a negative role in firms' performance. Some economists think that if a firm cannot keep its employees long enough, it cannot keep their customers long enough too. Sometimes employees lose loyalty because they are not treated well by firms, sometimes because of other reasons. And for the firms, it is hard for them to know how loyal is their employees, it is hard to measure.
A research from Wharton analyses this problems in depth.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/declining-employee-loyalty-a-casualty-of-the-new-workplace/
What do you think? Is loyalty important?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U5pUKoT550
In my presentation, I introduced David E. Soles's three concepts of loyalty. He gives that conclusion that employees do not have any obligation to keep loyal. However, it seems not that true in the real world. It is one of the top reasons that company lose their customers. The high turnover rate plays a negative role in firms' performance. Some economists think that if a firm cannot keep its employees long enough, it cannot keep their customers long enough too. Sometimes employees lose loyalty because they are not treated well by firms, sometimes because of other reasons. And for the firms, it is hard for them to know how loyal is their employees, it is hard to measure.
A research from Wharton analyses this problems in depth.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/declining-employee-loyalty-a-casualty-of-the-new-workplace/
What do you think? Is loyalty important?
Free coffee may not bring happiness (2012)
A nice gesture turned for the worst when a North Carolina police officer was given a free cup of coffee at Starbucks. Upon receiving his coffee, the lid popped from the cup, causing the coffee to spill on his thigh and groin area.
The officer is suing Starbucks for $50,000 to cover medical fees, claiming this stress led to reactivation of his pre-existing condition: Crohn's disease. As a result, he had to have a large part of his small intestine removed. The officer claimed he did not think the coffee was "that hot." Additionally, the officer's wife stated that she was also affected because she lost her "intimate partner"
http://www.wral.com/hot-coffee-lands-raleigh-officer-starbucks-in-lawsuit-battle/14622348/
This event can be linked to the 1994 Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurants case from the textbook.
What are your thoughts on this case?
The officer is suing Starbucks for $50,000 to cover medical fees, claiming this stress led to reactivation of his pre-existing condition: Crohn's disease. As a result, he had to have a large part of his small intestine removed. The officer claimed he did not think the coffee was "that hot." Additionally, the officer's wife stated that she was also affected because she lost her "intimate partner"
http://www.wral.com/hot-coffee-lands-raleigh-officer-starbucks-in-lawsuit-battle/14622348/
This event can be linked to the 1994 Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurants case from the textbook.
What are your thoughts on this case?
Monday, April 27, 2015
Responsibility in Supply Chain Managment
Last night, HBO aired an episode of John Oliver's show "Last Week Tonight" that featured as its main segment a criticism of major clothing retailers for failing to ensure that their products are not being sourced from groups that behave in ethically problematic way towards their employees (ie sweatshops of those that employ young children). Here is a link to the video:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdLf4fihP78>
One of the main criticisms that was levied was that companies are paying lip service to attempting to remove products made in sweatshops from their stores but don't seem to exert much effort in determining where exactly their clothing is coming from. I take it that most people think that employers have some moral responsibility to ensure that their products are not being made in a way that violates the rights of or is harmful to the workers that make them (I recognize from our in class discussion of similar cases that some of the class will not agree). The question is, to what extent does that responsibility extend out into complicated supply chains? How much effort must a company make to ensure that it's subcontractors are behaving in an ethical manner?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdLf4fihP78>
One of the main criticisms that was levied was that companies are paying lip service to attempting to remove products made in sweatshops from their stores but don't seem to exert much effort in determining where exactly their clothing is coming from. I take it that most people think that employers have some moral responsibility to ensure that their products are not being made in a way that violates the rights of or is harmful to the workers that make them (I recognize from our in class discussion of similar cases that some of the class will not agree). The question is, to what extent does that responsibility extend out into complicated supply chains? How much effort must a company make to ensure that it's subcontractors are behaving in an ethical manner?
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Is providing benefits a demonstration of good character or a method of control?
People have given accolades to companies such as Google for its benefits to employees. Such things include free access to rental cars, free gyms on campus, and free breakfast, lunch, and dinner. In addition they even have access to Google technology that have not been released in order to get work done (Google Employees Reveal Their Favorite Perks Working For The Company
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-favorite-perks-2013-3?op=1#ixzz3YS1vOUOA). However, a rather theoretical argument ensues such work atmospheres. Due to the amount of benefits offered to the employees, one can argue that this allows managers or the bosses to take advantage of employees such as give them wages in an untimely manner. Would it be sufficient to say that people would be less willing to request their wages because of the exceeding amount of benefits that they receive? Does this at all seem like a form of exploitation of workers?
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-favorite-perks-2013-3?op=1#ixzz3YS1vOUOA). However, a rather theoretical argument ensues such work atmospheres. Due to the amount of benefits offered to the employees, one can argue that this allows managers or the bosses to take advantage of employees such as give them wages in an untimely manner. Would it be sufficient to say that people would be less willing to request their wages because of the exceeding amount of benefits that they receive? Does this at all seem like a form of exploitation of workers?
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Potential whistleblower here in Rochester?
This is a very recent posting about a fellow Rochester taxi driver from Marketplace Taxi who sent in a video recording of another Rochester taxi dispatcher making offensive remarks about the customers. You can read and watch the news here: http://www.whec.com/article/stories/s3774497.shtml
It has been popping up on social media, so I thought I could share an example of what may qualify as an act of whistle-blowing. Marketplace Taxi has a special partnership with the UofR; on our school's webpage, it endorses Marketplace Taxi as a safe and reliable way of transportation. In the video, the dispatcher is seen on a hidden camera making offensive and racist comments. The owner of the camera is also a taxi driver. She claims that the inappropriate behavior has been going on for five months. What she doesn't mention, or that the camera did not capture on screen, is if she has said or done anything to the offensive dispatcher in hopes to resolve it.
It seems nowadays it's too easy to expose immoral acts by simply turning on the camera. We see examples of this in viral videos of unwarranted police brutality, inappropriate customer service, and more. Do you think this woman should be classified as a whistle-blower? During the presentation on whistle-blowing, there were a couple of conditions to qualify as a whistle-blower, such as appealing internally within an organization about the problem before turning externally. However, like I said about contemporary exposure through fast, efficient cameras, would a regular Joe be considered a whistle-blower if he uploads a video of his employer making inappropriate comments towards something? What if after the video, the company goes through major reformations and overall good comes from it?
It has been popping up on social media, so I thought I could share an example of what may qualify as an act of whistle-blowing. Marketplace Taxi has a special partnership with the UofR; on our school's webpage, it endorses Marketplace Taxi as a safe and reliable way of transportation. In the video, the dispatcher is seen on a hidden camera making offensive and racist comments. The owner of the camera is also a taxi driver. She claims that the inappropriate behavior has been going on for five months. What she doesn't mention, or that the camera did not capture on screen, is if she has said or done anything to the offensive dispatcher in hopes to resolve it.
It seems nowadays it's too easy to expose immoral acts by simply turning on the camera. We see examples of this in viral videos of unwarranted police brutality, inappropriate customer service, and more. Do you think this woman should be classified as a whistle-blower? During the presentation on whistle-blowing, there were a couple of conditions to qualify as a whistle-blower, such as appealing internally within an organization about the problem before turning externally. However, like I said about contemporary exposure through fast, efficient cameras, would a regular Joe be considered a whistle-blower if he uploads a video of his employer making inappropriate comments towards something? What if after the video, the company goes through major reformations and overall good comes from it?
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
The Problem with Corporate Volunteerism
I was reading our upcoming chapter and it discussed corporate volunteerism/civic duty and how this can be pushed upon employees in a negative way (Read more pg 431). The discussion reminded me of another side of this issue I had read about which I think the book has neglected, which is that there are often harms for the non-profit that corporate workers are volunteering at.
Great piece by the Boston Globe Business Section with comments from the COO of YMCA Metro North about the pressures non-profits feel in catering to businesses looking to "do good".
Are these complaints justified? Should non-profits be grateful for any and all help or are corporations asking too much?
Great piece by the Boston Globe Business Section with comments from the COO of YMCA Metro North about the pressures non-profits feel in catering to businesses looking to "do good".
Are these complaints justified? Should non-profits be grateful for any and all help or are corporations asking too much?
Monday, April 6, 2015
The Relationship Between Minimum Wage and Unemployment
The topic of minimum wage got me thinking today about a topic that came up in my economics course. It was regarding the burden placed on businesses in providing wages.
It is known that businesses are targeted for giving employees "low wages". But when referring to the idea of unemployment and minimum wage, some would argue that businesses are providing some welfare to society by paying a minimum wage without it being a moral obligation (this is disregarding that it is in fact a federal requirement). In other words, the argument of having minimum wage or no money (i.e. unemployment) at all arises. Is the correlation between minimum wage and employment that strong? Or should these set of people be grouped differently?
It is known that businesses are targeted for giving employees "low wages". But when referring to the idea of unemployment and minimum wage, some would argue that businesses are providing some welfare to society by paying a minimum wage without it being a moral obligation (this is disregarding that it is in fact a federal requirement). In other words, the argument of having minimum wage or no money (i.e. unemployment) at all arises. Is the correlation between minimum wage and employment that strong? Or should these set of people be grouped differently?
This topic may not be relevant to the current chapter that we are covering but it did strike my attention. It is in regards to the consequentialism and is meant to facilitate discussion rather than being posted to make a point.
I remember someone in class mentioning the "timeliness of consequentialism" and in bringing this up it was noted that in certain scenarios, taking time to think about the potential results would lead to bad consequences. In the case where Professor Tresan is lecturing the class and a student begins seizing outside and he is the only one that is capable of saving this person's life. Consequentialists would argue that it would lead to bad consequences if Tresan dedicated a significant amount of time contemplating the consequences of saving the life of this student.
In regards to our decisions, it is reasonable to believe that some of choices are based on intuition at least to some degree. Provided this, I believe that in some cases intuition drives our choices in the sphere of consequentialism. As defined in our readings, an intuitive level of thinking is "generally applied principles" that motivate our very decisions (i.e. kindness, honesty, courage, and loyalty). In general, I believe people are confronted by situations in which they have to react hastily and in some cases intuitively. Given the former example, Professor Tresan would act intuitively rather than sitting to think about the consequences. By this, I mean that he might base his decision to save him on kindness or even some moral inclination given that he is the only individual capable of saving the student's life. After all he is not morally obligated to save the student's life. In essence I believe that intuition is vital in our decision making in happenstances that require immediate reactions. Does anyone agree to what I am saying or is there something fundamentally incorrect about my statements?
I remember someone in class mentioning the "timeliness of consequentialism" and in bringing this up it was noted that in certain scenarios, taking time to think about the potential results would lead to bad consequences. In the case where Professor Tresan is lecturing the class and a student begins seizing outside and he is the only one that is capable of saving this person's life. Consequentialists would argue that it would lead to bad consequences if Tresan dedicated a significant amount of time contemplating the consequences of saving the life of this student.
In regards to our decisions, it is reasonable to believe that some of choices are based on intuition at least to some degree. Provided this, I believe that in some cases intuition drives our choices in the sphere of consequentialism. As defined in our readings, an intuitive level of thinking is "generally applied principles" that motivate our very decisions (i.e. kindness, honesty, courage, and loyalty). In general, I believe people are confronted by situations in which they have to react hastily and in some cases intuitively. Given the former example, Professor Tresan would act intuitively rather than sitting to think about the consequences. By this, I mean that he might base his decision to save him on kindness or even some moral inclination given that he is the only individual capable of saving the student's life. After all he is not morally obligated to save the student's life. In essence I believe that intuition is vital in our decision making in happenstances that require immediate reactions. Does anyone agree to what I am saying or is there something fundamentally incorrect about my statements?
Friday, February 20, 2015
Hey All,
Saw this yesterday and thought it was particularly relevant to our discussion on Wal-Mart (If you don't want to read the article, long story short, Wal-Mart just raised their employees entry-level wage to $9).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/19/us-walmartstores-results-idUSKBN0LN1BD20150219
Wall Street Journal's take on it
http://www.wsj.com/articles/tighter-labor-market-helped-to-drive-wal-mart-wage-rise-1424383918?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
What do you think the reason for this is?
Saw this yesterday and thought it was particularly relevant to our discussion on Wal-Mart (If you don't want to read the article, long story short, Wal-Mart just raised their employees entry-level wage to $9).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/19/us-walmartstores-results-idUSKBN0LN1BD20150219
Wall Street Journal's take on it
http://www.wsj.com/articles/tighter-labor-market-helped-to-drive-wal-mart-wage-rise-1424383918?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
What do you think the reason for this is?
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Not sure if appropriate, but this was really interesting
A lot of you may know about the huge online community: Reddit. What is Reddit? A speedy intro of Reddit from Wikipedia writes that "Reddit is an entertainment, social networking service and news website where registered community members can submit content, such as text posts or direct links."
Now, with some idea of what Reddit is, I came across a blog thread that asked the question: "What are some unethical life hacks?" Generally, "life hacks" are tools or techniques that we use to make living life a bit easier or more efficient. An example of a life hack that many of us probably have entertained is by using the same hanger to hang up several different shirts to conserve space and hangers in the closet.
An unethical life hack is, well, an unethical way of making life easier, probably at someone else's expense. I will link the blog post on here for your curiosity. In no way am I endorsing these advice, but go figure, this thread was really intriguing to read through.
The post that had me with my jaw wide open is what a blogger with the username "AccioSud" posted: "I remember reading that in order to keep a relationship going with someone way out of your league, you should stick nicotine-patches on them after they fall asleep, and then remove them before the person wakes up. If you do this nightly, the person will become addicted without ever realizing it. Now, if they try to break up with you, they'll unknowingly begin to experience withdrawal, including anxiety, stress, depression, etc. They'll assume that they were much better off with you, and they'll probably get back together with you.
Click for thread link
Now, with some idea of what Reddit is, I came across a blog thread that asked the question: "What are some unethical life hacks?" Generally, "life hacks" are tools or techniques that we use to make living life a bit easier or more efficient. An example of a life hack that many of us probably have entertained is by using the same hanger to hang up several different shirts to conserve space and hangers in the closet.
An unethical life hack is, well, an unethical way of making life easier, probably at someone else's expense. I will link the blog post on here for your curiosity. In no way am I endorsing these advice, but go figure, this thread was really intriguing to read through.
The post that had me with my jaw wide open is what a blogger with the username "AccioSud" posted: "I remember reading that in order to keep a relationship going with someone way out of your league, you should stick nicotine-patches on them after they fall asleep, and then remove them before the person wakes up. If you do this nightly, the person will become addicted without ever realizing it. Now, if they try to break up with you, they'll unknowingly begin to experience withdrawal, including anxiety, stress, depression, etc. They'll assume that they were much better off with you, and they'll probably get back together with you.
Keep in mind, this only works if they are a non-smoker."
What did you feel when you read this? Were you ashamed that someone would even come up with this idea in the first place? Or were you ashamed because for a split second, there was a transient thought that you could possibly file this for later, potential uses?
A brief inquiry into the nature of morality
To break the ice and hopefully get some interesting discussion going on here, I thought I would pick up on something that sparked an enthusiastic dialogue today in class but unfortunately was curbed due to time and scope. Two questions I will seek to say something about in this post: a) what makes actions morally right or morally wrong? b) what gives morality its sanctity?
To break the ice and hopefully get some interesting discussion going on here, I thought I would pick up on something that sparked an enthusiastic dialogue today in class but unfortunately was curbed due to time and scope. Two questions I will seek to say something about in this post: a) what makes actions morally right or morally wrong? b) what gives morality its sanctity?
Normative ethics has it that there are two
broad schools of thought regarding morality. The first being consequentialism and the second being nonconsequentialism. I believe these two
classes of normative ethics theory will be looked into in greater depth in
chapter two. However, for the purposes of setting up my argument I will briefly
define them. Consequentialism is the theory that says to judge whether
something is morally wrong or right we have to look at its consequences or
results. Actions with good outcomes would thus be morally good and actions with
bad outcomes would thus be morally bad. Essentially under this theory, the end
justifies the means. On the other hand nonconsequentialism states that actions
are morally wrong or morally right in of themselves, that is, despite their
consequences. Immanuel Kant in his argument on categorical imperatives supports
this second school of thought. Kant argues that some things are categorically
wrong even if they produce some greater good of some sort.
Though not fully a Kantian, I lean more
towards nonconsequentialism in understanding why some actions are morally wrong
and some are morally right. Some actions are morally wrong and some are morally
right despite their intended outcomes. The question that arose from my comment
in class was: what gives morality this sanctity if the outcomes do not matter?
Well, my short answer to the question is: the nature of morality gives it its
sanctity. To use Socrates' vocabulary in his dialogue with Glaucon and
Adeimantus in The Republic by Plato,
morality is of the highest class of goods. A society that condemns rape, murder
and theft as morally wrong is bound to better perform than a society that does
not recognize the immorality of these actions. Hence in the moral society,
morality would bear fruits such as longer lifespans, healthier citizens, safer
communities, etc. However, even if this is the case that morality is leads to
these sweet marvelous results, I still do not believe that it is these results
that justify the moral status of the actions and grant morality its sanctity. I
think the nature of actions and the nature of morality grants actions their
moral status and morality its sanctity, respectively.
Consider the following thought
experiment. If rape had no physical, emotional or psychological harm on the
victims, would it become morally right? I am inclined to say no and this should
serve to illustrate that the moral status of an action is not determined by its
outcomes but rather its nature. Furthermore, it should show that morality is
certainly unique and worth upholding for its own sake, that is, despite the
outcomes it produces. I can imagine that one objection to this argument could
be that there is nothing unique or exceptional with morality. The objection
might suggest that morality is simply a set of ideas and feelings that have
been passed down from generation to generation. Well I disagree with this view.
I think there is something unique with morality that even if we were the first
generation to this planet it would still be objectively wrong to murder, rape
and enslave fellow human beings.
A penny for your thoughts! J
Ways to Approach Studying
Hey professor, I wanted to make a post about how to approach studying for exams. Should we memorize the terms, understand all the case studies, the readings, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)