Thursday, June 12, 2014

DAY 89 & 90 Performance Task

Performance Task for Grade 12 Philosophy, HZT4U1
This is an in-class (Library Lab) assignment due no later than Friday, June 13 at the end of class.  No extensions.  No questions.

"Outline your personal philosophy regarding the issue(s) raised in one of the news articles listed below.  Also choose two philosophers and outline how and why they would agree OR disagree with your personal philosophy." 

You can choose one philosopher who agrees and one who disagrees with your personal philosophy if you like.

Your answer must include the following:
·        Paragraph 1: your personal philosophy regarding the news article (it's a good idea to start with a brief discussion of the issue raised in the article and which part of philosophy (Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics) it falls under).
·        Paragraph 2: an outline of a philosopher and his/her theory that would either agree OR disagree with your personal philosophy, including at least one direct quote from the philosopher.
·        Paragraph 3: an outline of a second philosopher and his/her theory that would either agree OR disagree with your personal philosophy, including at least one direct quote from the philosopher.

This is meant to be a relatively small assignment so please limit your writing to two pages (500 words) excluding any direct quotes or paraphrases that you use.  Yes, full citations apply - along with a "Works Cited" page.

Please email me  your response when you’re done.    kovichm@hdsb.ca

Evaluation:  This response will be worth 10% of your final mark.  The Exam is 20%.

KNOWLEDGE                        /10
You summarize THEORIES correctly and fully and use appropriate UNIT VOCABULARY.  

THINKING                              /10
You outline your PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY regarding the news article and explain how it links to one of the studied units.

COMMUNICATION              /10
You COMMUNICATE IDEAS with clarity using appropriate language and vocabulary from the course/unit, with purpose and audience in mind and without errors in grammar, spelling or syntax.

APPLICATION                       /10
You identify and evaluate conclusions, implications, and consequences while making connections between your PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY and the THEORIES you use.  You OUTLINE HOW AND WHY your chosen philosophers would agree/disagree with you and use direct quotes to help in this process.

List of articles from which to choose – please do this assignment for only one of these articles  J   

If you would like to search further on any of these topics to help your thinking please do so.


Thursday, June 5, 2014

DAY 84 - Philosopher's Declaration of Human Rights



Philosopher's Declaration of Human Rights Assignment

Philosopher's Declaration of Human Rights Marking Sheet

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights full text.

DAY 83 - Cheating.....Why Is It Wrong?

This is an image of a thief who is trying to sneak away with a bag of loot
This is a high definition image of a thief trying to sneak away with a bag of loot
"It's not cheating unless you're caught".
Cheating can be defined in many contexts. It can mean violating accepted rules to gain an advantage, such as in a game, in an examination, or in payment of taxes. Cheating can involve fraud, such as when a cashier cheats a customer out of their correct change. It can mean being unfaithful to a spouse. However, what is common to all is an act of deception, of dishonesty.
Cheating is all around us, and many point to a pandemic of cheating in this early part of the 21st century. On a daily basis, you find stories of cheating in education, sports, business, and politics. At a personal level, cheating on spouses has become easier with the Internet and social networking sites that facilitate the activity. People cheat while playing games; in fact, many computer games come with built-in cheat codes that allow someone in the know (usually after purchasing the cheat codes) to be able to out-play the non-cheaters. In this case, cheating is rewarded.

Why is cheating wrong?

Cheating, by definition, is a wrongful act. It implies that the cheater is doing something that is not, or should not, be allowed. Cheating is unethical behaviour by definition. It is playing outside the rules. But, why is cheating wrong? Several reasons can be given:
  • It is unfair
    In a competitive situation, cheaters attempt to gain an advantage over non-cheaters by going outside the limits of what is considered acceptable. When people agree to compete, they agree to compete according to specific rules which govern an activity, whether it is Olympic basketball or a family game of Scrabble. If one competitor gains an advantage by playing outside the rules (cheating), it is not fair to the others, who agreed to abide by the rules.

  • It is the same as lying
    Cheating involves pretending to be honest while being dishonest - you can't cheat openly. The cheater is showing disrespect for the rights of all others by "pulling a fast one". This makes the others serve the cheater's purpose, which, in Kantian terms, is wrong because it treats them like a means to an end.

  • It devalues the activity
    In education, for instance, tests and assignments are qualifications that measure how well a student has mastered the material studied, and students are graded as to whether or not they have met an accepted standard. A medical doctor, for example, may be trained to understand diseases and their cures; when she demonstrates this ability, she will receive an academic certificate that indicates she is qualified to do so. If she cheated and obtained the certificate dishonestly, she has not actually met the standard, even though she appears to have done so. If enough people cheat their way to get medical certificates, of what value are these certificates? What do they prove?

In sports, the purpose of the activity is not winning, but performing well. The idea is that someone who performs well will, or should, be rewarded with victory. If someone cheats to win, then the winning performance is tainted by dishonesty. The whole competition becomes something less than it should be.

Cheating also robs the cheater of a sense of accomplishment: Cheaters know they are not actually entitled to what they have. For instance, if you cheat your way to victory in a computer game that only you are playing, did you actually win? Is your sense of victory, of achievement, of beating the challenge as great as if you would have won honestly? The purpose of a game is to overcome obstacles within an established, agreed set of rules; cheating violates that agreement, even if it is only an agreement with you yourself.

  • It has negative social consequences.
    If cheating becomes widespread, it can lead to a general breakdown of trust, as people doubt the honesty of those around them. It can lead to cynicism and distrust of social institutions (e.g. schools), professions (e.g. doctors, engineers), political leadership, or the fairness of the economic system (e.g. business fraud). If most students at university cheat their way to success, of what value is a university degree? What does it actually indicate about the person who holds it? If a significant number of auto mechanics cheated to earn their certification, who can I trust to fix my car? If the stock market is rigged to favour insider traders, why should anyone invest their money in it? Or, just because you have a piece of paper indicating you are qualified, should I let you build my house?

  • Cheating is contagious


    Cheating tends to have a corrupting effect on people who wouldn't normally cheat, since they don't want to be at a disadvantage if everyone else is doing it. This becomes a self-fulfilling statement meaning if more and more people feel that it's okay to cheat because more and more people are cheating, then, indeed, more and more people will cheat. This is particularly the case in competitive situations, such as education or sports. If the most successful students or athletes are cheating, and you want to be successful, why not cheat?
The perception, right or wrong, that others around them are cheating can lead otherwise honest people to cheat themselves. Cheating is related to a general breakdown of trust, because if you believe that some people are cheating and getting away with it, you can't be sure who is actually cheating and who isn't. If you have doubt of the fairness of a situation, it will chip away at your honesty, tempting you towards cheating. The perception that others are cheating tends to encourage people to cheat.

Philosophically, cheating can be condemned or defended, based on different Ethical Normative Systems. Virtue systems that emphasize fair dealing, such as Buddhism, would condemn cheating as not promoting universal justice. The same could be said for Duty Systems, such as Kantianism, which would argue that if I cheat I must believe it is acceptable for everyone to cheat, leading to a general breakdown of standards. Consequentialists, such as the Utilitarians, might argue that cheating would not bring about the greatest good, as I would be placing my good above that of others. This would mean cheating is a wrongful act.
On the other hand, a rational egoist of the Objectivist school might argue that cheating was okay, so long as I could get away with it, since it benefited me, which is the highest good. An Existentialist might also argue that cheating was acceptable, because I was demonstrating my freedom by not following the rules of others, provided I cheated in a spirit of authenticity to my own ideals. A Utilitarian could argue that, depending on the situation, cheating might promote the greatest happiness when playing by the rules would not.

Why do people cheat?

There are many reasons why people cheat. The reasons here are not exhaustive. Many times people try to 'rationalize cheating, pretending it is right when they know it is wrong, coming up with excuses to relieve their own feeling of guilt over committing a wrong act.
  • To gain an advantage.
    One reason people cheat is to gain an advantage. Cheating can allow someone to score better on a test, win more easily in a sport, or make more money. Our society is highly competitive. There is lot of pressure on people to perform and, even more, to win. In many situations, the stakes are high. In education, a better grade can mean huge advantages in terms of scholarships and employment. In sports, fame and fortune are awarded to winners; losers are forgotten. Bending the rules in business can mean making a fortune. If the chance of being caught is low, or the punishment for cheating considerably less than the potential reward, this is a prime temptation to cheat.

  • To right a wrong.
    Cheating also occurs when people perceive an injustice in the system and believe cheating is necessary to level the playing field, to make the activity fairer, rather than less fair. If a system is itself seen as unfair, some would argue that by cheating they are making it fairer. For example, if I believe that a teacher is treating me unfairly and giving me lower marks only because of my outspoken opinions against the cruelty of animals in the cosmetic industry, which include the producer of her favourite products, then why shouldn't I cheat to even out her unfair treatment of me? In this case, cheating is seen as an act of social justice, rather than personal gain. Of course, the chief beneficiary of this revised justice is the cheater, which can lead to questions regarding motive and perception - perhaps it's not the teacher discriminating, it's my poor quality work.

  • Following the crowd.
    Many people believe that there is nothing wrong with cheating because everyone else is doing it. This runs counter to ethical thinking - just because other people are doing something wrong does not justify it, as shown in instances like the Rwandan genocide, racial segregation laws, or the Holocaust. However, it provides a strong rationalization for some people. This has led to what some commentators are calling a "culture of dishonesty" where it's okay to lie because dishonesty has become a new social norm.

Cheating is not a new thing, but it poses special challenges in the 21st century. It's here to stay.


This is an image of a student sneaking a peek at another students answers during a test
What's the guy on the right doing?

Cheating in school

Academic dishonesty is not a new phenomenon: there are records of students in Ancient Mesopotamia cheating 4000 years ago. However, the culture of dishonesty attitude and the advent of new technologies, particularly the Internet, have vastly increased opportunities to cheat, along with new ways of combating it. In addition, the trend towards high stakes testing, such as the American SAT (Standard Aptitude Test), Ontario's Literacy Test, and other standardized test instruments can put pressure on students, and educators, to cheat to improve test scores.

Student Cheating

Many recent studies have pointed to a pandemic of cheating by students. In many surveys, over 50% of students admit they have cheated; some surveys put the figure at over 80%. This is a vast difference from even a decade ago, with reported cheating nearly doubling. Many students justify their cheating because, "everyone else is doing it". In our competitive society, many also feel under pressure to excel, and when their best is not good enough, they look for any advantage. Very few cheaters get caught, some studies indicating fewer than 10%, making the fear of punishment less daunting: the benefits of cheating outweigh the risks. New technology has vastly facilitated cheating.

Student cheating can take many forms, including:
  • Copying answers from another student's test or examination, with or without the consent of the person whose work is being copied; this can be 'wandering eyes', passing notes, or getting outside help via cell phones;
  • Bringing crib notes into a test or examination, either on paper, written on your body, or, in recent twists, pre-recorded on devices such as iPods or cell phones; or
  • Plagiarism, which is passing off the work of another as your own, particularly for essays and written assignments. While this is nothing new, the internet has greatly facilitated this practice.

Pressures to Cheat on Educational Systems

Some educational systems reward teachers when their students achieve higher grades, particularly on standardized tests. These rewards could be salary bonuses, promotion, or awards. There has been a recent trend towards accountability and outcomes in education. This means reporting on school performance and ranking schools, and, in some cases, teachers, as to what results their students produce, measured in terms of test scores or scholarships awarded. Parents often like this, because it is something quantifiable and tangible because a ranking of "3rd best in the province" is easier to grasp than a generic comment such as, "good quality learning took place".

In Ontario, for example, the results of the OSSLT and EQAO standardized tests are published in the newspapers, announced on television and radio, and available on the internet. Schools are ranked by how well their students have performed. In systems that allow school choice, parents will usually try to send their children to better scoring schools, defined as those that consistently produce better test results. In some systems, schools that score better receive better funding, and in a situation where funding for education is tight, the competition for students (and thus funding), can tempt school administrators to pressure teachers to help students perform better, condoning or even encouraging cheating. In addition, there may be teachers who disagree with the tests or feel they are unfair to some students and will consider subtle forms of cheating to help students perform better.

Check out our rating and ranking on the Literacy and EQAO tests: Fraser Institute's Ranking of Ontario Schools

What is to be done?

The epidemic of cheating in school seems to be increasing. Educating people about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is effective, but the culture of dishonesty at school seems to be growing. Is the answer greater enforcement of measures to control cheating on tests and examinations, such as searching students before they enter the room? This can lead to civil rights issues related to freedom from unreasonable search. For plagiarism, there is the option of submitting all written work to Internet services which can scan it for indicators of cheating. However, this has raised the issue of copyright and misuse of student work. As well, many argue that forcing students to submit work for "cheater-checking" presumes that some of them are guilty before proven so, which runs counter to our Canadian Charter right to be presumed innocent. Finally, controlling cheating by those in authority presents additional issues related to fairness, professional ethics, and value of qualifications.

 Resources

  1. To read a thorough and lengthy article from Maclean's magazine on the issue of cheating in school, click here.
  2. To read recent Ontario College of Teachers decisions regarding teacher misconduct, click here.
  3. To read about teacher cheating in the United Kingdom, click here.
  4. To read about the controversy over the Internet anti-cheating service Turnitin, click here.


Wednesday, June 4, 2014

DAY 82 - Euthanasia

Introduction
Euthanasia involves killing people. It is thus a hotly debated topic. It involves issues such as the rights of the individual and the sanctity of life. Three cases of euthanasia demonstrate the complexities related to this issue.

Here's a short Ted Talk by Peter Saul on "Dying in the 21st Century."
1. Case One-Terri Schiavo
In 1990, 26 year old Terri Schiavo collapsed, suffered heart failure, and sustained brain damage. She fell into what is termed a "persistent vegetative state"; she was able to breathe and her heart beat on its own, but she showed little or no sign of awareness. In 1998, her husband, Michael Schiavo, brought action in a Florida court to have his wife disconnected from the feeding tube that sustained her life. He argued that his wife would not have wanted to be kept alive in such a state and that he was acting with her welfare in mind. Her family opposed his efforts, questioning his motives and claiming that Terri did show awareness of her surroundings. A seven-year court battle ensued.

The Schiavo case ignited a firestorm of controversy in the United States over the issue of euthanasia. It pitted those who argued in favour of "dying with dignity" against those committed to the idea of "sanctity of life". The feeding tube was twice removed and twice replaced as litigation continued. In 2003, after a court ordered to have the feeding tube removed, the state of Florida passed a law forcing doctors to continue feeding Terri. This led to a court battle over the legality of the law, which was eventually ruled unconstitutional. In March 2005, Michael Schiavo won the last court appeal and the feeding tube was removed. In a special, emergency session, the United States Congress rushed through a bill calling for another court appeal. This court appeal was dismissed. Terri Schiavo starved to death 13 days after the tube was removed.

To learn more about this case, click on the following two links;
  1. CBC News on the Terri Schiavo Case
  2. BBC News on the Terri Schiavo Case
2. Case Two-Sue Rodriguez
In 1991, 41-year old Sue Rodriguez was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease. There is no cure or treatment for this disease. Healthy and active, Rodriguez was told her body would gradually deteriorate, she would lose control of it, and she would likely die within three to five years. She decided that she would choose the time of her death, and took her issue public.

Instead of quietly committing suicide, she petitioned in the courts of British Columbia and Canada for the right to have a doctor assist her in committing suicide. She argued she had a right to die under The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to have someone assist her if she was unable to do so herself. She claimed that laws against assisted suicide took away this right:
If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?
CBC News. "The fight for the right to die". June 11, 2007.
Courts at all levels ruled against her and Parliament refused to change the laws on assisted suicide.

On February 12, 1994, Sue Rodriguez was assisted in her suicide by a doctor whose identity has never been revealed. She was also assisted by Svend Robinson, her Member of Parliament and a strong supporter of her case from the start. While assisting her to die was a criminal act, no charges were laid.

To learn more about this case, click here.  Look to the right side of that web page for links to news video clips on Sue Rodriguez.
3. Case Three-Tracy Latimer
In 1980, Tracy Latimer suffered complications at birth which resulted in a severe form of cerebral palsy. She was severely crippled physically and had an estimated mental age of 4 months. The disease was degenerative. Her condition worsened over time, there was no cure, and she underwent a series of drastic operations designed to prolong her life. In 1993, her father, Robert Latimer, placed Tracy in the cab of his pickup truck and connected a pipe to the exhaust, suffocating his daughter.

Robert Latimer was charged with second-degree murder. In his confession to police, he stated he had killed her to end her suffering:
With the combination of a feeding tube, rods in her back, the leg cut and flopping around and bedsores, how can people say she was a happy little girl?
Anthony Depalma. "Father's Killing of Canadian Girl: Mercy or Murder?" The New York Times On-line. December 1, 1997.
He maintains to this time that he acted rightly.

Robert Latimer was tried and convicted twice. His trials were closely watched by advocates for the disabled. They feared if Latimer were treated leniently, it would be set unsympathetic precedence for the disabled. Latimer's first conviction was overturned for technical reasons. The second conviction resulted in a sentence of two years, one in jail and the other under house arrest, as the judge ruled that Robert had acted out of compassion. This sentence was overturned, as the Criminal Code requires that someone convicted of second-degree murder must receive a sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum of ten years imprisonment before parole. Robert Latimer began serving his sentence in 2001 and will be eligible for full parole in 2010.
  1. To learn more about this case, click here.

Aspects of the Euthanasia Debate



1. What is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia is derived from a Greek word meaning "easy" or "good" death. In modern usage it is associated with terms such as "assisted suicide" and "mercy killing". In the Ancient world, it was considered morally acceptable to end your life if you felt it was not worth living, a view reinforced by Stoic and Epicurean philosophy.

However, in modern usage, euthanasia is not suicide, which is when you end your own life. In a medical situation, when you refuse treatment or stop eating, it is not euthanasia, as it is an act done by you to hasten your own death-suicide. Until 1972, suicide was illegal in Canada, though enforcement of penalties was always an issue. Euthanasia involves someone else ending your life, either with or without your consent. In the Western tradition, Christianity views suicide as a sin. Many other religions hold similar views, regarding life as sacred. They prohibit any form of euthanasia. Euthanasia remains illegal in Canada and in most countries: It is considered murder.

However, widespread discussion involving the morality of the practice emerged in the 19th century, with greater medical understanding and an interest in the rights of the individual, including the right to life and the right to die. In recent years, a debate has emerged over whether euthanasia should be permitted, and, if so, how it should be regulated. Several countries have laws permitting and regulating euthanasia, and there is a franchise chain of euthanasia clinics operating in Europe.

Learn more about Dignitas, the Swiss-based group promoting assisted suicide.

2. Types of Euthanasia
Euthanasia can be divided into two main types: active and passive. Active euthanasia involves intervening to end life, such as giving a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia involves withholding treatment and 'allowing nature to take its course', as occurred in the Schiavo case. Crudely, this is sometimes referred to as 'pulling the plug' - removing life support.
Some ethicists argue there is no difference between passive and active euthanasia. In the Schiavo case, for instance, it was the removal of the feeding tube that caused Terri's death; this removal was an intentional act on the part of the doctors-they actively hastened her death.
Consent
The issue of consent is crucial to the euthanasia debate. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when someone asks to have his/her life ended with the assistance of someone else. This generally takes place when someone is dying of a painful illness with no hope of recovery and they ask to have their suffering shortened. This practice is often referred to as "assisted suicide", since the person is aware of what they are doing, but may not be capable of committing suicide without help. The Sue Rodriguez case was voluntary euthanasia.

Non-voluntary euthanasia is more controversial and the ethical issues are less clear than in cases where consent is obtained. Non-voluntary euthanasia involves ending a life without the consent of the person who will die. Someone else makes the decision on the stricken individual's behalf. This would occur when the person is not competent enough to make such a decision (e.g., someone with a severe mental handicap) or are prevented from doing so (e.g., are in a coma). The wishes of the person who will die are usually considered, if they are known or can be guessed, as is the person's best interests.

Non-voluntary euthanasia is sometimes referred to as "mercy killing". Typically, it occurs in cases where someone is suffering; the person who ends their life without their consent is motivated by a desire to end the pain or to preserve their dignity. Both the Terri Schiavo and Tracy Latimer cases were non-voluntary euthanasia.

As people become more concerned with the issue of "dying with dignity", many are preparing what are known as living wills. These are advance directives, instructions for how they would like to be treated if they are incapacitated with little or no hope of recovery. The legal status of these living wills varies by jurisdiction.
Infanticide
This is an especially controversial aspect of the euthanasia debate. Infanticide is the killing of infants. It is an ancient practice described in the Twelve Tables of Rome, from the 5th century BCE. It continues in many places to this day to control overpopulation when resources are scarce, end the lives of physically malformed infants, or unwanted infants. Some consider the modern practice of abortion to be similar. The case of the "100 million missing women" of Asia is often used to provide evidence that infanticide of baby girls is a common practice in China.

In modern Western nations, the infanticide debate centres on preserving the lives of severely handicapped babies who have little likelihood of having a reasonable quality of life. The ethicist Peter Singer is a major advocate of the practice, using utilitarian arguments to support his stand.

Infanticide by its nature is non-voluntary, as infants cannot give any competent consent. Sometimes passive, it is often active euthanasia. There is growing evidence that, while technically illegal, it is occurring in places such as Canada, particularly in the case of severely disabled infants.


Arguments against Euthanasia

There are several lines of argument against euthanasia:
Religious
Life is God's gift to man, and is subject to His power. Hence whoever takes his own life, sins against God ... For it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life.....
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, (1267)11-11, Q.64, Art 5.
Most religions are opposed to euthanasia, which is seen as contrary to the natural order or Divine Will, in the same way as murder. Ending a life prematurely can be seen as opposing God's will and running contrary to a Divine Command. In religions that value suffering or believe in an afterlife, such as Christianity, easing suffering may be depriving the dying of a valuable experience necessary for their soul's journey in the afterlife.
'Sanctity of Life'
This is an argument used by both religious and non-religious opponents of euthanasia. It is sometimes referred to as right to life and is also a prominent argument in the abortion debate. Many anti-abortionists are also leaders in the anti-euthanasia movement.
The sanctity of life argument maintains that all life is valuable and should be honoured, not treated like a commodity. It is morally right to value life and not intervene to speed up death. Some philosophers argue that life itself is a good, and any act that takes it away must be wrong. This especially applies to deontological ethical normative systems, such as Kant's.

This particularly applies in cases of non-voluntary euthanasia, such as infanticide or euthanasia of the severely disabled. Many advocates for the disabled argued that able-bodied people are prejudiced, underestimating the quality of life that a disabled person enjoys. Often, able-bodied people who become disabled are surprised that their life is still worth living. In the Latimer case, for example, it was argued that Tracy had happiness in her life and that we should not (because we can not) judge how much someone else values his/her own life.

If we do so, we are making decisions over what kind of human life is more valuable and should be allowed to continue, and of what type of life is less valuable and should be discontinued. For example, can we decide that older people don't have lives as valuable as younger people? That one race of people don't have lives as valuable as another race of people? Can we maintain that disabled people don't really enjoy their lives as much as the able-bodied people? Can we argue that less attractive people don't have lives as valuable as those who are deemed to be beautiful? Rich and poor?

The legacy of the 20th century's humanitarian outrages plays a part in this debate. Until the 1940's, the notion of mercy killing was widely accepted, and in many cases treated leniently. However, before and during the Second World War, the Nazis practiced euthanasia on hundreds of thousands of disabled people they deemed less fit to live. This history is usually brought out in the euthanasia debate and linking euthanasia supporters to the Nazis makes for a strong emotional argument against the practice. Dr. Pieter V. Admiraal, Dutch aneastheologist and euthanasiast said, "The very word euthanasia is never used because of the madman Hitler."
Photo of a baby
Photo of an elderly woman
Who is to say whose life is more valuable?
Slippery Slope
In the same way that telling one lie makes it easier to tell the next, it is argued that allowing some euthanasia would inevitably lead to a lot more, regardless of the restrictions initially put in place. We would slide down the "slippery slope". If we permit euthanasia in some cases, where do we draw the lines? Would allowing euthanasia in some cases not lead us to expand its use? Soon, it could be imagined, euthanasia would be applied in an ever-widening range of cases. The criteria for consideration of euthanasia would widen, as in some of the examples given above.

To avoid the slippery slope problem, it is argued that we should stay off the hill.
Abuse
Allowing euthanasia opens up the possibility of abuse for criminal purposes. Older people might be pressured by their children to commit suicide to speed up the inheritance process; if they refused, they could be helped along. The question of motive arose in both the Schiavo and Latimer cases. Terri Schiavo's treatment had incurred considerably large medical costs; Terri's death would relieve her husband Michael of the burden of paying for her treatment and he could get on with enjoying the new family he had started while she was in her persistent vegetative state. Robert Latimer was accused of trying to make his life easier by ending Tracy's life. There are already cases where children have their parents declared incompetent in order to seize family assets. It's argued that widespread euthanasia would make this even easier.

Doctors could abuse their power over life and death, in contradiction to their professional code of ethics. In emergency triage situations, doctors often have to make decisions about who to treat first and who not to treat. If restrictions on euthanasia were eased, they might stop bothering to ask people for permission to terminate their lives simply do it, ignoring a patient's right to consent or refuse. Each year, many thousands of patients are misdiagnosed; if euthanasia was widely acceptable, these could be fatal mistakes. Doctors might prescribe euthanasia for patients with a terminal illness, even though this patient might live for months. Some studies indicate this is already occurring, as doctors decide to speed up the dying of terminal patients to save money on their care and free up a hospital bed.

Murderers could cover up their crimes, making it look like euthanasia. The "Dr. Death" case in Britain involved a doctor who murdered at least 200 patients, mostly elderly. He forged documents and defrauded their estates. He was convicted of 15 counts of murder, later killing himself in jail. If euthanasia had been legal in Britain, might he have simply claimed that he was following requests?

The argument here is that when certain aspects of killing are legalized, it opens a Pandora's Box of possibilities.

Arguments in Favour of Euthanasia

Photo, caption: Portable death: a euthanasia machine used in Australia from 1995 to 1997Portable death: a euthanasia machine used
in Australia from 1995 to 1997.
There are many arguments in favour of allowing euthanasia in some form and to some degree. These include:
Right to die
The idea that the individual has rights is integral to Western society. In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms upholds your right to 'life, liberty, and the security of the person." You have the right to choose how you wish to live your life, within reasonable limits. You decide such things as where you will live and what job you will have. Shouldn't you have the right to choose the timing and manner of your own death? "Is my life not my own to do with as I please?" This was the argument made by Sue Rodriguez.

The right to die applies in particular to cases when a person is dying with no hope of recovery and suffering greatly. The idea of right to die is about having the right to choose as a free individual. Libertarian philosophers and advocates of extreme rational egoism insist on this right, although other philosophers are more cautious, pointing out that your rights do not override your moral obligations. You are not freed from your responsibilities in life, such as dependent children or parents, debts, or philosophy assignments, which all need to be considered. Suicide has serious moral implications.
The crime of suicide lies in its disregard for the feelings of those whom we leave behind.
E. M. Forster, Howard's End, (1910), Penguin Books
Quality of life
Related to right to die is the idea of the value that you give to your life. If I feel my life is no longer worth living, I can end it by committing suicide. But if I am unable to do so myself, why shouldn't someone else be allowed to help me? The medical system intervenes to help me stay alive; why not to help me end my life? This was another part of the argument made by Sue Rodriguez. When her quality of life dropped below what she considered acceptable, she consented to her own death to end her suffering. The quality of life argument has interesting connections to the sanctity of life argument against euthanasia. Both value life, but the quality of life argument holds that some life is not worth living, for example, that of extreme suffering.
Of course, to be acting morally, you must be able to make such a decision rationally, and not just because you are having a bad day: euthanasia is not a reversible procedure. While some people hold that suffering is valuable, others hold that it is undignified and unnecessary, if it can be prevented.

The common medical practice of DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders fall into the category of respecting quality of life. They acknowledge that in some cases, heroic measures to preserve someone's life may be successful, but will lead to greater suffering. For example, in the case of someone near death from a disease which is incurable, who suffers heart failure, performing CPR (cardio-pulmonary resuscitation) may prolong their life, but the violence of the procedure can lead to severe injuries, such as cracked or broken ribs, causing greater suffering. You will live longer, but in great pain, and your underlying condition is still there. You may wish you had died. DNR orders are not considered euthanasia, however.

This quality of life argument can be applied in both cases of voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia, with decisions about the value of life being made without consent. It applied in all three of the cases in the Introduction to this activity.

Learn more about Do Not Resuscitate Orders and view a brochure.
The "Good Death"
To die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly. Death of one's own free choice, death at the proper time, with a clear head and with joyfulness, consummated in the midst of children and witnesses: so that an actual leave taking is possible while he who is leaving is still there, likewise an actual evaluation of what has been desired and what achieved in life, an adding-up of life - all of this in contrast to the pitiable and horrible comedy Christianity has made of the hour of death.
F. Nietzsche, section 36 of 'Expeditions of an Untimely Man' in Twilight of the Idols (1889)
Closely related to the quality of life argument is that of the "good death". Death is the natural end of life, something that will come to us all, eventually. The idea of dying well after living well and being in control of your death is seen as a more dignified exit than one in which you simply suffer to the bitter end, with life slowly ebbing away. It is argued that our modern society views life as a commodity, and that, in line with consumerism, more must be better. 

Death can be feared and seen as "bad". Medical technology has advanced to the point where we can now delay death and continuing to possess our life, regardless of its quality, is seen as proper. While medical technology is now claiming that soon we will be able to live to 140 years old, many argue they would not want to do so if 60 or 70 of those years consisted of suffering. These individuals might argue that simply being alive is not living.

Historically, dying was more a part of life than it is now. People accepted the inevitability of death and prepared for it. Those with terminal illnesses prepared to die with dignity, and in peace. Many in the modern euthanasia movement reflect this view. The Swiss-based euthanasia group is named Dignitas, Latin for dignity.
Medical resources
The argument has been made that our medical systems are under strain. On average, it is estimated that half the medical care resources you use in your life will be used during your last three months of life fighting death. If you have a terminal illness with little hope of cure, why put yourself through the suffering that usually accompanies this kind of treatment and force the medical system to foot the enormous bill?

This utilitarian argument for euthanasia argues that it would be better for our health care systems as a whole to spend resources on people who can be saved and cured, rather than on hopeless heroic measures to preserve lives that are naturally ending. This model focuses on palliative care to ease the suffering of the dying, rather than on prolonging life at any cost (financial, physical, and emotional). It benefits everyone, including the patient, who does not have to undergo painful medical procedures with little chance of success. This argument can also be applied in cases of infanticide, where the child is severely crippled and suffering. The counter-argument here has already been made—if this approach were taken, what would prevent doctors from killing their patients to save the system money?

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

DAY 81 - What is a Good Person?

1. Virtue
In ethical systems based on virtue, a good person would be one who possessed the virtues the ethical system held. A virtuous person would be, by definition, a good person. For Aristotleans, this would be a person who followed the Golden Mean and was perfecting themselves. For Thomists, it would be a person who used their God-given sense of reason to follow a path to God. Buddhists would follow the Eightfold Path towards Nirvana. The criteria for a good person in Confucianism is defined socially: Does the person properly carry out their obligations to others, promoting harmony in society?

Virtue systems subjectively determine what is good and then set out that people should acquire good qualities: A person with virtues will act virtuously. Good is thus internalized and schooling yourself in the virtues is tantamount.
2. Duty
In duty systems, a good person follows the rules. This may be hard for them (or for others), but it is the right thing to do. The rules are external to you, and it is your obedience to them that qualifies your goodness.

In religious systems, a good person is one who follows the rules of the religion. For example, someone who is pious and holy, observes the rituals, and follows the teachings. For Kantians, it would be using your reason to grasp the natural order of things and see clearly the Categorical Imperative for any type of moral situation. Stoics would follow the dictates of "natural law".

In a duty system then it is one's responsibility to:
  1. Know and understand one's duty, and
  2. Act according to it.
this is an animated image of a baby who is a good boythis is an animated image of a baby who is a good girl
3. Consequence
For consequentialists the criteria for being a good person is based on the outcome of personal actions. Thus a good person, as such, does not exist, just a person who does good things. 

For rational egoists, such as Ayn Rand, a good person would act in their own best interest. 

For utilitarians, the definition of a "good" act would be based on how it affected others, that is, the greatest good principle. Judging someone to be good would be judging whether their actions were intended to promote the greater good.


The Binding of Isaac

Painting by Rembrandt, 1634.An angel prevents the sacrifice of Isaac.In the painting
Abraham and Isaac
, created by Rembrandt in 1634,
an angel prevents
the sacrifice of Isaac.
In the Old Testament story of Genesis, the patriarch Abraham is told by God to take his son Isaac and sacrifice him on Mount Moriah.  Abraham is a pious, dutiful man, obedient to the will of God. He tricks Isaac into accompanying him, binds him, and throws him on the altar. Just as Abraham is about to plunge his knife into his son, an angel appears and tells him to desist: It appears it was all just a test of his faith. God indicates his pleasure that Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son in obedience to God's will, and blesses Abraham and his descendants.

To read the story for yourself, click here.
Abraham is a founding figure for the three "Abrahamic" religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. He is generally considered a model of the righteous man; one who lives according to the will of God, putting God's wishes before his own.

But the story has some troubling aspects. Was God testing Abraham? Many argue that God wanted to see if Abraham's faith was so strong that he would overcome his natural revulsion, and fatherly love, and kill his own son. But if so, many have asked what kind of God would test a faithful servant in this way.

Abraham is called the "father of faith" for his willingness to sacrifice his son at God's command. But was Abraham really prepared to carry out such an abhorrent deed? There are indications in the story that Abraham knew he would not actually have to sacrifice Isaac. As the two of them left their home, Abraham told his servants that they would return. To some, this indicates that Abraham knew that God would stop the act before it was carried out. But this interpretation makes the whole episode a charade and paints Abraham as insincere. It also undermines the extent of Abraham's honesty in his relationship with God.

If Abraham was prepared to kill Isaac, should he still be considered a good person? If he was not, should he still be considered a faithful servant of God?
Soren Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard was a rather unconventional Danish theologian of the 19th century. He is associated with the beginnings of the existential school, for his musings on the purpose of existence. Kierkegaard was extremely critical of organised religion, believing that true Christianity involved listening to the inner voice of faith. The truth that you receive from this inner voice cannot be explained or demonstrated to anyone else-it is yours alone and will defy all attempts to prove it.

In opposition to Thomism, Kierkegaard believed that faith could not be understood using reason, as that would involve trying to find logical arguments to explain the illogical. Instead, one must suspend reason and take a leap of faith. You must embrace the absurdity of the contradiction required by faith and simply trust in God's superior judgement. While in normal cases reason can help you determine right and wrong, when it comes to matters of faith it will not help you.

In terms of ethics, this meant that there were essentially two moralities for each person: the 'normal' everyday morality which could be based on reason and the absurd, faith-based leap when it came to matters related to religious truth.

In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard addressed the story of the "Binding of Isaac". In his interpretation, Abraham is taking such a leap of faith by preparing to do something he knows is wrong. But in this case, what transforms a normally wrong act into a right act is that he is commanded to do so by God. God's command overrules all human ideas of right and wrong; God transcends human morality. 

Abraham recognized that his obedience to God took precedence over all other moral duties: He served a higher Power. To truly serve God, one must suspend all ethical judgement. Abraham is a good person because he obeyed God, even though his actions ran counter to normal human morality.

Kierkegaard was criticized for this mystical approach to faith that runs so counter to reason. Many people claim that God has given them private commands. Typically, they are considered mentally unstable, particularly when they report that God tells them to commit murder. For Kierkegaard, this is exactly the point that illustrates Abraham's faith: while Abraham might appear deluded to observers, he himself knows the truth. Abraham becomes the Father of Faith and is blessed for his recognition that obeying the commands of God, no matter how much they run counter to human reason, is the true morality.


Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was brought up in a very religious, wealthy household in Copenhagen. Strongly influenced by his father, who felt that his sins had cursed his family, Soren was educated at prestigious institutions, set on a career in religion. However, he switched his studies to philosophy and considered himself a poet. He spent his life in and around the Danish capital, travelling abroad only five times in his life. Always somewhat melancholy, at the age of 24 he fell deeply in love with 15-year old Regine Olsen. Three years later, he proposed marriage, only to break off the engagement less than a year later. The actual reason he did this is unknown, but Kierkegaard made allusions to his being too 'melancholic' to be suited for marriage.

Kierkegaard wrote much of his work under pseudonyms. For example, Fear and Trembling was authored by 'Johnannes de Silentio'. He claimed that this practice distanced himself from these works and their ideas, as if they were written by him 'in character' and that the views expressed might not even be his own but those of the 'character' who wrote the book.


Here is one of Kierkegaard's more famous quotations, full of Existential angst:

"One sticks one's finger into the soil to tell by the smell in what land one is: I stick my finger in existence - it smells of nothing. Where am I? Who am I? How came I here? What is this thing called the world? What does this world mean? Who is it that has lured me into the world? Why was I not consulted, why not made acquainted with its manners and customs instead of throwing me into the ranks, as if I had been bought by a kidnapper, a dealer in souls? 

How did I obtain an interest in this big enterprise they call reality? Why should I have an interest in it? Is it not a voluntary concern? And if I am to be compelled to take part in it, where is the director? I should like to make a remark to him. Is there no director? Whither shall I turn with my complaint?" From: Repetition (1843)


To Do: Note-taking Exercise

As part of your own note for this activity you should read this and answer the questions that follow (for your own notes to refer to later on).

"The Binding of Isaac" is an archetypal story of a man driven to choose between his faith and his sense of morality. Sacrificing his son is wrong, and Abraham knows it, but he must obey God, even to the point of committing a horrible, immoral act. Of course, God prevents him from carrying out the murder of Isaac (which he commanded), and all ends well.

In a modern, Canadian context, of course, Abraham's actions would be viewed in a wholly different light. These are not days of 'Old Testament' biblical faith. The neighbours would have called the police, Isaac would have been rescued, and Abraham's story of a commandment from God would not have carried much weight in court.

As part of your note on this topic you should take the position of four different people participating in the modern day trial of Abraham on a charge of attempted murder. You will write several bullet-points for each of the characters below, each discussing the 'criminal act' committed by Abraham. I have suggested for you the point of view to be taken by each participant is provided, and I have suggested an Ethical System that can be used as the basis for your points.   Include quotes, theories, specific references to society.

1. Abraham, explaining why he did what he did. (Divine Command)

2. Isaac, defending his father's righteousness, and pointing out all the rewards God has bestowed on the family as a result. (Consequentialist)

3. The Crown Attorney, who wants Abraham put away for a long, long time. (Duty)

4. A neighbour, called as a 'character' witness by the defence, who will attest to what a good person Abraham is. (Virtue)



Monday, June 2, 2014

DAY 80 - Virtuous Life as a Good Life - Aristotle, Thomism, Buddhism, Stoicism, Confucianism

The Virtuous Life as the "Good Life"

1. Aristotle (Eudaemonia)
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argued that the route to happiness and the good life is in fulfilling your purpose as a human being. Since humans are rational creatures, this means using your power of reasoning to make the best of what you are given in life. You must figure out your purpose and your abilities, and work to perfect yourself. By being the best you can be, you will be living well and will gain eudaemonia. This word is often translated as happiness, but it also carries the notion of satisfaction or contentment. For example, if your purpose is to be an artist, you will reach eudaemonia by working to perfect your artistic ability. If it is to be a plumber, you will achieve it by perfecting your plumbing. Eudaemonia is achieving your destiny, what you are supposed to be.

However, you don't set out to achieve eudaemonia, it happens as a by-product, or result, of living well. It is also not a temporary condition, but a permanent state of being. As well, it is not something you can just do in your spare time-it requires a lifetime of virtuous living in accordance with the golden mean and you may not achieve eudaemonia until after you are dead.
Happiness also involves those around you, and the happiness of your friends and family plays a part in your well being. The pursuit (or not) of pleasure may be part of your path to eudaemonia; so might the pursuit of wealth, fame, artistic excellence, athletic prowess, or political power. It all depends on what your reason reveals is your individual purpose and particular excellence and your efforts to be all you can. Eudaemonia holds together all these things and gives them meaning. It is different for each person, as each person is different from every other. Thus, there is no single set of criteria for what is a good life, no single pathway to happiness. Eudaemonianism sets out a process for finding the path that will lead to your happiness, by living the virtuous, rational life.
2. Thomism
St. Thomas Aquinas based his virtue theory on Aristotle. He agreed that one should try to be virtuous and that happiness would result from striving for human perfection, as Aristotle claimed. However, Aquinas argued that this would be only incomplete happiness. True, complete happiness, which he called beatitude, could only come from a supernatural union with God. This complete happiness would result from your virtuous life leading you towards God. Only in finding God could you be truly happy.
3. Buddhism
Buddhism rejects the idea that enjoying pleasures, either intellectual or sensual, makes for the good life. The basis of the the Four Noble Truths is that life is suffering (dukkha), and that suffering arises from desire: when you want something, you will be unhappy until you have it. However, once you have it, you will want more of it. This is true of material things, love, or even life itself. Satisfaction of desire is only temporary, and that when that satisfaction passes, the unhappiness and desire will return. To eliminate suffering, you must strive to eliminate desire, and to do this, you must follow the Noble Eightfold Path. This teaching stresses moral actions (particularly not harming others), acquiring mastery over desire, and spiritual insight. This would include having few possessions and avoiding overly strong emotional ties. If a person followed this path and acted virtuously, they would be living a good life.

Central to Buddhist doctrine is belief in re-incarnation, necessary for a soul to become educated on the Eight fold Path. When someone dies, if they are not yet cleansed of the craving for more life, they will be re-born. But it is not always the case that a human would be re-incarnated as a human; they might very well come back as a dog, a monkey, or a bug, if that is the stage of their soul's education. Thus, a devout Buddhist tries to avoid harming others-including bugs-in accordance with the Eight fold Path so they could progress on the Path towards enlightenment. The goal of the Path is nirvana-a state of nothingness, or 'no-self', a release from all desires. When you reach nirvana, your candle is forever extinguished and you are freed from the cycle of suffering.

Buddhism is not "bling"-oriented. Happiness in this life is not the focus of the religion. In fact, happiness will only lead to unhappiness, according to Buddhism.
4. Stoicism
There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power of our will.
Epictetus, Greek Stoic philosopher, 1st century CE. Provided by Quote World.
Stoicism originated in Greece in the 4th century BCE. It became very popular in the Hellenistic Era and the early Roman Empire (1st-2nd century CE). Some famous Roman followers included the writer Cicero, philosopher Seneca, and the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Stoicism has many similarities to Buddhism, in that it sees suffering as a central problem in human life. To overcome suffering, one must use reason to rise above your passions:
Get rid of the judgement, get rid of the 'I am hurt,' you are rid of the hurt itself.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book IV
Photo of a statue of Marcus Aurelius and his horse, accepting their places in the great scheme of things.Marcus Aurelius and his horse,
accepting their places
in the great scheme of things.
(Capitoline Museums, Rome.)
Stoics strive to transcend the here and now and to understand the fundamental, natural order of the universe: things are as they are and you have a place in the great scheme of things. You should live wisely and justly, treating all people fairly and well, and live a well-ordered, rational life. How you live is more important than what you do when alive. A virtuous life was based on duty and reason, in accepting the world as it is, rather than how you want it to be. If you can overcome yourself, and see and accept your place in the world, you will be happy.
Later philosophies, such as existentialism, carry on many Stoic themes. Existentialists emphasize freedom, taking personal responsibility for one's actions, and making decisions based on what you want to do, not what you believe others would want you to do. This is the principle known as 'authenticity', being true to you. If you are true to yourself, you are living well.
The modern "Serenity Prayer" of Reinhold Niebuhr expresses a Stoic sentiment:
Give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed,
The courage to change the things that should be changed,
And the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.
Exceprt from, "Serenity Prayer", Reinhold Niebuhr (although some argue that it was written in 500 CE)
5. Confucianism
Kongfuzi, a Chinese philosopher of the 6th century BCE, based his notion of ethical behaviour on relationships between individuals: parent to child, ruler to subject, husband to wife. Each of these individuals has a role, with obligations towards the others. If everyone performs their role properly, then social harmony will result and all will be happy. If, on the other hand, individuals decide to act outside their proper role and chase after what they believe will make them happy, social chaos will result and all will be unhappy. For you to be happy, all must work together, including you. The individual is less important than the community and acting selfishly-acting to increase your own happiness, perhaps at the expense of others-will led to bad results for the community. What will lead to the greatest happiness for the individual is knowing your place in society and carrying out your proper role. If everyone does this, everyone will enjoy the benefits of living in a well-ordered, happy society.

A good life is doing what you are supposed to do within the community. Plato agreed, living a good life was living a life of service and involvement in your community. Happiness would result for all if society were well-ordered and if people fulfilled their proper roles.