Happy Tag

Happy Tag

I've been tagged by Books Gardens and Dogs (http://maryinhb.blogspot.com/)

So here are the rules:
Link to the person who has tagged you.Write down six things that make you happy.Post the rules, tag six others and let them know you did it.Then tell the person when your entry is complete.

Six Things That Make Me Happy (in no particular order):
1. Spending time with my family and friends
2. When my kids are happy
3. Zip, Angel and Shadow (our pets)
4. Reading a good book
5. Having coffee on my front porch
6. Helping others

If you would like to be "tagged", post a comment and include your blog addy -- thanks!

The Transition

This blog was set up as a part of my Introduction to Ethics class -- since it was so much fun and since "blogging" was one of my New Year's Resolutions, I've decided to keep going with it even though my class is finished.

I'm still working out the details -- many of my friends have great book blogs and I would love to get to that point, but I think I need to work up to that. My hobbies are reading, writing, music, knitting, and volunteering, so I might post a few things on that as well. I guess this is where the "pieces of me" comes in --

To start things off, I was 'tagged' by my friend Mary, and need to continue that game, so here we go!

What Influences My Ethical Thinking

What influences my ethical thinking...I think it's a combination of my upbringing, my environment, my faith, and my XL-size compassion gene. As far as ethical philosophies, is it possible that I'm a little bit of this and a little bit of that?

• I believe that everything is "relative" to the situation and experiences at hand (Relativism theory).
• I believe in the Golden Rule and try to life my life accordingly.
• Act Utilitarianism appeals to me because I agree that each individual should assess their situation and act in a manner that brings about the most good for the most people; however, I do not subscribe to the "good of the many outweigh the good of the one" -- for example in the Trolley Problem described by Steven Pinker -- what if that fat man is your husband? Would you rather he live? Or should he die so that five people you don't know could live? I would choose to save my husband. And I would choose to save my child's life over anyone else's.
• I don't really think I like any of the Ethical Egoism theories. If we are all working toward our own best interest, can we ever agree? How do you implement that?
• I definitely feel that the Divine Command theory plays a big part in my life, as I do believe in God and His Laws - yet I'm not ready to say that everyone who doesn't think like I do is wrong.
• Somewhere in the textbook I read that a Consequentialist's Views are more like we "should" or "should not" instead of "never" or "always". I would say I fall into that category quite comfortably.
• I do think that we all have a duty or obligation to help our fellow man.

I think the biggest problem that I have is my inability to make the tough decisions when I know that others will be adversely affected. A few years ago my girlfriend gave me the nickname of Switzerland, because I never picked sides in an argument. I'm a master at considering the other point of view. I think that somewhere in my makeup is this sense that it is either "all" or "nothing", a "1" or a "10" -- and since I can't stand firm on one end or the other, I just float between them...It's maddening sometimes.

Ethical Issues for Today by Elie Wiesel

Elie Wiesel oozes compassion and caring. To me, it is obvious that this man cares about others and it seems like this is the basis for his morality. I also felt that he was issuing a call to action to people everywhere. There were many things in his article that I would like to comment on -- my brain is spinning -- so in no particular order I will put down my thoughts:

Mr. Wiesel states "...there is no absolute morality; because my hope can be someone else's despair. What I consider to be good may hurt someone else."

• I agree with this statement. It's what makes the whole morality thing so confusing to me. I have a tendency to think in terms of absolute -- maybe I should re-evaluate that.

His analogy comparing Alzheimer's to a book was very poignant: "You tear out a page, then another page, then another page and another memory, and another event, and finally at the end there are no more pages, only the cover remains. That is Alzheimer's."

• We have a dear family friend that is going through this now and it is so painful for her and her family.

He also makes reference to the fact that we know more now than we ever have before and that there really are no excuses - this reminded me of what Daniel Goleman said, "Ultimately everybody will know everything, but will it make a difference?" Mr. Wiesel says he doesn't know why Americans live with (tragedies going on around the world) so passively, so quietly. He says that we have forgotten our ethical responsibility. "They die - they die while we are looking at them - and we go on eating" (a reference to Americans watching the news).

• In other words, why don't we act to change the injustices we see? What will make us stand up for another? We know that terrible things are happening in the world, do we have an obligation to act? I don't think it's because we don't care. But what does make us go on with our lives while people suffer terrible injustices in another part of the world? How can we eat when so many go hungry? For that matter, what about those that are suffering injustices in our own backyard?

He states that he believes "a nation is measured by its attitudes toward the weak".

• I would agree with this and also add that a person is measured by how he treats someone he cannot benefit from. It is a shame that we don't seem to value our elders or our children the way that we should. It like we are so busy with "our" lives, "our" business, "our" important things, that we shove everything else aside. We have life because of our parents and grandparents; and the world continues because of our children. Yet we seem to put them at the bottom of our list of priorities. Unfortunately it's often the people we love the most that get the worst of us. When you've had a bad day, who do you take it out on? Do you stop and listen when your children are talking to you? Do you take a few minutes out of your day to call or visit your aging relatives and just chat about whatever they want, even if you've heard it many times before? I think that caring and empathy start in our small circles and then expand to larger circles - our neighborhood, our schools, our community, our state, our country, the World.

The Abortion Clinic - Dateline 1983

I just finished watching a Dateline documentary from 1983 titled "The Abortion Clinic". My overwhelming reaction to this documentary is sadness. It was hard to watch the women in the video who came to the clinic to have an abortion. It was hard to look at their young faces and hear their stories. And it was very painful to watch the actual abortion footage.

I had a very strong reaction to the protestors in front of the abortion clinic. I don't agree with standing in judgement of another person's personal decision by a public display like that. Also, how much do those protestors know about the doctors, nurses, patients, that walk past them into the clinic? There's a song by Everlast titled "What It's Like" and one of it's verses touches on abortion -- "...asked for the clinic and she gets some static walking through the door. They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore. But God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes, cuz then you really might know what it's like to have to choose"

Our textbook says that with abortion, two basic principles are in conflict: the Value of Life and the Value of Individual Freedom. How true.

Both girls in the film, Helen and Barbara, said that they couldn't support the baby if they had it, and it wouldn't be fair to the baby to keep it. Additionally, Barbara said that she would lose her family support if she had another baby, as she already had a 2-yr old that her mother was helping her raise. She also said that her 2-yr old took everything she had and she didn't have anything left for another baby.

What was interesting to me is that Barbara said that she couldn't give the baby up for adoption because she would always wonder where it was, who it would look like. ...but she could terminate the pregnancy...

Could personal ethical egoism come into play here? Were the girls (women, I guess) acting in their own self-interest by aborting the pregnancy? I don't mean to say that they made the decision lightly, although it did appear to affect Barbara a bit more than Helen.

How about Utilitarianism? An act is moral if it is useful in bringing about a desirable or good end. And I don't mean in any way that the abortion is desirable or good, rather that the abortion is the act that takes care of what they may see as a problem, or brings about a good end. Is that a stretch?

Although Dr. Isajiw seemed to have the best of intentions and it was nice that he and his wife would take in women and help them through their pregnancy, ultimately I didn't agree with his tactics. However, something he said sticks with me. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that most people think (incorrectly) that the decision is whether or not to have a baby. The truth is, the baby's already there, the decision is what to do with it.

Week 2 in my Ethics Class

Week 2 is coming to a close and that means there is only one week left in my Ethics class. I have to say that I wish it was a little longer, I am really enjoying all of the readings, lectures, videos, and interaction with my classmates.

In addition to the end of life material I posted on earlier, one of our assignments this week was to read Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail and examine the ethics of his argument. I enjoyed this because I've always been interested in Civil Rights and Dr. King is a person I would have loved to have met -- what a fascinating man. My youngest daughter shares this interest with me and we have read many books on Dr. King and had great discussions about equality and civil rights.

Another was to watch a clip of Crimes and Misdemeanors and take on the role of one of the characters. I've not yet seen this entire film, but I think I would like to --

I particularly enjoy the audio lectures and breeze presentations that are a part of this course. The text book is very daunting to someone who is not familiar with the material, and the lectures and presentations help to bring it down to a level you can grasp. I think they are especially important because this is an internet course and we don't have the benefit of a traditional teacher/classroom setting. The audio lectures and breeze presentations compensate for that quite well.

I "tested" The Five Basic Principles presented by the author of our textbook in Chapter 8 by applying them to different scenarios. The Five Basic Principles consist of:

• Value of Life (Human beings should revere life and accept death),
• Principle of Goodness (Try to do good, try to prevent and void doing harm)
• Principle of Justice (Treat human beings fairly and justly)
• Principle of Honesty and Truth Telling, and
• Principle of Individual Freedom

Seatbelts and Helmets

Yesterday my girlfriend and I were on our way to Wausau. We are very good friends and we have riden together numerous times, sometimes she drives, sometimes I drive. She never wears a seatbelt, I always were a seatbelt. Yesterday when she picked me up, she had her seatbelt on. She said that she heard on the radio that you can receive a fine up to $160 now for not wearing a seatbelt, so she was going to buckle up.

I've stated in previous discussions with her and other friends that I don't understand why the government makes an adult wear a seatbelt (or a helmet on a motorcycle) to protect themselves. They are legal adults and they should be able to decide whether or not they want to protect themselves. I feel that the law should apply to anyone under 18, as they have not yet reached adulthood and we as a society have an obligation to protect them until they are of the legal age to make their own decisions. I do not go into whether or not they are mature enough or capable to make those decisions, just that they have reached the legal age of an adult.

But, this ethics class has got me evaluating and re-evaluating everything...so here are my thoughts:

I buckle up because I feel it keeps me safer. My friend doesn't think it keeps you safer, but is now buckling up because she doesn't want to pay the fine. In other words, she is forced to do something that she would rather not do, even though her not doing it harms no one but herself.

I had no problem with my friend not wearing a seatbelt, because she is old enough to make her decision and it's none of my business. Because I believe it does keep you safer, and because I care about her, I wish she would wear her seatbelt, but it's her choice.

So now I'm thinking, well Julie, how is this so different than a person's right to choose when and how they die? And the only thing I can come up with is that when my friend gets into the car she is not thinking "I am not going to wear my seatbelt because I want to end my life". I do not know exactly what her reasons are, but I do know it's not that she wants to die. So is it different because of the intent behind the action?