In chapter three of “The Ethical Slut”, the authors talk about our beliefs. Something that caught my attention was “It is not okay to hurt another person because then we hurt too, and we don’t feel good about ourselves”(20.1.). I found it interesting because it’s true what it says itself. It is not okay to hurt others because at the same time we wouldn’t want that to happen to us as well. In a way if we hurt someone who we love especially we are going to hurt as well because we feel that sort of pain which becomes a connection among those two people. Personally, I’ve hurt others without me wanting to and then after I have realized that I hurt them then I feel some sort of guilt inside because I know what I had done. In a way it is a form of empathy towards the person that has been hurt. Most of the time this happens and we are too blinded because of what we feel and think to know what is really going on around us and what we have done. Sometimes as humans we tend to hurt that one person we never meant to hurt and there is a time that we feel that we won’t regret it until we notice that we just had lost one of the most important people in our lives. It’s hard to tell when we have hurt someone or when we haven’t because it happens so fast or the other person doesn’t show any type of emotion of what is going on.
Plain Sex By Alan H. Goldman
In Goldman’s “Plain Sex”, he states “Such conceptions attribute a necessary external goal or purpose to sexual activity, whether it be reproduction, the expression of love, simple communication, or interpersonal awareness. They analyze sexual activity as a means to one of these ends, implying that sexual desire is a desire to reproduce, to love or be loved, or to communicate with others. All definitions of this type suggest false views of the relation of sex to…morality by implying that sex which does not fit one of these models or fulfill one of these functions is in some way deviant or incomplete”(130.2.). I think that in some ways Goldman is trying to say that there isn’t really feelings behind sex. I guess he is trying to say that sex will forever just be sex. There isn’t any feelings within the two people who do it, there is only pleasure involved. I think he is trying to say that when sex is just viewed or used as just as plain sex is just something that there isn’t love, communication or affection between each person.
I personally think that now a days people just use sex as a form of pleasure not as a form to show love or affection towards another person. I just think that is wrong. I believe that sex is something that should be valued more than just wasting your time having it with multiple people. I mean people have the right to choose who they want to do it with but if there isn’t any love or passion between those two people then what is the point of actually having sex???
Morality and Human Sexuality By Vincent C. Punzo
In the reading Punzo said something that caught my attention rapidly. He says, “The question is of utmost significance in that one’s view of the morality of premarital intercourse seems to depend on the significance that one gives to the sexual encounter in human life” (124.1.). I kinda understand what he is trying to say but at the same time I feel some sort of confusion. I think he is trying to say that most believe that it is moral to have sex before marriage or anything else. I think he thinks that it has to do with the moral values of who the person is. Some people may choose to have sex before marriage or whenever they want to. Punzo makes the inference that he believes that there should be some sort of commitment in other words that if the couple is married or they are in preparation of getting married that there isn’t any harm done if they do have sex.
For me personally, I would wait till I get married. I believe it is better because your saving something precious to that one person. I think it is better to save it to that one person because in a way you are showing them that they are valuable to you just like sex is. I think that in today’s society not a lot of people tend to value sex and the person they are having it with. Most of the time sex has been done for pleasure and that’s it. Now a days it seems that sex has been done with no feeling within each other. I think we shouldn’t have sex before marriage unless there is arrangements of marriage being done at the moment. I just think that casual sex isn’t good and it shouldn’t be done.
Nicomachean Ethics By Aristotle
In Aristotle’s book IX he speaks about the relationship among two people. “Such incidents happen when the lover loves the beloved for the sake of pleasure while the beloved loves the lover for the sake of utility, and they do not both possess the qualities expected of them.”(1.1.), I believe Aristotle is trying to say that sometimes when there is a relationship between two people they aren’t really together because they love each other if not they are together because they feel pleasure being with each other. They both are able to see that either of them aren’t giving what the other promised or what they thought they were going to receive from the opposing person. This is more or less saying that some people are together just to use each other for their own benefits.
This reminds me of one of my friends and her situation. She is with this guy because she feels that if she isn’t with him she can’t move on to other guys. She thinks that the only one that can have him is her. While in the other hand, he is only with her to please her. In other words, she is using him while he is using her as well. I just personally think that friends are those who are with you through thick and thin, no matter what. There is really few people like that in this world and most of them are really hard to find. Those who are very close to me as friends are those who I cherish the most because not everyone can offer you that friendship or that love and accept you as you are.
Reasonable Partiality And Animal Ethics By Bernard Rollin
I really did not understand anything that Rollin was talking about. I think that what Rolling was trying to say though is that is it okay to hurt animals because they aren’t alike humans. Animals don’t have feelings. If they were to be killed they wouldn’t feel anything because they aren’t as aware as humans of their surroundings, its like chicken not knowing when someone is about to chop their necks when they are about to be processed. I think he meant to say that animals don’t have that much of an importance when it comes to feelings and emotions. In an ethical way, we want to become more superior and be where they are, and letting them live with us. As humans we use moral psychology but in order to have this we need to use ethics. We can’t help it, so we shouldn’t be stopped of doing it. We will use animals. Even though we have them at our side, we are still the top of the food chain.
Rollin also talks about white lies. The question is how you should tell little white lies to not hurt your love ones??? You wouldn’t want them to be emotionally distressed. He disagrees with Kant’s view of being obligated to say the truth and to eventually hurt them. It is basically the way you phrase things, for example you can’t tell a pregnant woman she looks like a cow, you might end up divorced if you were the husband, and smacked if you were her best friend. Sometimes we tend to lie to ourselves, I do it myself.
Beyond “Compassion and Humanity” Justice for Nonhuman Animals by Martha C. Nussbaum
I think that Nussbaum is trying to get at is the different types of capabilities that nonhuman animals have. This part consists of 6 capabilities. The first one is dignity and wonder. This explains the natural powers that guides humans into the way they are. The second one is By whom and for whom? meaning the purposes of social cooperation. In other words, for whom were laws made for. The third thing is how comprehensive can one be. In many human moments that we don’t have the capacity to comprehend certain things. The fourth thing is Species and Individual meaning the that the continuation of species may lead to having little moral weight as a consideration of justice. The fifth thing would be the levels of complexity matter, meaning how bad things really are. The last part is if species matter, meaning how morally relevant are the capacities of individuals. Nussbaum believes that there is humans rights that are based on rationality. This goes back to Kant’s idea of duties. Duties can be imperfect or perfect. Imperfect duties are charities, help when you can and you basically decide where to be generous. Perfect duties are the ones that we always do for example chores or even holding the door open for someone else to walk in.
“Against Rolston’s Defense of Eating Animals: Reckoning With the Nutritional Factor in the Argument for Vegetarianism” By John Mizzoni
I disagree with Mizzoni because i think that eating meat-eating is natural and not only humans do it but animals as well. In a way he didn’t explain how natural it is for animals to kill and eat each other. In a way he is saying that it is wrong for humans to kill and eat animals as well. Also why would animals have the right to have rights, they don’t think the same way as we do. Animals don’t have the same rights as humans in the way that makes animals not have the say mentality as humans. It is natural and part of the ecosystem that animals kill and eat each other and we as humans eat the meat coming from animals. In other words, eating a person destroys cultural values as well as moral values unlike eating animals doesn’t. If animals were to get killed they wouldn’t feel pain like humans do, for example if a chicken were to be killed to be eaten the chicken wouldn’t know until it has been done. “The larger problem here is that Rolston wants to decide the morality of vegetarianism by looking at the facts about animals in the wild (i.e., the amount of suffering they experience).”(241.2). Mill is trying to explain here that Rolston doesn’t see the other side of the pain. In other words he wants Rolston to not block himself in his own idea but to see that there is more to it.
To me personally, I tend to eat chicken that has been processed by a supermarket than go to a place where I know they have killed a chicken in my presence. It makes me feel weird that I have been in the same room as that chicken before it has been prepared to be cooked at home. It makes me feel some type of way to the point that I actually don’t even eat it because I know it was brought from one of those places. To be honest I don’t know what would make the difference there if the chicken is still being killed.
John Stuart Mill— Utilitarianism
According to Mill utilitarianism is in the attempt to produce more of a balance of happiness over unhappiness. Mill is more based on the quality of pleasure or pain and distinguishing the higher human pleasures from the lower ones. His theory is different from Bentham’s theory which is regarding the quantity of pleasure or pain meaning the intensity, the duration, and certainty. In other words utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism theories that attempt to see the morality of people’s actions and their non-moral consequences. Utilitarianism can be divided into action and rule cases. An act in utilitarianism judges the rightness or the wrongness of the actions done. A rule in utilitarianism is using the rule to judge moral rules, and not judge by the person’s choice or morality. “According to the principle of utility, we should attempt to produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness”. (496.1.). Mill is writing about not how the world is but how it should be. He is not claiming that people do, in fact act so as to produce the greatest happiness, rather that this is what they ought to do.
There are so many things that we all do and others do that tempts us to judge them for what they do. Sometimes it is hard to control our opinions when it comes to seeing something that we are not used to seeing or dealing with things that we aren’t used to having control upon. As humans I think we all judge other people because of the difference among them and ourselves. We tend to think that what our culture or what we are taught is how things should run and we sometimes don’t realize that there other people out there with different opinions and we can’t just simply not pay attention to them.
“The Four Noble Truths”—The Buddha
The Four Noble Truths is a very interesting article. It talks about suffering mainly. The four noble truths lay out the means to live and how people should conduct their life. The first noble truth is the existence of suffering. Meaning that the existence and the experience of suffering is involved in the everyday life of a human. This includes the form meaning a physical component, feelings meaning the sensations that result the operation of senses, perception meaning being aware of the sensations, mental formations meaning the emotions and dispositions to act in particular ways with respect to sensations and consciousness meaning the results from the interaction from form, feelings, perception and mental formations. The second noble truth is that cause of suffering is craving. Craving meaning the six senses, sight, sound,taste, touch, smell and the mind. Which they all result in suffering. The third noble truth is the cessation of suffering is attainable. The only way this can be done is by taking away the cause of suffering. The last noble truth is the path to the cessation of suffering. The path is laid out in the way that it is a middle way between excessive indulgence in pleasure and denial.
I agree because all of these things do happen and have to happen in order for us to live life. We all have to suffer in one or many points in life. Like I always say to myself, I may suffer now but later on I will look back and say it happened for a reason. Sometimes we think that we suffer on purpose but everything in life has a purpose and a reason behind it.
Nicomachean Ethics By Aristotle
I disagree with Aristotle. I think that because we are allowed to do what we want meaning what makes us happy that the things that were done in order for that to happen were done in a good way. I mean as humans we all have different actions and we all have different forms of thinking and all especially when it comes to making ourselves happy. Making ourselves happy can be a good or a bad thing. For example, normal people would be happy just by being with someone who makes them happy, crazy people would probably be different.
I also don’t agree with the whole happiness leading to goodness thing just for the fact that not all things that make us happy necessarily end with something good. It might end up with a break up or people crying or you being hurt. I just think that in his point of view is good but to me it’s not. I think that true happiness just comes unexpectedly. We can’t be searching for happiness, we have to let it come to us.
I Am Who I Am And You Are? 