Situation 2: Abortion
Would the survival of baby Amillia do anything to change the opinion about abortion of the following groups of people? What arguments would they give either for sticking to their original view or for changing it?
A Christian:
There are two sides to Christianity, one the Catholics are and always have been pro-life meaning they are completely against abortion no matter what so there views would not waver from this. The other side is protestant which are pro choice meaning they believe in the right to chose but there views would be wavered I think in to the want for a change in GB laws.
A Buddhist:
Buddhists are overall very much like the view of the Catholics but for Very different reasons. They were, before this phenomenon, against abortion for they believe in the course of reincarnation and abortion would be breaking the chain the other reason is Karma abortion brings bad karma upon a lot of people wavering they path towards enlightenment and better reincarnation.
Kant:
Kant believes in concept of moral law and duty meaning that he would think that under no circumstances ever could abortion be right and I think this event would not even strengthen that view but have no effect at all.
A Utilitarian:
Utilitarian believe in the right, or moral pass to abort at pacific terms for instance when the mother is at a health risk of having he baby or when it would cause the mother other kinds of damage. And this discovery would waver there views to harsher situations and at different times in to the pregnancy and I think they would also want to see a change in GB laws.
Me:
Before this wonder survival my views were of agreeing with abortion laws of today but after this amazing discovery I think that they should defiantly change the laws to being able to have an abortion at up to about 18 weeks for the fact that 50% of baby’s born at 25 weeks live this and a foetus developed enough to live is one that I don’t think we should have the right to kill before it is born.
Situation 3: Sex
“Sexy and liberated”…or immoral? How does “swinging” sit within the ethical framework of
A Christian:
The Christian view on sex outside marriage, that is not for pro creation is wrong and a sin and the original view would be that it is wrong and completely and utterly outside the ethical framework but nowadays most would say you have to look at the bible taking in to account its sociological and historical content meaning that would have to take in to account the time and culture it was written in meaning that most would Christians, but perhaps not all devote ones would let it slip.
A Buddhist:
A Buddhist view on this subject is a bit mixed on this subject but they would overall think of it an unethical for they think that sex should not be just for pleasure hence one of the 5 precepts I undertake to abstain to the misuse of the senses meaning you should not use an act of reproduction for pure pleasure for it is just a distraction
Kant:
Kant would be against this subject he says in his ‘lecture on ethics’ (1770) If a man wishes to satisfy his desire and a woman hers, they stimulate each others desire there inculcations meet, but their object is not human nature but sex, and each of them dishonours the human nature of the other. Meaning that sex should again only be for procreation he thought that sex should be within a set of rules promoting intrinsic worth and dignity not by lust so it should not be to pleasure each other and if it was out of marriage it was even worse you can see this from ‘Sex is bad except when it brings out intrinsic worth and dignity’ sex within marriage.
A Utilitarian:
On this subject a utilitarian would be perfectly fine with it there base rule is the greatest good for the greatest number meaning If the pleasure out ways the pain it is ok and that rule can be applied here so for them as long as you have both parties consent and there is no exploitation it is well with in there moral framework in fact I think they would be less neutral but if no one is getting hurt all for it.
Me:
I think that on this subject the utilitarian view has got in pinned. As long as no one is being hurt or exploited then it is fine and within a good ethical framework if all parties don’t love out but are just to gain from these activities then it is all right if not better for some than a more restricted relationship.
Situation 4: Global warming
Is global warming an ethical issue? What would the following think?
A Christian:
A Christian would defiantly see global warming as an ethical issue because it is us misusing god’s earth something that is not ours they would see this as they would maybe think that the effects were a sine from god and some extremist could see it as a punishment from god. They would see it as something that we need to change Now.
‘The earth and all life on it are given to us to share and develop, not to dominate and exploit’ Roman Catholic Church, 1991
A Buddhist:
Buddhist believe in not harming any creature or living think and seeing as they see the earth very much like the Greeks saw the goddess Gaia then they see global warming as harming the earth and breaking the 1st of the 5 precepts I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures. So I think they too would see it as an ethical issue.
‘Monks and nuns may not destroy and plant or tree’ Vinaya Pitaka
Kant:
Kant would believe the global warming should never of come around that what we do to cause it should in fact never of happened if we had stuck to his rules of categorical imperative’s that we should never everyone should have stuck to the same rules and seeing as for him the motive of the rules would be the "worthiness of being happy" then everyone should have stuck to not adding to global warming. So yes I think he would have seen it as an ethical issue.
A Utilitarian:
A utilitarian would look at the situation in terms of happiness and pain, they have a saying “the greatest good for the greatest number” good meaning the greatest amounts of happiness you should always look at every one involved in the situation so very much like Kant "worthiness of being happy" idea they would think that we should have never done what we have done and I think they too would see it as an ethical issue.
Me:
As is widely know global warming is an important one and I think it is an ethical because if the subject of ruining the world for our future generations is not an ethical one I don’t know what is. It is something we need to change and the facts that have been revealed are devastating.
Situation 5: War
The Armed services are paying with lives for labour rivalry. What would the following think?
A Christian:
‘Happy are those who work for peace’ – Matt. 5:9
Christians are not completely against war most Christians believe its ok if it’s a just war for a just war there are rules that must be applied here are some. The war must be declared by the head of state a just cause is required those attacked must deserved it and the reason for the war be to advance good and not evil
A Buddhist:
Non-violence is possibly the biggest part of Buddhism there first precept is in fact I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures although on occasion Buddhists have been know to fight.
‘Hatred will not cease by hatred but by love alone. This is the ancient law’ Dalai Lama
Kant:
Kant would believe that it is our duty to fight for our country and for that matter to fund the country I think he would believe that if we agreed to go war and if it were in our policy to fund it we should. He, I think would say regardless of our wills and desire we should fully commit to something that we, as a country, have committed to.
A Utilitarian:
A Utilitarian would very much sympathise with the government for they are stretching the budget to get the best for all or the greatest good for the greatest number they would see what was trying to be done for the country but I think they would partially agree in putting funding more in to the army but would see that there would just have to be cutting elsewhere
Me:
I think that such controversial subject’s of war that have been so argued and debated should be fully funded and backed although that if we were to fund there would be downsides such as cutting elsewhere or higher taxes that would be unbelievably attacked and criticises. And the people in high power could not do this without putting there political positions in serious risk.
