Our parties are always swinging
Couples around the UK who are comfortable in their relationship are giving permission for their partners to be in an open relationship and are engaging in “sex parties” Wherein single and non-single men and women have casual sex for one night with no consequences.
Buddhist
A Buddhist would follow the third precept which is not to engage in sexual misconduct. The definition of sexual misconduct is extremely vague and varies from individual to individual; however some basic rules may be applied. The sexual act should not require any other actions which could be seen as wrong, for example if you are not going to have a monogamous relationship you should not have to lie (And break the fourth precept; do not make false speech) to, or harm any of your partners in order to do so. Also all participants in the act should enjoy it, thus prohibiting rape and the like. Sexual desire is also one of the main reasons for rebirth, so remaining celibate may help escape the cycle of rebirth although it is not necessary. Thus although it is not good to do so as it may prevent one from escaping the cycle, polygamy is acceptable.
Utilitarian
A utilitarian would say that as long as no partner is hurt during the polygamy that this would be alright so long as the pleasure of the experience outweighed any pain caused. If for example one committed adultery when one partner was emotionally invested in a monogamous relationship and upon discovering this they were caused distress no sexual pleasure could probably outweigh the emotional pain caused. However if it is an accepted open relationship and neither partner feels any ill feeling toward this concept then is causes much more pleasure and is therefore ethical.
Kantian
A Kantian would say that this is wrong because we have a duty to have a monogamous sexual relationship and only then for procreation because once we look upon another human sexually they cease to become human in our desiring which in turn is in breach of our duty to respect the humanity of others. Also if we apply the universal rule to this; then personal relationships would break down and STDs would spread like wildfire.
Christian
A Christian would fall upon the seventh holy commandment which states that one should not commit adultery and therefore the above situation is immoral and sinful. Although adultery is only truly committed if the couple is married it is also a sin to have sex out of wedlock, therefore a polygamous relationship is impossible. Even a monogamous relationship is impossible if one is not married.
Myself
I believe that if all members of a sexual act and all the partners of those individuals will not be harmed and give their consent then is not an immoral thing to do. If however in more unusual circumstances the other participant is unable to give their consent, then you probably shouldn’t be having sex with it. As for the morality of these situations, there are not immoral however they are most certainly unwise and misguided.
Is global warming an ethical issue?
Global warming is the phenomena by which greenhouse gases are collected in the atmosphere and energy is reflected back into the planet thus causing it to heat up and its climates shift mutate and eventually end in another ice age ending all life as we know it. Is this a simply environmental issue or does it leak into the field of ethics.
Buddhist
A Buddhist would say that because we are to be reborn in the cycle of existence it is in our best interests to keep the planet in reasonable condition so that in our next life and in the next life of others it will be possible to escape to nirvana. In order to follow the first precept we should not harm any living being and if we pollute our planet and make it uninhabitable by global warming we are, by proxy harming the life upon it which would douse every soul who is apathetic to this issue with a large amount of bad karma, thus making this an ethical issue rather than purely scientific.
Utilitarian
A utilitarian would say that if we destroy our planet’s ecosystem then we will also cause a large amount of suffering and even death to the people who live upon it and are therefore causing much more pain than any pleasure that could ever be generated by the use of the technology that creates that pollution. Allowing it to continue therefore is unethical.
Kantian
A Kantian would say that we have a duty to protect our planet and that if all humans were to allow global warming to continue then we would be in a negative position and as such it is in breach of the rule of university. He would also say that by allowing our planet to fall into a state of disrepair we are also in breach of our duty to protect the human race. As such, in Kant’s opinion, this is most definitely an ethical issue.
Christian
A Christian would say that since the earth is God’s creation we have a moral duty to keep it in good order, because all of God’s creations are inherently sacred. Also the sixth commandment states that “Thou shalt not kill.” and allowing people to die by not taking action is, in the eyes of the lord, murder. However the Bible also says that God gave the planet to humans for them to use to develop themselves and use its resources and as such we should have the right to do with it as we wish, thus not making it unethical.
Myself
Personally believe that with the heated and intellectual arguments on both sides of this debate that, the truth lies not in either argument but in-between. It is not going to be nearly as bad as some of the more severe models state however it is our fault and will happen eventually. As for its ethical status, I believe that we have a moral obligation to keep our species around and as such it has strayed from the purely scientific to the ethical.
Comic relief
Comic relief is when most charity is given in the UK. This should be an inherently good thing; however, should we need events like this to spur out charitable nature. Surely charity should be a natural human instinct? Is it ethical that we only give when others pull on our heart strings?
Buddhist
A Buddhist would say that all of our possessions should be given to charity because ownership and desiring are the primary causes or rebirth, and by giving to others we are putting them in a position to allow themselves to escape suffering and therefore the cycle of rebirth which puts very good karma on your soul thus allowing yourself to escape the cycle yourself. As such charity is always right and so comic relief is right, however it is not right that we are only compelled to give on one day of the year, if your society needs an event such as comic relief to get any charity whatsoever then it will be nigh on impossible for them to escape to nirvana.
Utilitarian
A utilitarian would say that comic relief in itself is right because it causes pleasure to those who give and also to those who receive. They would also say that since not giving doesn’t cause any pain or pleasure, that not giving to charity is simply a neutral act and as such just giving at events such as comic relief is ok because you are not causing any pain but some pleasure to others. As such less charity is needed.
Kantian
A Kantian would say that we have a duty to give to charity at every available opportunity because if we all did so then the redistribution of wealth would be a lot faster and the rich/poor gap would be sealed. Much like the theory of communism. He would also say that events like comic relief simply show to what degree we have abandoned our duty. If everyone only gave to charity when they were obliged to do so one day a year then the rich poor gap would only increase.
Christian
A Christian would say that comic relief is a good thing because Christ always preached charitable giving. He is quoted as to have said “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another.” Again however they would say that we are obliged to give around 10% of our total income to charity and as such only giving on comic relief shows our disregard for Christ’s teachings. Thus comic relief is proof of our sin.
Myself
I personally believe that events such as comic relief are stupid and manipulative and only exist to make the middle class English feel better about themselves and their contribution to the world. The only real charity is not money but time and effort which is contributed in order to make the cause self reliant so that they no longer are in need of charity and may even be able to give their new found time and resources to others still in need.
War
The world has always been war-stricken, the most recent example being that of the Iraq war which continues to the time of writing. There are many opinions on war and whether if at all it can be justified especially when it comes to religion and philosophy. Here are just a few.
Buddhist
A Buddhist is, by nature, a pacifist and believes in the sanctity of life and that one should not harm any living creature, they believe that diplomacy is more powerful than war. However with certain strains of Buddhism, if they are under severe attack they are allowed to defend themselves, with the minimum force possible of course. They believe that fighting anger and violence only pushes one further down in the cycle of rebirth. The Iraq war is therefore wrong because it was not in desperate self defence.
Utilitarian
A utilitarian would, surprisingly, agree with the American war philosophy of “The greater good” in that a war should be fought if the result of the war would cause more pleasure then the pain caused by the war, even if you are fighting between the lesser of two evils. As such the Iraq war would be wrong because it caused less pain than pleasure because although Hussein caused a lot of suffering he kept the country in order and the gangs off the streets which in turn caused more damage than he ever did in his absence.
Kantian
A Kantian would say that we have a duty to serve our country and to join any conflict which threatens our countries integrity at the soonest possible junction. However he would also say that we have a duty to protect world piece so unless the opposition is in threat of thus then the war is unethical. As for the Iraq war, Saddam may have been a threat to world peace due to the possibility of him being in possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Christian
A Christian would say that war is right as long as it is in the name of righteousness and as such if war is in the name of the lord or any Christian ideals then it is ethical. As for the Iraq war it was not in relation to the Christian God, however it was in protection of our allies and thus was protecting the weak and as such is, by Christian standards, ethical.
Myself
I believe that war and tribalism is in natural human instinct and that it is folly to deny this, as such war is a necessary and at some points is even a constructive solution. However I believe that as far as ethics goes, the Iraq war was not justified. In my opinion it was simply a poor excuse for an international scrap for oil and the only suspicions that they had weapons of mass destruction was that we sold them to them in the first place. It is strange that when no weapons were discovered in the more obvious areas that the search seemed to correlate quite consistently with the areas of the oil fields in that area…