Is euthanasia ethical or unethical ?

is euthanasia ethical in pets that can't be saved. no one wants to see a pet suffer that's why we take our pet to the vet when we see it suffer. so that the pet can be put out of its misery.now this is seen as o.k. because the animal is suffering. when you help a human that is terminally ill commit suicide, it's murder. why do we view taking the animals life as ethical and letting the human suffer as ethical ?

Code of Angling Ethics

Understands fishing and boating regulations.
Cares about aquatic and marine habitats.
Keeps only fish they will eat, and properly releases the rest.
Is respectful of others - anglers and non-anglers alike.
Leaves no trash, even if left by others.
Shares expertise with less experienced anglers.
Cooperates with authorities.
Fishes and boats safely.
Preserves the sportfishing tradition.

Etical fishing

with companies over-fishing and illegal operators pillaging the oceans, where do we turn for ethical insight on how to handle overfishing of our oceans. do we look for it in Eco labs that are providing sustainable fish? or do we turn to fish farms to solve the problem. i think that education would probably be in our best interest if we want to save fish from extinction. through education we can teach young and old what is happening with our oceans and what will be the end result if we do not do something.

John Burroughs,
Nature teaches more than she preaches. There are no sermons in stones. It is easier to get a spark out of a stone than a moral.

questions

1. Are zoo cage bars to keep the animals "in" or the animals "out"?

2. What do the zoo keepers do with the animals when they have died at the zoo, i have not seen a crematorium at my local zoo?

3. Is it morally wrong to keep animals in zoos?

4. Zoo Vs. Sanctuary which is one is better?

5. If animals have a right to life, must we protect them against natural predators in the wild?

animals in captivity

in today's world what is better captive life in a zoo or possible extinction. yes keeping animals captive in zoos may not be the right thing to do morally. but letting a population of wild animals go extinct is not right either. for some species, zoos maybe the last standing ground for animals that are seeing there habitats destroyed by man. so i guess you have to take the lesser of two evils

Why Work?

we say we work because the ends justify the means. but could it be that we work because deep down inside we need that social interaction with other human beings. maybe it is nature that guides us to work, and maybe thats the reason we see so many people who retire, pick-up part time jobs or start new careers. because they need that interaction with others.

ethical phrase

by Buddha,
Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds.

"Pro-choice" or "Pro-life"

"pro-choice" or "pro-life" which one are you? they both intentionally ignore the real issue, which is the rights and welfare of the pregnant woman against the existence of the fetus. "Pro-choice" pretends the fetus doesn't exist. While"Pro-life" ignores the dilemma of the woman. when you look at these phrases what are they really saying. one is saying are you against freedom of choice, and the other is saying who is anti-life. which are you?

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving is a time when family and friends get together to sit back and reflect what we are thankful for. though we as Americans are thankful for many things; i feel that their is another culture out their that may mourn this day or regret this day ever happening. for Indians this day must not be one of thanks, but one of regret. thanks to what are four fathers have done to the Indians. so is it ethically right for a society to celebrate the survival; of early arrivals in a European invasion that culminated in the death of 10 to 30 million native people. what did the real thanksgiving hold, Bigotry, hatred, greed, self-righteousness. what thanksgiving really lead to was the genocide of one race.

ethical questions

Q1: If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion?
Read the next question before scrolling down to the answer of this one.

Q2: It is time to elect the world leader, and your vote counts.
Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:
Candidate A
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs.
Which of these candidates would be your choice?

Decide first, then scroll down for the answer.

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt
Candidate B is Winston Churchill
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler
.....and by the way:

Answer to the abortion question - if you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.


i thought that this was a cool exercise and wanted to post it.


works cited

www.davidpbrown.co.uk

Absolutism

The belief that there is one and only one truth; those who espouse absolutism usually also believe that they know what this absolute truth is. In ethics, absolutism is usually contrasted to relativism. this is what are country wants us to believe when it come to policy on war. that their is only one truth.

business ethics

is it possible for businesses and corporations to apply business ethics in today's society. especially when we live in a business world that seems to feed off of corruption. i wonder if pressure is being put on businesses to have them follow this form of applied ethics? and if pressure is being applied by who? it seems to me as if the people are the ones that need to put pressure on these corporations; if we wait for the government to do it, we might not ever see that happen, or if they do intervene it is because they have some kind of agenda that will benefit them.

oxymorons

oxymoron that combines two normally contradictory terms is a loanword from Greek oxy ("sharp") and moros ("dull"). so the word oxymoron is itself an oxymoron. did anybody no that? i just thought it was interesting. i also wonder what it is, that distinguishes oxymoron's from other paradoxes and contradictions. does an oxymoron have any real meaning, or is it just used for humor? either way it grasps your attention.

media

if media plays a role in democracy then what is it? is the role of media to sway the public towards the interest of multi national corporations, government, or any other organization with money? i though that media's role was to inform the people. was media established at first to be that third eye. telling the people what they always thought they new on issues but had no proof. now media is all comericalized just like all other things in life.

just thinking

since humans seem to be violent in nature, would it be safe to say that certain act such as torturing are here to stay. it seems to me that violence is inbreed in us, and even though we have the right to reason maybe their is a gene that codes for violence and if this is the case then it might be safe to say that acts such as torture and war are here to stay.

Propaganda

today while in class i got to thinking, if an enemy is evil like governments and media portray them to be, why use propaganda? would society not know their enemy without the help of media? or is propaganda a way to taking people who do not have an opinion; and then forcing one on them?

torture and the ticking bomb

why did we look at the ticking bomb scenario when the likely hood of this type of event happening is slim to none. how can this be applied to real life events. i know that this is used to justify if torture would be justified in this circumstance. but you really can't take this and then say torture is o.k. if you have an instance like the ticking bomb. or is this used to help justify torture. because it can be said that the reason we need to use torture tactics is for the safety of our people. and the needs of the many out way the needs of the one. and the one in this case would be the victim. i feel that this scenario has done nothing but to sway the minds of people into thinking that torture is o.k.

i found today's topic in class very interesting. is their a proper response to when torture should be administered? i feel that their is not. if it is proven that it does not get correct information. then why are governments so eager to use it. it just baffles me. we know that torture does not work; could it be that deep down inside some were we just like the violence. and this is why torture is kept around. as a race, the human race has always been violent. when i was i the service i heard of a torture method were they would just let water drip on your forehead and supposedly it would drive someone crazy. whether this is true or not i do not know? i believe that as long as their is war their will always be torture. it has been here since the biblical times so i don't see it ever going away.

Just war theory

After the discussion on Friday in class i do believe in the theory of just war and that if applied correctly wars may be justified. but as it goes in today's world i feel that their never will be a just war because governments do not adhere to the rules provided in just war. they lie and twist events in order to make the public believe that they are just. and when you think bout it, this has probably been going on since the beginning of time. my question is why do we even try to justify war through just war theory? it will never happen when each side thinks that the they have just cause.

their is no justification

tell me,when you look at this picture can you really say that the war we are fighting is really justified. their was no weapons of mass destruction. and we continue to lose innocent people on both sides? what is all this madness for, oil ? if so, can we consider going to war for that and is going to war for oil justifiable. this is not a country of democracy this is a dictatorship, and if your not aboard then you will get rolled over. just like Iraq. and Iran might be next.

Just Cause

you need just cause as an important condition for waging war. we speculated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction used this as just cause, and then we went an invaded Iraq. when we found out that their was no weapons of mass destruction. we say that the Iraqi people need us. its obvious we are not going to pull out of Iraq while the president is in office. what i don't understand is how this war falls under Jus Ad Bellen their really was no just cause, no possessing right intention. and who is the proper authority ? "Congress" i guess what I'm trying to say, what makes this war just.

ehtical or not? who knows

embryonic stem cell research is ethically right in the individual. how can you justify killing something that may become a human living this. yet how do you justify letting millions suffer over diseases that could have been cured. why must we as a society always try to place something in a category. as is the case with this maybe it is unethical maybe it is not. i think it depends on what side of the fence you stand on. if your the one that has a disease that could be cured from stem cell research you do not see it as unethical.

embryonic stem cell research (is it morally right)

i have been reading articles on embryonic stem cell research and trying to figure out in my head is it morally right to do this research. do the ends justify the means. this is something that could potentially cure many diseases that plague humans. but on the other hand you have this fertilized egg. it can't think, talk, or carry any human characteristics. does this make it not worthy of protection. if so animals don't carry these characteristics yet they are worthy of protection and the mentally challenged do not carry certain human characteristics. and we don't use them for research. i guess since they cannot speak for themselves then we need to speak for them.

manifest destination

today while sitting in class i was thinking about what was being said in respect to animal testing i kind of got the feeling that maybe humans view animal testing as some sort of manifest destiny. just like early Europeans viewed the land here in north America. they saw it as gods will to conquer the land and educate the natives. and nothing would stop them. i see the same similarities when it comes to animal testing and the way its viewed. instead of land being conquered, its human diseases. and it is seen as gods will. because any testing on humans would be considered inhumane because we are not lesser creatures.

human expermintation

in class it was said that the animals were breed specifically for the labs. so it wasn't as bad as if they were taken from the forest. even though animal experimentation really does nothing for human research. and to use humans for this type of work was not morally correct. but what if humans were breed so that they were solely used for human experimentation. would it be wrong even though they have no idea of that their was a world that outside that lab.