“It is sad that our actions are not driven by our conscience.”
I am going to take a different approach today and answer according to the questions provided.
- Do you believe that some lives are more valuable than others? Does the life of a drug dealer have the same value as the life of an 80 year old? What about a small child with the potential for a full life? How do we make judgements about who gets what?
I believe in the phrase “the value of a single life depends on how and what it was lived for.” So, no. From this perspective, I do not believe one life is more valuable than another life. We all have different goals and dreams no matter how long our life span is. We cannot say a baby who has a long life ahead is more important than a drug dealer or an elderly. Some may argue that the drug dealer “deserves” to be seen as less valuable or even ostracised, The same could be said for the elderly but we replace the word “deserve” with the phrase “she/he’s had a long and fulfilling life.” This seems to be a kinder expression, however it is just as morally wrong. In other words, all lives should be considered equal and we should “never” forget that even if our minds sometimes move subtly towards preserving the baby’s life first. In conclusion, since we live in a world where we are “judged” by our “actions” and maybe intentions which is more difficult because we cannot “see” it, we can never truly judge correctly because to do that we would need to understand each person’s personality thoroughly. It is sad but the action and intention system may be the only “plausible” judgement regimen.
2. If all lives are equal, then when, if ever, is torture OK?
In my opinion, torture is never okay and this should be plastered and set in stone everywhere. As the article about “Zero Dark Thirty” stated, “The argument cannot be that we should not torture because it does not work. The argument must be that we should not torture because it is wrong.” This statement is exactly what we need to address. The article goes on to further state that torture may attain valuable information during interrogations even though we know this is morally wrong. In these situations, our conscience is rendered insignificant almost as if we completely ignore it in order to protect our selfish greed. In conclusion, we need to value “life” more than our selfishness and find a effective but non-torturous method to gain valuable information. And if by using this non-torturous method, the information is not received, then ask your conscience if this is okay? If it is, then we can start moving in the right direction and vice versa.
3. What other morally ambiguous scenarios can you come up with, where your sense of what is right may be challenged?
Here is a piece I wrote about profit-making and its required global balance.
We all want to make money no matter how and when in our lives. In fact, we love money so much we will throw away dignity for it. It is almost the best trap for humans if they want to be caught and to compare to an extreme; cheese to trap a mouse! Of course I am not degrading the human race because I know we are extremely intelligent… but even with this ability we sometimes let our true values wither in the face of monetary enticement. As Ghandi once said, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need but not every man’s greed.”
The aforementioned brings up the world wide concept/epidemic of profit-making with a “profit-mindset.” This reminds us that the world suffers more than it needs to because each individual with this mindset will always want and want some more. If I am not mistaken by exaggerating, the majority of people live and work through everyday with this concept in mind. However, arguments can and will arise to say that each individual is just working to provide for their own family. This is indeed 100% true and I agree. But if you can and have provided for your family then maybe start giving back to where its needed. As cliche as this may sound, we all live in this world together so we need to balance our needs and wants or else the world will just wither away if not naturally, then it will be by our hands.
I could be wrong but another interesting perspective to add on is that students who have studied Business related fields tend to have a stronger and more stubborn profit-based mindset. What they need to do is just always remember that there needs to be a balance between making profit and flourishing in their large companies and the everyday life they live. Basically, the more money you make, the more you should give back to help others because only then will balance be maintained.
The point of this discussion is to remind people that the “excess” profit we all “want” to make comes with a “true” price, the world. And if we keep thinking with this mindset and greed then everything will surely decline. Therefore, we need to remember that we are not the mice who mindlessly dart at a piece of cheese, we are each highly intelligent individuals who can easily realize that a balanced mindset between how much we need and how much we want is the goal we should achieve.
Do you agree or disagree?
4. Do you believe that those who “live by the sword”, should “die by the sword”? Is “An eye for an eye” a useful criterion against which to measure our responsibility towards other human beings?
All I can say is that there is so much wrong in both those criterion’s which are sometimes used to measure human responsibilities. As Ghandi once said, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” There is so much truth and reality in this phrase that it is something everybody should know and abide by. With that being said, lets say we “did” live by those criterion’s, the consequence would be a spiralling downfall of ignorance and devaluation. Thus, we would never ever learn the value and significance of human life because we would simply kill someone because they killed. What about “accidental killings?” are they also going to follow these criterion? If we did we would never become morally intelligent.