Sunday, December 23, 2007
Is organ donation ethical/moral?
-Consider the link, but also, is it ethical and/or moral to move someone up the list based on societal status or profession, or celebrity status?
- What about using organs from accident victims, or from those in a brain dead state or persistent coma?
-There is also an issue of organ theft (i only bring this up because I'm in New Orleans right now, and its becoming a major problem); someone is sedated/kidnapped and an organ removal is performed without consent usually without a sterile environment. Any thoughts on this?
Sunday, December 16, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ylKTkp9to0Watched it? Good. Dow Chemical Company was one of seven major U.S. chemical companies supplying Agent Orange to the military for use in Vietnam during the 60's. To this day, veterans and Vietnamese suffer from the long-lasting implications of exposure to this herbicide. If you want evidence of this, Google Images search 'Agent Orange'.
So, in response to what they saw as utter hypocrisy on Dow's part, www.thetruthaboutdow.org put out their own commercial and posted on YouTube:
Just thought I'd share an interesting example of the power of language in conjunction with sense perception.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The question was what would you do if you were given a direct order from a commanding officer to do something that was against your morals. I wanted to take it even further and ask, what if it was against ethical standards. Is there a difference? And if so, why?
I know many of you will not have to deal with a 'commanding officer' but just think of it as a boss, somebody who can control parts of your life.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Pro-Life: (View each of the photos and take in mind the effect of the captions. Be warned, website contains very disturbing images.) http://www.jonsplace.org/rel/abortionpics.htm
Premise One: Individuals own their bodies, and everything that is growing within them.
Premise Two: Fetuses grow within the bodies of their mothers.
Conclusion One: Females own their fetuses.
Premise Three: Individuals may destroy that which they own.
Premise Four: Females own their fetuses.
Conclusion Two: Females may destroy their fetuses.
(For further discussion of these premises, follow this link:
After reviewing the two sections, what do you think? Present your own view on abortion and discuss how the images and premises fairly or unfairly influenced your opinion or could influence the opinion of others.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Is it ethical to step in and save this professional football player from paralysis when so many others become paralyzed each year simply because they can't afford this cutting edge science?
In what ways will this be a good step for medicine? Will it have a bad impact at all? Discuss.
Here is a link if you want the whole story:
There are those who volunteer to enlist because it is their choice and they feel that it is their duty to do so, but is it fair to have the all volunteer military when many of the people who enlist are the ones who have no other options? Is it ethical for people like Bush and Cheney who make the decisions, to send these people to war when they have never gone to war themselves and will never have to worry about sending their children? The draft no longer exists for the very reason that people don't want to be forced to go to war, especially those who don't agree with it and feel that it is not a sacrifice they should be making. But if we were to have the draft system instead, there probably would be a lot more protest and people who can so easily ignor the war now would definitely be forced to face this issue. So which would you choose? The draft system or all volunteer military?
Sunday, December 09, 2007
There have been many arguments that Carter’s lack of intervention on the girl’s behalf was fully justified. Before leaving on the assignment, he and the other photographers were instructed not to touch anyone for fear of epidemics. Furthermore, the ethical role and duty of a photographer is to observe and not interfere.
The general question is this: Does there come a point where these ground rules and ethical duties as a photojournalist should be ignored for the sake of a human life? Where does the standard of beneficence come into play? This also applies to nature photography. When is it (or is it) acceptable to help an animal struggling in its natural circumstances? For example, is it okay to help a newly hatched sea turtle make it into the ocean? Fair arguments can be made for both sides of these questions and ethics in photography truly resides in a “gray” area. What do you think?
Photo and information on Kevin Carter from: http://worldsalbum.blogspot.com
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
So I know we’ve been talking a lot about art the past few days, so I’ve found a couple of pieces of artwork that have undergone a lot of controversy about whether or not they should be viewed by the public or placed in a public museum.
Go here: http://www.your3dsource.com/holyvirginmary.jpeg to view a controversial piece of art by Chris Ofili. The following was said about the controversy:
In 1999, the city-funded
As a countermeasure, the museum filed a suit in federal court against the city claiming violations of the first ammendment, and seeking a permanent injunction against the city to keep it from withholding funds. U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon, sided with the museum, and granted them a preliminary injunction. The city was also ordered to resume the museum's funding, and to stop any eviction proceedings.
(Visit http://www.your3dsource.com/controversial-artwork.html to view more instances of controversial art.)
**Consider the following questions:
What do you think should have been done about the “Holy Virgin Mary”?
Do you think Judge Gershon was justified in siding with the museum?
Putting this in a broader sense, should anything that is expressing an opinion, no matter how offensive to any kind of people, be allowed in a public place, and be funded by the money of taxpayers?
What types of knowledge issues are relevant in dealing with these kinds of cases?
Monday, December 03, 2007
Many of us are familiar with Dr. Watson as a great scientist, being part of the Watson and Crick team that pioneered advancements in DNA. Now, Dr. Watson is making claims that experiments show that black intelligence is not equal to white intelligence and therefore, black people do not deserve to be treated the same way as white people. As we know, Watson has proved his intelligence through his advancements with Dr. Crick concerning DNA, yet he is being fought and even looked at in the context of racial hatred laws.
How do Watson's current statements compare to the work he has done in the past (does his past work give him any more credibility now)? Is society not accepting his ideas because of our familiarity bias with equality? How is science conflicting with ethics?
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Read these two articles from ESPN on Barry:
Both authors are black, and both mention the race issue. One article says that race is a factor, and the other says that race is not a factor, both comparing Barry Bonds to other people in similar situations. Which do you agree with? First, is Barry's indictment a good thing or a bad thing? Second, is Barry's race (he's black) a factor in this decision? Should it be? Remember to justify...
Think of your favorite conspiracy theory. Chances are, the URC was behind it, at some point in the stage: conception, composure, fabrication, or cover-up. Only now, in celebration of their sixtieth anniversary, is URC actually opening up. 2000 lucky entrants will be taken on a guided tour of the facilities of "Area 51," the URC's main headquarters. Sign up now, with a $50 deposit, for your chance to win this exclusive once-in-a-lifetime opportunity! You won't want to miss it.
Conspiracy theories provide an interesting example of the difficulties we encounter in perception. They are, almost exclusively, about the bias of privilege, that we can see or learn about something that no one else knows.
Beyond the fun we can have talking about conspiracy theories, though, there is another interesting issue. From the handout we received on "Biases Affecting Information Processing" (found online at http://www.virtualsalt.com/infobias.htm), a different bias often directly conflicts with Privilege: Availability. One bias postulates that we want the accessible information, while the other postulates that we want the inaccessible information.
Can these be resolved? Or can only one of them impact us at any given time? Perhaps if we work to reduce the influence one of these biases has on us, we only dig ourselves deeper into a rut on the other one. Can anyone offer any insight into this contradiction?
And especially, can anyone provide any (personal) examples?