Colloquium I (Tu 5/20: 9:00
am)
Human
Obligation and Animal Rights
James Hunsanger, “The Purpose of
Life: Why be Moral?”: My argument best follows the Divine
Command Theory. I argue that there are certain good moral traits that are
accepted in every culture and generation proving there is a universal moral
code or law in all men. This leads to the argument that with every law comes
from a lawmaker and this lawmaker hold men accountable to hold these morals.
An argument that can be made is that we can never know that a higher law or lawmaker
exists, but I would say that this argument can be followed through to
rationally come to the conclusion that such a law maker exists and men are
accountable to him.
Mari
Stewart, “Animal Testing”: Animal testing should be limited
to pharmaceutical and disease research. Products, such as cosmetics, hygiene
products, and cleaning solutions should not be tested on animals. Current
science is advanced enough to know what chemicals interact with each other,
and what chemicals cause adverse effects when applied to the skin or
ingested. Testing should be limited to pharmaceuticals and disease research
simply because scientific research depends on it. It is not practical or even
possible to perform disease research on an agar plate or with computer
simulations alone. We need to learn how the disease manifests, and the only
way to do that is to watch it in vitro. Guidelines have been set for animal
testing by the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, which try to eliminate as much
suffering as possible. By following the guidelines set by the Animal Welfare
Act of 1966 and limiting animal testing, much suffering can be alleviated.
Kristi
Trinkle, “Animal Testing is Not Helping: An Exploration of the Practice
and Why it Must be Stopped: Most animal testing is unnecessary
for the advancement of science and the improvement of human lives, yet it is
always harmful to the animal, so our moral obligation is to limit
testing dramatically. Based on Utilitarian principles, because animals can
feel pain, the only way the suffering experienced by animals through testing
can be justified is if the sacrificial pain of the animal causes more
happiness for humans. In fact, animal testing is not helping humans, or
causing more happiness, yet it always harms and creates unhappiness for the
animal. For these reasons most animal testing is immoral and must be limited
to only the justifiable tests in which pain and suffering experienced by
animals through testing truly provides benefits for humans.
Commentator:
Miriam Zinger
|
Colloquium II (Tu 5/20: 10:30 am)
Killing
and Letting Die
Mathew
Lambourn, “Laying Down the Law”: People largely view the
death penalty as the proper punishment for somebody who has committed a crime
considered to be the worse possible crime committable. It is believed that
the death penalty is a deterrent to this crime by forcing would be criminals
to consider their actions more carefully. My paper will explore why the death
penalty does not do what it is intended to do. It is only a way for us to
extract vengeance. Any kind of killing is bad even if it is the killing of
somebody that we may consider to be deserving of death. The death penalty
should be done away with completely as a possible punishment in today’s
society.
Gregory
Nelson, “Increase Immigration … Are You Serious?": Increasing
immigration poses many problems for the U.S., taking jobs away, increase in
population, possibility of diseases, and increase in poverty; not to
mention the events of Sept. 11th,. I think that we have enough problems of
our own to deal with and I don't think that we need to encounter any
more. Just because we are the best country, I don't think we need to be
penalized for it by bringing in more people.
Carlton
Hill, “Euthanasia as Suicide”: Euthanasia and assisted suicide are
related and should be legal. I don’t think that assisted suicide should
be legalized in general, but just in cases severe medical cases where a
patient is in pain and has no chance of getting better. Also if a patient is
a “vegetable” and has no chance of improving their state of being
and a close relative could make that decision.
Christopher
Walker, “Murder is Wrong”: In this paper I am discussing
euthanasia and whether it morally right or wrong. I go in depth about the
many different aspects that are in euthanasia. Through my discussion we find
out what these are; active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, assisted suicide,
and involuntary euthanasia. I find that some of these types of euthanasia are
nothing more than murder. I prove my point by referring to our country's laws
that are already in place that state in short that murder in wrong. I also
shine light on the current trend that is happening where people feel that
they must press their religious views onto our laws in trying to ban all
forms of euthanasia.
Commentator: Anne
Westerman
|
Coloquium III (W 5/21: 9:00 am)
Euthanasia
Jaqueline
Marlink, “The Right to Kill and Be Killed”: In this paper I examine
the issue of euthanasia, while trying to show that some forms, such as
involuntary and most types of nonvoluntary violate certain moral codes. To
begin, definitions of the important terms are given. The three types consist
of involuntary, nonvoluntary, and voluntary. These types can further be
broken down in to two more specific forms, active and passive euthanasia. Physician assisted suicide is also discussed. Next, the
legal issues surrounding euthanasia are addressed. Euthanasia is examined
from a historical perspective and current laws and statistics are listed.
Furthermore, moral issues such as quality of life and personal dignity are
discussed so as to give a more in-depth look. Finally, the flaws of
euthanasia are investigated. These include any pressures the patient might
feel, questions about the state of mind of the patient, and religious
objections.
Ben Zilz,
“Live Your Life, Not the Life of Others": Euthanasia is
something that all of us will either encounter or have cross our minds at some
point. If we have ever seen a loved one suffer from a terminal illness
such as cancer or Alzheimer's disease, of course we do not really wish that
this person die, but when it is inevitable there are several choices to be
made. Can we see fit to let them end their own life and suffering? In the end
the decision lies with the person who is suffering and not with us, but
whether the majority of us can see fit to allow euthanasia influences whether
it will ever be legal. As for the actual person suffering who must make the
final call to terminate their own life, this should be their call, it is a
decision of their life and death and suffering that should be left to
them. It should not be our choice as to who wishes to be a vegetable
and who wishes to end it.
Rebecca
Kinney, “Mercy Killing?”: Passive euthanasia is widely accepted while
active is not, and I am going to be looking at why this is so. There
are a number of countries that have legalized euthanasia and I want to know
how it has affected those countries in both positive and negative ways.
I will also look at the current laws and regulations in the United States and decide if there is a
chance of these being changed any time in the near future.
Commentator:
Mari Stewart
|
Colloquium IV (W 5/21: 10:30
am)
Abortion
& Contraception
Ashley
Borcherding, “The Right Approach to Abortion”: In my paper
about abortion I am going to explain my thoughts on the right approach we
should take toward abortion, and explain why I feel a fetus becomes a person
at the moment of conception. This topic is very controversial in our society
today, and I am going to point out the facts about abortion that seem to make
it so controversial. I am also going to display my arguments against Singer's
views on this subject (there are several that I have), while trying to back
up why I feel my views are the correct ones. Abortion is very serious, and is
nothing that should be taken lightly. That is why I wish to explore it more
in depth than I already have.
Miriam
Zinger, “Abortion: Rights vs. Responsibility”: Morality is
the effort to guide one’s action by reason, and humans learn how to
reason by evaluating the consequences of their actions. For them to do
this, they must take responsibility for their actions they have performed
willingly, and because abortion does not require individuals to take
responsibility for their actions, it is morally impermissible. When an
individual knows the consequences of her actions and chooses to carry the
action out, that individual freely accepts the consequences of that action
and takes responsibility for that end result. While conception will not
occur with every sexual encounter, it follows naturally from the action, and
there is with every action of sexual intercourse, the chance of achieving
pregnancy. Because a woman must accept these responsibilities and
choose her course of action based on the consequences, only a woman who has
conceived because of rape is morally entitled to make the choice of
abortion.
Anne
Westerman, “Contraception and the Culture of Death”: This paper will discuss
both the religious and ethical argument against the use of
contraceptives. With rising acceptance of abortion, divorce,
euthanasia, the death penalty, and embryonic testing we are creating a
culture of death that must be stopped before it gets out of line. This
paper regards contraception as one of the roots of the problem of lack of
respect for human life on this slippery slope.
Commentator:
Kristi Trinkle
|
