http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/22/wrong.embryo.family/index.html
I saw this story of a couple who had the wrong embryos implanted by their fertility clinic.
What struck me the most about this story was the fact that the couple decided that the embryo would be brought to term and then given to his/her biological parents. When asked about this, the couple made it clear that their decision was based on their values.
I see this as a parallel to the whole issue of abortion.
While the cases are different, here is a case in which a woman has been implanted with a “non-related” embryo and is faced with the choice of keeping it or having an abortion. As noted above, she elected to act in what many would regard as a commendable way.
While she chose to be implanted, she definitely did not choose to be implanted with another couple's embryo. This would seem to provide adequate moral grounds for a decision on her part to abort.
Would it be such a burden to bear the child of another and do you think she is morally obligated to bear the child to term?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Suicide o pas Suicide
Consider I have a friend(Maddy) who wishes to deliberately terminate her life. She has ruminated on the matter for no less than 5 years - ever since she turned 35. In fact, she has considered it methodically and systemically for the longest time. She has weighed the reasons to live against her own prerogative to do what she will, and she concludes that there are far many more reasons not to continue living. She is not depressed; instead, she is simply profoundly bored - she is suffering from seemingly terminal ennui. She has taken into account that some people, such as her sister, will inexorably mourn her death. However, she does not feel that their suffering will be very great.For her part, she can’t really see that she stands to lose much of anything by ending her life now. She does not value it, and in any case, if she’s dead, she’s hardly going to regret missing out on whatever it is that might have happened to her had she lived.
So. The question I'd like to posit is : 'Would it be wrong for Maddy to commit suicide? If so, why?'
The only serious philosophical question — or at least the first one — is whether to live or die. We all are faced with that choice, though most of us shirk away from the decision. And ultimately no one but a particular individual in particular circumstances can make the decision — and only for himself or herself. hat being said, boredom seems like a poor reason to kill one’s self, like a failure of courage. That life is suffering is not news — the Buddha (and he wasn’t the first) discovered that circa 3000 years ago. The question is what to do about the suffering, or with the suffering. There certainly are circumstances in which the suffering is intolerable and in which suicide seems completely justifiable. However, is her case one of them? To commit suicide because one is inordinately bored... does that even sound right? The issue isn't so simple because lines of distinction are truly blurred. Individual morality, ethics, self-right, societal views all come into question and there simply isn't one answer. It truly hinges on individual subjective perspective.
One may even go as far to argue that there is nothing selfish about suicide; if anything the selfishness comes from the side of those willing her to not to give up - they would extend her suffering just to give themselves peace of mind. Those who take their life voluntarily should be admired for their courage; they were repulsed by the futility and inelegance of our existence and chose no longer to experience it. Yet doesn't this constitute a logical fallacy since caring for a person's life is now erroneously interpreted as being selfish? Evidently, this is not a simple matter and there exists not a single all-encompassing answer.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Philosophy - A humble beginning..
Lets begin this virgin post as a prologue to my embarking on the study of Philosophy. The subject has alluded me up this juncture in my Life. I come from a country(Singapore) where simply put, the way of life is overtly different. Individual preference in terms of academic choice hardly exists. Education is merely a means to an end - a high flying job that will satiate the expectations of your family, socio-economic class and country. This reflects a propensity to engage oneself in more economically 'pragmatic' and prestigious courses of study : Accounting, Medicine, Business.. etc. Philosophy as a course, was not a requisite and so to include it in the function would be to egregiously 'waste' one's time and effort. So I decided to take a risk and come here - here where I could study what interested me. I was absolutely sold on the idealistic notion of a liberal arts education where I would be holistically developed and thus, in a better position to appreciate the world around me, and within(as cliche as it sounds). 'The shaping and of the mind rather than the mere filling of it' - that just appealed to me. Cutting to the chase, Philosophy had always been this abstract subject that only those adept in critical thinking and proficient in searching the caverns of intangibles thrived. A subject whose criteria for success was abject intrinsic intelligence and intense rumination and musing. The possession of a beard would have augmented the sagacious aesthetic and satisfied the criterion and look too. Now however I realize how far from the truth I essentially was..
Since starting on the intro to Philosophy course, revelations have occurred to dispel my highly fallacious and stereotypical preconceptions of Philosophy. I came across this line that posited how '[Philosophy] is not so much a subject as it is a way of thinking'. I never thought about it that way, but I almost immediately appreciated the applicability and practicality of it. Previously, my ignorance made me label the study of Philosophy as one meant for those with their heads in the clouds; for those who were inordinately out of touch with everyday reality. Quoting from my textbook, It actually operates quite to the contrary. As asserted, 'Philosophy takes our heads out of the clouds, enlarging our view of ourselves and our knowledge of the world, allowing us to break out of prejudices and harmful habits that we have held since we were too young or too naive to know better... It [makes us] look at and think about ideas carefully...rather than to unthinkingly accept them.'
Once cognizant of this, I realized how much of an 'unthinking' life I had been leading. I was doing well but according to whose definitions? Mine or my parent's or my government's?(Ostensibly, Singaporeans are a brainwashed people who do not ever question, brainwashed that what they do is meaningful etc..) Socrates once said that 'the unexamined life is not worth living'... and I truly want a life worth living so...
I'm increasingly drawn to Philosophy because I possess now, a better comprehension of what it can do for my life. Particularly, I'm fascinated by the skills of persuasion one garners from practicing Philosophy - the capacity and attempt to justify our beliefs and substantiate them with good reasons. Even before that, to critically contemplate what our beliefs are, and why. I hope to be lawyer and am indubitably sure that the methods and skills attained from the study of Philosophy will only litigate my arsenal of logic and oratorical persuasion. The notion of being able to systematically rebuke or refute someone in an intellectual debate or argument does really compel me to want to be engaged in this subject. I also learnt that the ethos of the writer(philosopher) is extremely important, but not more so than relevance and logic. On a separate note, I need to learn too, to speak up and be more active in discussions. Cultural legacies have accustomed me to not question, as to question hierarchy or in general is tantamount to disrespect. However, questioning seems to be a cornerstone and underlying requisite for any productive Philosophical debate. Also, since I'm here in America now, I've got to learn to imbibe some sense of 'unequivocal individualism'. All in all, I'm progressively liking the subject..I hope I manage just fine.
Since starting on the intro to Philosophy course, revelations have occurred to dispel my highly fallacious and stereotypical preconceptions of Philosophy. I came across this line that posited how '[Philosophy] is not so much a subject as it is a way of thinking'. I never thought about it that way, but I almost immediately appreciated the applicability and practicality of it. Previously, my ignorance made me label the study of Philosophy as one meant for those with their heads in the clouds; for those who were inordinately out of touch with everyday reality. Quoting from my textbook, It actually operates quite to the contrary. As asserted, 'Philosophy takes our heads out of the clouds, enlarging our view of ourselves and our knowledge of the world, allowing us to break out of prejudices and harmful habits that we have held since we were too young or too naive to know better... It [makes us] look at and think about ideas carefully...rather than to unthinkingly accept them.'
Once cognizant of this, I realized how much of an 'unthinking' life I had been leading. I was doing well but according to whose definitions? Mine or my parent's or my government's?(Ostensibly, Singaporeans are a brainwashed people who do not ever question, brainwashed that what they do is meaningful etc..) Socrates once said that 'the unexamined life is not worth living'... and I truly want a life worth living so...
I'm increasingly drawn to Philosophy because I possess now, a better comprehension of what it can do for my life. Particularly, I'm fascinated by the skills of persuasion one garners from practicing Philosophy - the capacity and attempt to justify our beliefs and substantiate them with good reasons. Even before that, to critically contemplate what our beliefs are, and why. I hope to be lawyer and am indubitably sure that the methods and skills attained from the study of Philosophy will only litigate my arsenal of logic and oratorical persuasion. The notion of being able to systematically rebuke or refute someone in an intellectual debate or argument does really compel me to want to be engaged in this subject. I also learnt that the ethos of the writer(philosopher) is extremely important, but not more so than relevance and logic. On a separate note, I need to learn too, to speak up and be more active in discussions. Cultural legacies have accustomed me to not question, as to question hierarchy or in general is tantamount to disrespect. However, questioning seems to be a cornerstone and underlying requisite for any productive Philosophical debate. Also, since I'm here in America now, I've got to learn to imbibe some sense of 'unequivocal individualism'. All in all, I'm progressively liking the subject..I hope I manage just fine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)