Ursinus Intro Ethics Blog - Section B

My issue with morality in advertising is not so much that it should be super regulated or that the impact is unquestionably the cause of negative societal qualities, but rather how the advertisers, entertainment industry, and news media try to shift blame and responsibility. I am very sick of hearing that the responsibility is on the parents. In today's society, it is very unfortunate that many working families have to decide between employing both spouses to ensure say a child's future education, or choosing short term care and oversight - possibly limiting the child's future opportunities. Our middle class is no longer in any shape to have one spouse with an average job carrying the flag of the burdensome American Dream. These people are not bad parents. We will not be bad parents when we are forced to make the same decisions. But when I come home while my dad is at work and my mom is cooking dinner after a long day herself, it is always a bit horrifying to see what is being indoctrinated into my nine year old sister from the internet or the television. Moreover technology such as site blocking and monitoring or channel control is often more in favor of the under 10 generation than our parents.

Given these circumstances I believe that is everyone's duty to be careful of the messages they put out. Personally I am a big fan of video games such as Halo, Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, etc (if you aren't familiar these are all pretty violent). I may even concede that age requirements should be slackened because i believe i could handle some of those titles at say age 13. However, explicitly vulgar material such as sections of grand theft auto could easily be informed to the buyer. For any such product (this technique probably wouldn't work with cigarettes) the seller should be required to ask the buyer who the game is intended for (as many Christmas shopping grandmas may have no idea what the hell a video game is) and then inform the buyer that it cannot be sold in such cases. If the buyer lies and says a false age, then the moral fault is clearly on them, but at least there is some more accountability. This can be applied to movies, magazines, etc.

I love rock music (remember the Beatles and Elvis?), I love counter culture, I see the parallels of breaking down barriers. However the moral decay of our country can not be ignored. News media should not necessarily use what sells (war, murder, etc) with graphic depiction while ignoring other issues completely. Why not just report the facts? Excessive visuals and descriptions desensitize us or put violent ideas into our heads in the first place. This kind of regulation does not destroy free will or keep people ignorant. People would then understand when violence is truly necessary.

The means for such action is really unimportant. In general, ask yourself: Is better for morality to be solely the responsibility of parents... or everyone? It's really that simple.

(posted for Lennon Pukowsky)

During class, there was a debate as to whether any restrictions should be adhered to for advertisers. On occasion many points were made in support for no restrictions but, when pressured, supported restrictions, even though they said that they did support no restrictions. If advertisers should be held to any responsibilities to truth, it seems as if you support Reuss’ view.

However, the major argument against her statement is that the protection of the ignorant should not be protected because either they are adults or they are children who should be protected by their parents. But there should be a moral law for the corporations to tell the truth just as Kant believed that individuals should tell the truth. Obvious lies and distortions of the truth in advertisements should be considered not good business just as it would be bad for a person to tell lies. Thus, truth should be a requirement for business to meet. If a protein manufacturing company for herbal supplements knowingly put out a product with steroids in and a person buys that product with the idea that it is natural is not right. The manufacturer could not expect every individual to research every product the individual buys because the individual is given no reason to research the product. The person buying the product is not ignorant to the point of retardation but he was duped as an ignorant party. So it would be illogical to say that ignorant people should not be protected because everyone could be ignorant.

Furthermore, after a period of time, the sentient public would no longer trust any advertisement which would hinder the company’s growth.

Corporations should be held to ethical standards of truth; it is a necessity.

Blog week #12 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.

Blog week #11 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.

To me there are two central questions regarding family morality that need to asked in regards to a parent-child relationship after reading the English text. First, what if the parents do not love the children? Second, what if the children do not love the parents? In both cases let us assume that the other party did in fact greatly love the non-returning scrooges.

The question seems unanswered if one party is just simply ungrateful bastards. This is because she only states that love is owed when there is a mutual friendship. To me, if the selfish party was always loved and respected, and they do not despise their own life (by my standard this is equal to asking for life) then the loved party most certainly owes something to the lovers. You may ask why so?

Well why not?

It is hard work to keep up hate, especially for no apparent reason. The truth is by being love-scrooges the ungrateful party is in fact committing an immoral act, depriving someone close something they could easily extend. This would most certainly create less good in the world

I do believe different acts have different moral values. Risking your life to save a man from a burning building that once tried to kill you is more altruistic than taking your sister to school in the morning. Therefore, even the act of just giving birth to a human being produces some positive moral value (as long as the child does not grow to despise his or her own life). However how much exactly you owe your birth mother is dependent upon your own circumstances, faculties, and if other possibly negative moral acts by the mother outweigh any good that could be used as a pretense. I know this isn’t necessarily applicable all across the board, but I think basic human reasoning may be the most effective tool for family morality. It may not be cut and dry, but it is certainly simple. Overall it seemed English seemed to focus on that children do not owe bad parents anything, nor if they no longer have a friendship (the vast array of reasons for this was left out). Meanwhile, loving parents may receive nothing if the children are just simply ungrateful. This doesn’t make sense to me.

(Posted for Lennon Pukowsky)

Blog week #10 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.

While Roshi Aitken’s perceptions surrounding abortion seem intuitive, I disagree with his argument. He acknowledges the conflict between a woman's "sexual/reproductive drive and the realities of her life." He supports women who decide on abortion and says, "there is not blame, but rather acknowledgment that sadness pervades the whole universe, and this bit of life goes with our deepest love." This is in the context of North America, where there is no major issue of overpopulation, and it takes place in a time where the world is not ending in war over food and water if more people are brought onto the planet. I think circumstances matter, and thinking about their importance does not mean we accept cultural relativism. I do not think Aitken’s views could change due to circumstances. He thinks abortion is killing, but should not be condemned or prohibited. Given the premise that reproduction would certainly lead to extreme overpopulation and war for food and water, I still do not think Aitken would encourage abortion. Persons should not take life, although they should not be condemned if they do. Suffering is part of human existence, and is no surprise. To avoid it, we should avoid even the desire for existence. I disagree. I generally think humans should have the right to reproduce or not. I do agree that abortion often causes suffering for the mother, but when it is chosen freely as the best option, it is permissible before the fetus gains moral status as an actual life. I think a woman’s suffering comes from considering the moral status of a potential life, which has value but not rights. I think the fetus gains rights when it is able to feel pain, but it is not wrong for the mother to have the fetus killed in self defense if her life is at risk. However, I think life on earth ending due to overpopulation means that women ought to have abortions. While I do not think it justifies late abortions, I think it is morally wrong to knowingly continue a pregnancy unless the fetus can already feel pain given these circumstances.

Blog week #9 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.