Prompt: Human Rights v. Majority Rule
I have a daughter that will be starting Pre-K next school year and this thought would have never crossed my mind. But, truthfully, if I was faced with the fact of knowing that my daughter would be taught be a homosexual, it would be hard to swallow. I know that this decision is being judgemental and I have always worked hard at not being that way, especially with the way society is changing. Because change can be good! But we all know, this decision comes down to morals in the individual.
I think that if I know that teacher would not be open with the children in reference to their lifestyle, I could handle it. My only problem with the situations is that through previous experience, a homosexual person is very voiced of their lifestyle.
A majority of us, as a society, have come to understand and accept changes in a person's sexual preference. It is hard for me to accept the openness that homosexual have about their relationship, though. I do not see heterosexuals being very open about their sex life or hanging all over each other. I feel that there is a time and place to show your love for your significant other. I know that it is your human right.....but if you are in a public place, I am sure that there are children around.
American society could all work together in allowing human rights to shine through because I feel that eventually it will become one. In the process of this, we (as adults) have to always remember the children. Our prime process is to teach them good morals and teach them to accept each other that way that they are.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Decisions
Prompt: Right or Wrong?
When it comes to making decisions, I am a moral relativist. Sure there are just some situations that we as Americans belief are wrong and immoral no matter what..like rape and child abuse to say a few. But for the most part, I feel that there is always a reason for a decision, be right or wrong. Reference.com says it best "morality of an act depends on the context of the act."
People, in general, have their own way of looking at life and their own views of what is "right" or "wrong." Take murder for example, we have all been taught that murder is immoral. Can one honestly convict someone of murder and sentence this person for self defense? I feel that one can not. It goes back to the saying "innocent until proven guilty." The courts have to weight all the information, be for sure that the murder was in self defense, and let the person go. On the same line, look at death by injection. If I were to say that murder was immoral, no if or but about it, then death by injection would also be considered immoral because it is killing someone. How could I possibly judge and say if it "right" or "wrong"?
As an American, we have many cultural influences that effect our decision making also. With these influences, I feel that I can not judge their decision. Meaning that I can not determine if their decision is moral or immoral. One culture or person may believe that something is moral, where another person may not and vesa versa
With this being said, I will reiterate my feelings. I do not personal see how one can have only two ways of looking at life and decisions: moral or immoral. I do know and understand that society as a whole is raised with different values and morals but I feel that there are too many factors and situations to consider. Actually, there are too many different personalities and ways of life to only look at decisions as moral or immoral.
When it comes to making decisions, I am a moral relativist. Sure there are just some situations that we as Americans belief are wrong and immoral no matter what..like rape and child abuse to say a few. But for the most part, I feel that there is always a reason for a decision, be right or wrong. Reference.com says it best "morality of an act depends on the context of the act."
People, in general, have their own way of looking at life and their own views of what is "right" or "wrong." Take murder for example, we have all been taught that murder is immoral. Can one honestly convict someone of murder and sentence this person for self defense? I feel that one can not. It goes back to the saying "innocent until proven guilty." The courts have to weight all the information, be for sure that the murder was in self defense, and let the person go. On the same line, look at death by injection. If I were to say that murder was immoral, no if or but about it, then death by injection would also be considered immoral because it is killing someone. How could I possibly judge and say if it "right" or "wrong"?
As an American, we have many cultural influences that effect our decision making also. With these influences, I feel that I can not judge their decision. Meaning that I can not determine if their decision is moral or immoral. One culture or person may believe that something is moral, where another person may not and vesa versa
With this being said, I will reiterate my feelings. I do not personal see how one can have only two ways of looking at life and decisions: moral or immoral. I do know and understand that society as a whole is raised with different values and morals but I feel that there are too many factors and situations to consider. Actually, there are too many different personalities and ways of life to only look at decisions as moral or immoral.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Hard Question
Prompt: Hijack!
What a hard question! The United States Government has put forth very strict rules and regulations since September 11. According to the policy; "the United States government will not compromise with terrorists holding citizens hostage. The government will not pay ransom, release prisoners, or change its policies." With that being said, as hard as it is to say (as no one would want to say this) I feel that I would have to set forth the decision of allowing the terrorist to take down the plane.
The US government says that they "will use every appropriate resource to gain the safe return of American citizens who are held hostage by terrorist." So we as Americans would have to do everything in our power to take the terrorist down. We would have to work together as a team for safe return of all human kind. In working together, we can not allow moral principles to play a factor. If moral is involved, I feel that it would hold Americans back on the acts that have to be done.
When it boils down to it, Americans make hard decisions everyday. I know that this decision would be the hardest. You look at all the factors of losing your life and family. But, we as Americans have to look at the freedoms that we have and learn to work together to stop terrorist in their tracks. As the government policy states, we can not "agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism." Then, we would have more on our hands.
What a hard question! The United States Government has put forth very strict rules and regulations since September 11. According to the policy; "the United States government will not compromise with terrorists holding citizens hostage. The government will not pay ransom, release prisoners, or change its policies." With that being said, as hard as it is to say (as no one would want to say this) I feel that I would have to set forth the decision of allowing the terrorist to take down the plane.
The US government says that they "will use every appropriate resource to gain the safe return of American citizens who are held hostage by terrorist." So we as Americans would have to do everything in our power to take the terrorist down. We would have to work together as a team for safe return of all human kind. In working together, we can not allow moral principles to play a factor. If moral is involved, I feel that it would hold Americans back on the acts that have to be done.
When it boils down to it, Americans make hard decisions everyday. I know that this decision would be the hardest. You look at all the factors of losing your life and family. But, we as Americans have to look at the freedoms that we have and learn to work together to stop terrorist in their tracks. As the government policy states, we can not "agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism." Then, we would have more on our hands.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Decisions
Prompt: Right or Wrong?
When it comes to making decisions, I am a moral relativist. Sure there are just some situations that we as Americans belief are wrong and immoral no matter what..like rape and child abuse to say a few. But for the most part, I feel that there is always a reason for a decision, be right or wrong. Reference.com says it best "morality of an act depends on the context of the act."
People, in general, have their own way of looking at life and their own views of what is "right" or "wrong." Take murder for example, we have all been taught that murder is immoral. Can one honestly convict someone of murder and sentence this person for self defense? I feel that one can not. It goes back to the saying "innocent until proven guilty." The courts have to weight all the information, be for sure that the murder was in self defense, and let the person go.
With this being said, I will reiterate my feelings. I do not personal see how one can have only two ways of looking at life and decisions: moral or immoral. There are too many factors and situations to consider. Actually, there are too many different personalities and ways of life to only look at decisions as moral or immoral.
When it comes to making decisions, I am a moral relativist. Sure there are just some situations that we as Americans belief are wrong and immoral no matter what..like rape and child abuse to say a few. But for the most part, I feel that there is always a reason for a decision, be right or wrong. Reference.com says it best "morality of an act depends on the context of the act."
People, in general, have their own way of looking at life and their own views of what is "right" or "wrong." Take murder for example, we have all been taught that murder is immoral. Can one honestly convict someone of murder and sentence this person for self defense? I feel that one can not. It goes back to the saying "innocent until proven guilty." The courts have to weight all the information, be for sure that the murder was in self defense, and let the person go.
With this being said, I will reiterate my feelings. I do not personal see how one can have only two ways of looking at life and decisions: moral or immoral. There are too many factors and situations to consider. Actually, there are too many different personalities and ways of life to only look at decisions as moral or immoral.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
First Impressions
Prompt: Perception
I am one to make snap decisions especially when it comes to first impressions. If I see someone doing something crazy or stupid, chances are that I will always have that thought about them. Unfortunately, this prejudgement has a great impact on my perception of people.
I agree with Socrates, in the fact that, with knowledge we come closer to perceiving the truth. I recently went though a seminar called "DISC." It was quiet enlightening. When you walked into the room, you were asked to look around and make decisions about your coworkers through questions that were asked by the host. Once you made these decisions, you took a self exam depicting personal traits that best fit you. Then, my coworkers and I were placed in another room. The host began described each person using the test that was taken.
The host really taught me that my first impression are not right. Also, this program taught us what traits each person had. In return, this knowledge taught us how to communicate with each other. According to this program, each person perceives the world in a different view.
With this idea and knowledge in mind, I learned that you have to talk to people in different ways (meaning that you can can not be dictating to a timid person, you have to talk with comfort in your voice) and you can not "judge a book by it cover." This program taught me what type of person that I am and I how I truly need to perceive people. Hopefully, my perceptions will not be as disorted in the future.
I am one to make snap decisions especially when it comes to first impressions. If I see someone doing something crazy or stupid, chances are that I will always have that thought about them. Unfortunately, this prejudgement has a great impact on my perception of people.
I agree with Socrates, in the fact that, with knowledge we come closer to perceiving the truth. I recently went though a seminar called "DISC." It was quiet enlightening. When you walked into the room, you were asked to look around and make decisions about your coworkers through questions that were asked by the host. Once you made these decisions, you took a self exam depicting personal traits that best fit you. Then, my coworkers and I were placed in another room. The host began described each person using the test that was taken.
The host really taught me that my first impression are not right. Also, this program taught us what traits each person had. In return, this knowledge taught us how to communicate with each other. According to this program, each person perceives the world in a different view.
With this idea and knowledge in mind, I learned that you have to talk to people in different ways (meaning that you can can not be dictating to a timid person, you have to talk with comfort in your voice) and you can not "judge a book by it cover." This program taught me what type of person that I am and I how I truly need to perceive people. Hopefully, my perceptions will not be as disorted in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)