Summer Blog Post #4

Wearing someone else's skin

http://www.animalequality.net/clothing

In this blog post my real life situation is related to an article that show how many animals are killed to produce leather or other materials for the creation of clothes. At one point, the main point that is discussed in the article is the fact that nowadays, many of these materials are  not even needed or not even in demand. Besides secondary effects of this industry have produced a multitude of illnesses related to the selective breading, which has caused overheating and fly strike. The main question that has to be investigated in this post is, id this ethical? do animals have ethics?

The main principle of ethics is address questions of morality, such us what makes our actions right or wrong. On the other hand, animal ethics focuses on the constant evolving way in which society think of non human animals. Animal ethics interacts with society on a daily basis since they're used for many purposes, food, clothing, entertainment, and companionship.

Looking at our animal ethics in our daily lives, we can find that it is pretty inconsistent, since on the one hand, we consider our pets as parts of our family, that we take care of, and respect, while on the other hand, we do not seem to care much about the billions of animals that are used for experimenting, cruelly used for entertaining purposes, and finally clothing. It is our consumer choices, and interests what make us differ an animal as part of the family, or as a clothing. This indifference that we keep between us and them, and the way that are treated, allows the industries to continue this unnecessary use of some animals. But the question here is, can this inequality in how we regard other animals be justified?

The two animal ethics that have been dividing people for centuries are two. Welfarism, and Abolitionism

Welfarism modifies systems of abuse through changes in legislation and working practices, without minding exploitation if nonhuman animals. On the other hand Abolitionism rejects the com-modification of products, allowing nonhuman animals a right to live in freedom from exploitation.

Summer Blog Post #3

Abstract basic painting gets sold by 75 million dollars

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/11/14/rothko-fetches-75-million-at-record-setting-sothebys-sale/

In this Blog entry the real life situation is related with art as well. But the approach that I am going to be taking in this entry is pretty different that the last one. First off, the author of this painting did not sell only this exemplary, but many more that helped him to get about 1 billion of dollars, only by selling this sort of paintings. As we can see in the picture displayed of the exemplary, it seems to be a painting pretty simple, but since it is considered abstract, the value of the painting completely shifts to a different one, therefore, the question that we have to ask here is what is art? how can we know the value of a painting? who decides whether it is more or less worth?

To get started, we have been studying that art is a way of expressing one's feelings, moods, opinions, translated into a paper board, or sculpture. But what is the value of those expressions? 

Does the art itself transmit the message, or it only pushes us to make it?

In this case, from  y point of view the painting does not transmit anything, since there are only 3 colors painted in the portrait. But the question here is, if this painting is that simple, how can it cost 75 million dollars?

Is it public opinion? Or the cache of the artist itself?

Public opinion does play an important role in this situation, imagine that this abstract painting was not supported by any artistic corporation, or that not as much attention, as the New York times, was given to it, would the result be the same? Indeed no, this abstract art would not have the same value for sure. On the other hand, it is also the cache of the painter what gives the painting a value, not only in art but also in other fields, the fact that the painting was painted by an important artist gives the painting a higher value. As an example think about Michael Jackson's chewing gum sold by millions.Only the fact that Michael Jackson chewed it, already gives it a different value compared to another simple chewed gum, this applies to art as well.

Summer Blog Post #2

5 Year Old girl paints stunning marterpieces.

http://www.boredpanda.com/5-year-old-painter-autism-iris-grace/


In this Blog post I have chosen an article in which the real life situation is the story of a 5 year old girl with autism, that is able to paint incredible portraits, that are being compared to the portraits of the famous, and genius painter Monet. The first question that arises in my mind once having looked at this case is, Is art instinctive?

As we have studied before, there are some cases in nature in which instinctively, some animals, being more specific the case of the "Pufferfish", are able to create artistic things. In the case of the Pufferfish, it is a crop circle, perfectly made with a coherent order, and a perfect measure in the details. Up to this point , the idea that I am trying to transmit out of this example is that the case of this 5 year old girl could be an example that shows us that not only in animals but also in humans art can be instinctive depending on the character of the individual, and the state of the mind.

As it is mentioned in the article the autism itself, has granted the girl a specific focus and exceptional attention, with which the girl is able to pay attention to the details, and have the patience to spend hours and hours working in her portraits.

On the other hand, the other question that remains is, is this instinct or imagination?

Knowing that imagination is the ability to create new images and sensations in the mind without the use of the senses, how can we determine if it is imagination?

In this case of real life situation, it is clear that having autism completely affects the personality of the girl, and character, knowing that the moods of the girl affect her portraits, but the fact that her autism changes her natural character, and mood, instinct is the more related to this situation than imagination.

Summer Blogpost #1

Child Euthanasia in Belgium

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/world-first-as-belgium-allows-euthanasia-for-children-with-terminal-illness-9127078.html

As the title of this blog post entry shows, Belgium joins the group of countries of the world that allow the use of euthanasia in a patient of any age, that is facing irreversible and terminal ill conditions. After an intensive debate in which politicians and doctors presented their opinions on deciding whether or not the law should be approved, the main point being argued was that if adult people had the right to decide if they wanted to stay alive in painful conditions since 2002, a child being aware of his situation, and being mature enough to understand the decision should also have the right to decide whether or not to choose euthanasia. After the oppositions of religious groups, the lawmakers, and the Senate concluded with the approval of the law. At this point in which it is understood that it has been given the opportunity to choose whether or not to die to people in such irreversible situation, the question that arises here is: Is euthanasia ethical?


First off it is of vital importance to understand that the mental competency of the patient is always a question, although it can be proved or disproved, Secondly, the social pressure can definitely affect this decision. And finally in the case that the patient is completely competent, the decision of government, should not get involved. For this last statement, the Consequentialism view states that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Therefore what we can understand though this ethical view is that it is the consequence of the decision of the patient is the basis of his own judgement.

On the other hand, taking the Christian view applying the WOK of Faith, euthanasia is completely wrong, since life is given by God, and only God should decide when to end it.  Besides of that, faith is present in this situation, since through faith, this patients should believe that God has a plan, and a purpose for them, instead of deciding by themselves that their lives are already over in that irreversible situation.