The Ethics of the Housing Dilemma

The interview with Randy Cohen examines the ethics of the housing crisis with respect to people’s actions and their deserving of the government bailout package. The ethical question arises from this situation as to whether or not this is fair because those who abided by the rules and laws do not reap any of the benefits of this package. The people that were careless and irresponsible are receiving a second chance, but this is completely unfair to those who followed the rules. Cohen feels as though this is fair because people deserve second chances, however rewarding ignorant behavior and bad judgment is not an ethical thing for the government to do. Cohen acknowledges that he would prefer not to reward bad behavior, but he does not view this situation as such. I disagree with this notion that a person buying an expensive house that they cannot afford is a mistake. When people do this they are making a conscious decision to purchase a house that they should not be purchasing with hopes that it will not hurt them financially in the future. This speculative type of finance is dangerous for society and threatens to cripple the economy, which it obviously has started to do as a result. An ignorant decision would be buying a house in the wrong location, but this is unrelated to the current crisis. Bankers that gave out the bad loans and those that accepted them are both equally at fault and for me to suffer because of their stupidity and bad judgment is not an ethical thing for the government to promote. We live in a capitalist society and the actions taken by the government are too radical and this regime threatens to become socialistic if more actions like this are taken.

The Electric Car Failed?

Today I found the video of the GM documentary to be kind of infuriating. Not so much that they were taking the cars back, but for the reasons they were taking them back. Professor Perry said that they were taking the cars because of the oil companies and auto part manufacturers. So how does this have to do with ethics? Well first the creation of these cars has already created more jobs and has created a less polluted planet. So doesn’t the idea of utilitarianism not apply to this situation? I find it does, because the principle of utilitarianism looks to find the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, not to name the number of people that were leased the car and enjoyed having a new invention in their very own hands. The people in the film seemed to be so happy with this new technology, so why not keep them? Because, it seemed GM didn’t want to step on the toes of other people, but they didn’t look down the road to see that this new car would be more beneficial for society. It seems that companies are so caught up in the now, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the electric car back on the market in a few years. I think that car companies need to look at this principle and see that this car could be the future of the world.

Live Free or Drown- Floating Utopias

I would like to comment on the article entitled "Live Free or Drown" from Wired magazine, which discusses the Seasteading Institute and its plan to create aquatic homesteads, or what some view as "floating utopias." Though I comprehend the reasoning behind wanting to create a "new world," I do not think that it is ultimetely possible, and I cannot help but think this idea is a little ridiculous and far fetched. Those following the plan of the Seasteading Institute (which almost seems like a kind of cult) are led by Patri Friedman, who "doesn't just want to create huge floating platforms that people can live on. He's also hoping to create a platform in the sense that Linux is a platform: a base upon which people can build their own innovative forms of governance." They believe that the government that we currently have is beyond repair and that it is "an inefficient industry because it has an insane barrier to entry." Like I said before, I can understand that they are frusterated, but what really frusterates me is that their so-called "solution" to this problem is to run away. They want to leave the world, and government, we have now and create something completely new, which to me means that they are giving up and not fighting for change. Friedman says that "we've run out of frontier" and uses that as the reasoning of why they're looking to the "untouched" oceans for a new civiliation, but I feel that he should channel all of this time, energy and money into making changes back in the United States. Like they said in the article, there is a very high possibility that this venture will fail, and then the $50 million dollars spent on the ocean mass will go to waste, when it could have been used for beneficial purposes.

Ethics and Corn

Ethics is a discussion of how people should relate to people. In Pollan’s article corn is used as a tool to show how people, animals, products, and organizations all relate to one another. I like to discuss some of the solutions posed in response to Pollan’s corn article. If the problem is dangerous, hybrid, and fossil fueled corn, why can we not set high standards on corn? Why can’t the FDA regulate the products farmers make? This government entity regulates all other corporations’ foods, why is agriculture different? The FDA should follow biological/ecological logic. Corn should be made with current sunlight and cows should be grass fed. I say let the capitalist system sustain the farmers who are able to make an abundance of ecological corn and weed out the others in order to follow the laws of supply and demand. It needs to be a combination of solutions because if we just encourage farmers to make healthier corn, what will keep companies like Cargill and ADM from continuing to produce and use the cheaper, unhealthy corn. If they are still able to use this unhealthy corn and their sell goods for less, consumers won’t necessarily do what is best for them. They will do what is cheaper. McDonald’s is a thriving fast food restaurant and produces obvious unhealthy foods in which Americans still consume. It is fast and cheap. Meat from corn feed cows is also cheaper than grass fed cows. In our capitalist system cheap products fare an excellent chance of beating out the healthier competition. This is why the FDA should mandate healthy corn production from farmers.

Freedom: are we entitled to it?

Our discussions in class about freedom and rights, whether natural or political, led me to think about freedom in the United States, and how I personally perceive it. I recognize that this is a popular subject about which to blog, but it is one that I have some definite opinions about and felt the need to elaborate about them. The phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "we hold these truths to be self-evident" is one that does not settle well with me because it has lead to what I believe is a lack of appreciation in Americans. People feel that they are entitled to the freedoms that come with living in America, and believe that regardless of their actions, they will always have such freedoms. What I am trying to say is that people expect and assume that they will always have the right to freedom, and do not stop and acknowledge the fact that they are so lucky and blessed. And when situations arise where people's freedoms need to be curtailed to a certain extent to protect the greater freedom of the United States as a whole, people get extremely angry and upset. In a time of war, for example, I believe that some aspects of freedom must be limited to ensure the survival of freedom as a whole, but I understand that there are many who disagree. It seems as though people are so quick to point fingers when a freedom has been taken away, but they do not stop and take the time to thank the people who work so hard to protect and ensure these freedoms. What I am ultimately trying to say, in an extremely circuitous way, is that the freedom that we have in the United States is not something we are entitled to, per se, but rather is a gift, and something that we should be thankful for every day.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

All men have the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Our fore fathers believed happiness was so important as to include it in the United States Constitution. Happiness is a good value to include in the nation's value system. Thus, laws and systems are designed to supports a man's right to pursuit happiness as a core element. I would also like to consider life and liberty because I believe life and liberty are just as important as values to sustain our society. The right to life maintains laws that forbid abuse and murder to another person. Our healthcare also shows the importance of life. The discussion of liberty has been very popular in class. Do we live in a free culture? Most Americans would say we are a free society. I would agree with this statement on whole, but our political has definitely infringed on many aspects on Americans' lives. For example, gay marriage is outlawed pretty much across the nation. Why can't two men get married? If it is their pursuit of happiness and does this does not infringe on other lives and liberty, what is the problem? The institution of marriage is a man made concept. The exclusion of members of society is not upholding the values of this country. Our economic system supports the values of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism allows individuals to be mobile amongst the classes (but not easily). As we discussed in class, happiness should not be measured against money. So by making the economic system and the pursuit happiness mutually exclusive it does not hinder the right.

Is "Freedom" Really Freedom?

The discussion on freedom really sparked an interest this past week, because it made me really think if we are free. One of the comments said was that you can't be completely free without law, which then there is no freedom. And I totally agree. It seems that the idea of freedom has changed from age to age and everybody has this different aspect of freedom in their mind. This is another reason why there is no clear cut idea of freedom. Then the question of is the United States free? I think we are as free as free is ever going to get without there being chaos. So the first comment is that freedom can't exist without law resulting in no freedom. Well this seems to be a contradicting statement, but it is very true. If we had no law then people would infringe on others freedom to be free so then there would not be this idea of freedom. Then this infringement would bring about chaos which no one wants because everybody wants peace, which then results in this idea of freedom. The second point is that everybody has a different idea of freedom. Well if everyone has a different concept won't they destroy others freedom. Yes, because if my idea interferes with someone else's, then like in the first example, there is no real freedom. So then is the United States free? Yes, compared to the rest of the world. People have a chance to make something of themselves and do what they want in life, and it is mostly theirs to control. Also there are laws that prohibit others from infringing on others "freedom". So to an extent the United States is free provides the best oppurtunity of freedom. So this brings me to my final point, is there really a perfect idea of freedom. I say no, because of all the reasons above. It seems that we have painted this unrealistic picture of freedom in our mind, when we really need to take a closer look at what freedom really is.

I really wanted to reflect on the issue of how some people say that America isn’t free.  When I hear this, this honestly bothers me a great deal.  America is the freest nation on the face of the earth in my opinion.  One might argue that Holland might be freer because of the fact that more drugs are legal and prostitution isn’t looked down upon by law.  Especially the prostitution aspect of it, I would like to further discuss on this subject.  Because of the fact that women aren’t allowed to sell themselves for sex in the United States, they aren’t thought of as property.  As a matter of fact, because of our traditions and laws, women are expected to be treated with a large amount of respect by other men.  In most cases, a women will not associated herself with a man that talks and treats her like property.  This is how it is supposed to be.  In countries all around the world, there are many cases where women are thought of as a sexual being rather than an intellectual being like the rest of us.  Also, the law about drugs in the United States also gives the population as a whole a better life.  Although a temporary feeling might be better than a sober state of mind, after the drug fades, you are always left a little less than you had.  This decreased quantity could be happiness, health, and many other things.  Also, America possesses the ability to speak out for how you feel, usually without consequences as long as you didn’t break any laws.  Many people speak out against the president, and have no shame or fear doing it.  Although I may agree or disagree at times, I do enjoy the ability to do as I please within reason.

The Ethics behind "The Story of Stuff"

The class video entitled “The Story of Stuff” examines what goes into various things and the harm that can be caused under the current system. This is a very biased video because it instantly takes one side and talks about how bad everything currently is without proper explanation or some potential suggestions for how to fix the problem. The creators of the video are clearly against current production methods; which is fine and they lay out very good reasons. The only problem with this is that if a criticism is to be made a follow up suggestion needs to be made to validate the criticism. The video also had some absurd data that is very subjective and hard to prove. An example of this is the happiness chart cited. The happiness chart makes absolutely no sense because they do not describe the factors that comprise happiness; so it’s almost as if happiness is this arbitrary variable that can be manipulated however they want so as to validate their point of view. Another problem with the video is the abrupt ending and the lack of closure on the subject. The video is basically nineteen and a half minutes of ranting and then a thirty second conclusion that fails to bring everything together and make a point or emphasize a message. The suggestions made by the video are brief and lack substance, so the video leaves the viewer with an empty feeling and the desire for a message or point to be retained.

Intellectual Property - Creative Commons (CC)

Our laws represent our value system. Our laws defend our value system. We believe that creators have a right to benefit from their products of creativity. Capitalism has promoted this value and thus this idea that creators have rights to profit from their work. If capitalism was not the basis of our economic system, would another value have been established? What system would need to be in place in order to have a value of sharing instead of excluding? The ability of 'Creative Commons' (CC) licenses may be the option in that direction. These 'Creative Commons' licenses make it possible for creators to benefit from other creators' works. The original creators have waived their exclusivity of their works in order to let others benefit and build upon the product. These original creators are selfless and seem to be fully motivated by the work itself, not the monetary profits. I hope that enough interest and support develops for this option in order for creativity to build. Can the Creative Commons licenses flourish in a capitalistic world? One type of permission granted by Creative Commons is a noncommercial option. This does not allow new creators to profit from the use of their originators' work. This promotes the access to create but does not necessarily facilitate the motivation to make money. Is the only way to motivate creation through monetary enticement? This Creative Commons should pose as a good test to see whether creation will happen with or without the motivation for profit.

Intellectual Property: A Changing of the Tide

In my last post on intellectual property, I talked about how I thought intellectual property seems to make up people, kind of like a characteristic. Now I want to talk about how I see intellectual property as changing the world we live in today. Not only has intellectual property been vital in today’s time, but also in the shaping of this great nation we live in today. Think about all the individuals it took to create the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Many great minds took part in these historic moments in our countries history. And they, collectively, built a nation that has survived through some of the roughest times imaginable. Intellectual property is more than just a property someone holds, but it’s a responsibility that we all have to the world we live in today. What I’m saying is that we need to regulate some of the copy right laws we have today and build them to where they benefit for the good of society. Copy right laws seem to be holding us back from bigger and better things. People have thoughts every day, and once they are put out, there is a barricade put around them to keep others out. As history shows, if we could all put our minds together and build upon each other’s thoughts then we could rise to heights unimaginable to the human mind.

In Lessig’s article ‘In Defense of Piracy’ he talks about how the copyright laws have failed to catch up with new technology.  I agree with this for the most part.  If there is a very small amount of lyrics that a new artist wants to use, I feel that it is completely okay.  Moreover, if they want to take a couple of catchy note combinations and loop it, I am actually okay with that also.  On the other hand, there is a group of others that I disagree with.  For this reason I strongly suggest and support the idea of bulking up copyright rules.  If an artist is okay with someone repeating a large portion of his song in his/her own, then it should be okay.  This should be the case regardless of what the record labels want.  Even though the record label might not like it, they most likely won’t lose any money off of the incident anyways.  When a new song is released that resembles an old popular song, it usually sparks a brief popular stint for the old song anyways.  Ultimately, this increases the revenue for the record label supporting the old artist.

An artist might also have some great pride in his music and not want this to happen.  In this case, it should be possible for him to halter the making of new music using his previously made music.  All in all, I feel that the copyright rules should be able to let the artist have as much protection as he wants on his music, as long as it is realistic.

Ethics of Dell

Dell is a corporation that exists to generate profits and the article relating carbon neutrality as well as the class video regarding computer disposal demonstrate this concept firsthand. This poses a question of ethics because the motives behind Dell’s actions are different than what they try and portray to the public. Dell claims to be carbon neutral, but this idea is almost impossible to obtain and by claiming to be carbon neutral Dell appeases to a broader base of consumers, and thus generates greater profits. They are only claiming to be carbon neutral for monetary reasons, not moral reasons. This difference is not a huge ethical problem, but it is one because it shows how Dell tries to mislead consumers for their benefit and progress. The video demonstrates this problem to a greater extent because it is direct exploitation, as opposed to indirect exploitation. Computers that are out of use are shipped to third world countries where they are broken down and dissected for useful parts. On the surface this seems like a good or smart idea because computer manufacturers are trying to maximize the usage out of a computer. The problem arises because of the hazardous effects this process has on the individual workers and subsequently the surrounding community. Computers contain many toxic compounds and elements and when dissected an individual becomes directly exposed to these toxins and will be subjected to the maladies they cause. These toxins also go further as demonstrated by the video specifically in relation to surrounding communities. When these computers are broken down they are left in a pile and rain causes these chemicals to be absorbed into the soil and after sufficient time the water supply as well. These concerns prove that Dell as well as any other company for that matter should be viewed with skepticism when they claim to be something, because in actuality they only to do so to generate greater profits and thus the ethical problem arises.

Group members, the first blog I failed to put it on the blog website.  I just realized this.  I only put it in the assignment thing on OAK.  Sorry for the delay.  Here it is.

There are so many ideas, entertainment, thoughts, advantages, secrets, power, and knowledge that could be held in intellectual knowledge.  Many of the ideas that are held in intellectual property include many items that we haven’t even heard about.  Usually, once we hear about them, they can then be protected by law.  Otherwise, it is nearly impossible to create a law that directly affects it.  On the other hand, intellectual property in the form of entertainment, such as music, theatre, or literature, is protected by law.  It is also protected by other things such as Digital Rights Management, known as DRM.  DRM is a very controversial trait to legally downloaded music from online stores.  I personally loathe DRM, for it hinders the usability of the songs that you actually paid for.  Also, I feel that this creates a need for people to illegally download music so that they can do whatever they want to with their music.  With iTunes music, you can only play downloaded music from the iTunes store in Apple software.   They now offer a deal in which you can pay a certain extra amount for DRM-free music.  Most people don’t want to pay extra for it, they just want it to come DRM-free for the initially paid 99 cents.  When you buy the CD at a music store, the music is DRM-free and you can put the music wherever you want to.