more intercollegiate athletic ethical issues

One more issue to look at when looking at intercollegiate athletics is the act of cheating to advance in a competition and win. Coaches and athletic administrators will go to no end to win and make their schools athletic teams look the best and bring in the most money. That may include cheating or holding an athlete's hand through school, and making special accomodations for athletes just so they can stay in school and play. All of these special things for athletes are against NCAA rules, and a school can get sanctioned severly, but that doesn't stop some schools.

Intercollegiate athletics and ethics?

What? How can intercollegiate athletics having anything do with professional ethics? Well its simple. According to William May and his book titled Ethics and Higher Education, Athletics can find college administrators contemplating multiple ethical issues. One of the biggest ethical issues pertaining to intercollegiate athletics is the concern that intercollegiate athletics is loosing its amature nature to it, and becoming so competitive and commercialized that it is becoming or already is "quasi-professional". With the needed of competition and commercializing increasing every year, the college is looking to make more money and more of a profit off of athletics.
I am college athlete at the Division III level, where commericalism isn't a major problem like it is at the Division I and in some cases the Division II level, but it still is a problem when you start to get into the Division III schools with extremely competitive teams that look for sponsorships from retailers and name brands.
Some would like to believe that the best route to go is to eliminate all intercollegiate athletics, and just have intramurals, but in doing that you would eliminate the feeder system for the professional leagues, and you would lose the competitive nature that so many athletes carry. However, competition can also be an ethical issue in some people's eyes, because it is a way of gaining victory, for your own pleasure at the expense of someone else. But the way I see it, that is what life is all about in today's society.... who can I beat out to get what I want.

A topic not covered

I want to discuss a topic that was never discussed beyond a quick a mention in class... Education. I want to specifically focus on higher education, and all of the different ethical issues that plague an institution of higher education. I recently read a book by William May titled, "Ethics and Higher Education". William May explored topics such as Affirmative Action, Racism on campus, Admissions processes, intercollegiate athletics, and ethical issues concerning the culture of college campuses. Over the next few blogs I want to look specifically at certain issues listed in the book.

The purpose of zoos

In my last blog I touched upon some arguements that can compare zoos with pornography. While some of these arguements tried to stretch it and really make the arguement strong, I never really saw it hold true, nor did I really believe the arguement.
On a personal level I feel zoos are an educational experience. Sure there are plenty of people out there that will say a zoo is an explotation of animals, and we hold them captive against their will, and they are being held outside of their natural habitat. While I agree that they are being held outside of their natural habitat, and they are to a certain degree being held captive, it is for educational purposes. They are not being experimented on, and in some cases, zoos hold the only kinds of some speicies still alive on the planet.
If you refer back to my posting on rights concerning humans vs. animals. I believe that it comes down to who is stronger and has more power to determine who has more of the rights. Do animals have the right to be in the wild, sure, but the wild is also a dangerous place for some animals, and for some species, they have become extinct, and for other species who are endangered, they are extinct in the wild, but still exist in zoos. Humans are expanding their world, and it is becoming a danger for animals, and many animals are being displaced in the wild. Zoos become a safe haven for animals.

Zoos and Porn

That's right, who has ever thought of relating a zoo with porn?
Well we touched that subject and went there the last few days in class, and its one subject that I'm not entirely sure I agree with. In class the other day, it was looked at as if Zoos were just like porn. It works this way:
Humans gaze at nonhumans (animals) as Man gazes at women.

These gazes relate to each other in the manner that they are both arrogant gazes in which the gazes initiate a way to please oneself. In the arrogant gaze, the viewer also holds an expectation as to what appears in front of them and to what the thing in front of them does.
I however don't believe that this is a good enough arguement to make a zoo comparable to pornography. Yes in some way, a zoo is a type of pleasure for someone, but I don't believe it can be compared to the type of pleasure one finds in porn.
Zoos are an educational resource. Sure one can't find how an animal really interacts with the wild and what they are like in their natural resources, but how else are you going to get up close to a 400 pound lion? I would not bring a group of 20 2nd graders to the African Wild so they can learn about lions and tigers. That would be dangerous, and unthinkable. However, I'm going to bring them to a zoo so they can learn about the animals in a controlled environment. You don't teach kids about the human body by plugging in a porno movie. You teach them in a controlled environment and through educational resouces like a dumby or a plastic manican.
If it wasn't for zoos, people would never get the opportunity to see some of nature's recent rarities like the Panda Bear or other animals endangered. In fact zoos, have been known to be some of the only places where endangered or nearly extinct animals are living because they no longer exist in the wild.

No Rights?

The great arguement goes on about who has rights, and what has rights. Do humans have rights and animals don't? Shouldn't every living, breathing thing have rights? Well here is my absolute answer to all of these questions. What if none of us really have any rights at all? Isn't it a possibility, that humans only say they have rights so they can feel superior to other living objects and feel good about themselves; like they have purpose in their lives. When it comes down to moral rights, which are the basic foundations of legal rights, it is what humans perceive as good or bad. It is what humans perceive they can and can't do. Well there are no real set standards out there that say this is exactly what a right is, and this is how it came about. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, came for John Locke. Who was John Locke, before he made a few people happy, and thought that by giving people these rights, they would gain the utmost superiority in the living being world.
Human beings made up the rights they have, so can't we say animals make up the rights they have. No matter what though, because humans and animals are different, live differently, and survive differently their rights to each other are going to be different and never understood by the other. Whose to say that according to a wild animal, humans don't have the right to build large cities or suburbs in forests where animals are living. On the other hand, whose to say that according to humans, we have the right to kill animals for food or to cut down any tree we want to build houses. Humans will never understand animals, and if animals have a sense of understanding, they will never understand humans, without some sort of inner-species communication.
Just because we say we have rights, doesn't mean we do, I mean in the long run do we really have rights, or do we have rights, so we can have the things we want and desire?

whose got more rights?

so why do humans have more rights than animals?
I think its pretty plan and simple. Direct to the point. Humans have unique characteristics which include the ability to be rational. Humans have moral rights, which is the belief of humans, and moral rights are essential to human growth. Moral rights stem from beliefs and they are what people use to distinguish between right and wrong. There is no way to tell if an animal can distinguish between right and wrong.
If someone can show me scientific evidence of this, I might to start to believe a little more that animals have rights, but until then.
Some people like to argue that animals have rights because they are spiritual well beings and serve as food for other animals and humans, and therefore they have rights. I don't think that those two characteristics constitute something having rights. An animal has the inability to take control of something, and I feel that is the biggest hinderance to them having rights.

whose got more rights?

why work?

Many people see the reason for working to be for themselves to make their place in society. The perception is that people work for themselves, and because it is a way to make ends meet. It is nothing but toil, and a nuisance that must be done. Some philosophers, like Marx, have even gone as far to say work is for itself against human nature. Human nature after all, requires one to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Work has been argued to provide pain as it is something we do, but never really want to do, and work never provides pleasure. So in this argument human nature is to avoid work, but we hinder human nature by still going to work, and working in the labor force to produce. However there are people, and plenty of them, that like to actively work and produce in the labor force. There is a positive realm to working, and that is known as self-realization. Work in this case is a way in which one overcomes the division with nature and reestablishes our unity with it. According to philosophers such as Marx and Hegel, this particular aspect of work, is a means in which we can satisfy our material appetites and needs with an end in it. We can walk away from our creations and development them not necessarily to live with them everyday or to use our productions in a way of survival like an animal would. Depending on how one looks at work, it can be looked as just toil, and in a negative aspect, or it can be looked at in a positive way.

Business Ethics, is there such a thing?

With all the scandals and controversies today surrounding major corporations such as Enron, one ought to consider whether or not there really is a set of standards and ethical codes to be considered in the world of business. Sure there are the set of business ethics that one learns in a class designated business ethics, but is it more than just what is taught in such class. It involves whether or not that set of standards and code of ethics that is taught in class or preached by ethicist is actually followed in the business world. If you were to actually look at the business world, you would have to believe that ethics is something that is nonexistant in the real world and only on paper. Beyond the lying, cheating, deception, money laundering scandals, the need for profit at any cost and the way employees are treated in some business with benefits and wages it is entirely unfair to the employee and against a number of ethical standard values. The idea of a major corporation in America seems to be the bigger the profit the better. So by whatever means that takes to achieve, the CEOs, Presidents, Executive Board members, or whomever else is willing to go there and beyond. Whether that means making their product cheaper or lessening the wages to the bare minimum for their employees. Whatever it is, it comes out in an unfair, unethical way to someone, somewhere.

Do you really support our troops?

Everywhere you go, you see the magnetic yellow ribbons on cars or pinned to a wall, or another yellow ribbon hanging off of something. The yellow ribbon of course stands for "Support Our Troops," talking of course about those overseas fighting in this war on terrorism. However do you really support the troops. I do, but of course, I don't have one of those yellow ribbons, nor do I plan on buying one. I have an Uncle in the heart of Iraq right now, but I don't need to buy a yellow ribbon, in which none of the funds go towards helping the troops. I just merely have to support what he is doing, stay in contact, maybe send him a few care packages, and keep him in my prayers. People throughout the country attempt to say they support our troops in Iraq by only purchasing the media led magnetic yellow ribbons, that truly don't send any support to the troops. Sure it is a way to show that you support their job, and you hope they come home safe, but are you doing anything behind the scene to truly show your support. Do you truly understand why they are over there? Look past what the media is telling you; dig deep into what is really going on; find the independent journalists on line, they'll tell you what is really going on. The yellow ribbon magnets are among many media tactics to distract people and draw people into a world that may or may not be real. Of course this war is real. There is no denying the fact that people are dying every day in the name of this country, but please find away to move past what the media is telling us, and find away to directly support a troop, or a group of troops.

Is the media in the right?

Its something that is overlooked all the time. Is the media providing a false impression on today's society? Are we focusing too much on the gossip of the world instead of reality? Is that what the viewers want? The media today, print and television, avoid the reality of the world and promote the entertainment industry. Whether it is through the news or cartoons in the newspaper, the entertainment industry is getting all the attention. The general media foundation, which is built up by major corporations across the country, is promoting the entertainment over the wars and the bloodshed happening overseas, and even in this very counrty. Sure we hear about the war, and the loss of lives every day, but it is only a small fraction of the newscast, or a small portion of the newspaper.
The question really comes down to why?
I think the answer to this is simple... people don't want to know the truth. They don't want to hear about the things going on overseas, they don't want to hear about all the negative things going on in the world and in their own back yards. They want to take the gossip of the entertainment world, and turn it into their own form of entertainment and become turn that into their world.

Is torture the right thing to do?

Ok, so I apologize for being a little behind, but my life is back in order and here I go. For my last blog on torture (for right now), I want to touch upon whether torture is the right thing to do in any situation.
I think there has to be certian things in line and in order, along with certain situations occuring in order to permit torture. I am not saying torture is the morally correct thing to do, however, I do believe when it is the last option in "crunch time" it is a necessity. Sometimes in life we need to put what is necessary in front of what is morally correct. If it is a ticking bomb situation, where information is needed immediately to protect a nation against imminant danger, then I would have to say torture is necessary, if all other steps have been taken and all other attempts to get the necessary information have failed, and torture is the absolute last resort, then it ought to be permitted despite the lack of moral corretness. I don't think torture is a necessity when it is not a situation in which a nation is in imminent danger and there is no proof what so ever that the person that is going to be tortured has no information. In order to torture someone in a ticking bomb situation, I think it has to be put out there that it is believed beyond no doubt that that is the person with information. If it is not believed beyond no doubt, then torture can not be done.

Torture

Torture is vaguely defined as intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering in order to break a person's will. But what about mental suffering, and what is the definition of extreme?

Isn't the severity of "extreme" up to the individual person committing and receiving the torture. According to dictionary.com, extreme is defined as "utmost or exceedingly great in degree," or it could mean "going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc..." So needless to say even the definitions allow room for interpretation. What I might assume to be extreme someone else might feel that it would be no more than a normal occurrence. An example of torture is water boarding, and for someone that is deathly afraid of drowning it could seem extremely torturous on the first dunk in the water, while someone that loves to be in the water and can hold their breath for a long time, might not find it torturous right away or ever at all. Also one form of torture may break a person's will, while that same form of torture may never break a different person's will.

In all the definitions of torture, there is nothing about mental torture. Take something like the "chinese water torture" method, according to the definition of torture, being strapped down and having a drip of water dripping on your forehead for hours on end, until your will breaks, is not a form of torture, because it is not inflicting physical suffering. In my own opinion if a will is broken in a forced way, then it is in some form a way of torture; whether it is physical or mental.

Just Cause

Pick a side, for or against the occupation in Iraq. Is the occupation just? Was it just in the beginning and now its not? or were we led to believe that it was just in the beginning, and there were really alternative motives behind the occupation in Iraq. Again I think this is one of those topics that it all depends on what documents you read, and who you talk to. I believe in the beginning, the occupation in Iraq was given a just cause. It was given a reason for the U.S. to invade Iraq to protect the United States and therefore that's what we did. We may have pre-maturely invaded without the UN finishing their inspections, but we invaded under the notion of find Sadam and weapons of mass destruction and rid the country of both. We have yet to find wmds to this point, but we did find Sadam, take him out of power, and execute him.
Many people today, still critize the occupation, because we are still in Iraq. There is really no reason beyond that, but we are still there and people don't like it. Nonetheless we can't just pull out, after all that we have done to that country. The American Soldiers have done a lot of good in Iraq and they are over there doing their jobs.

Posing a Question to the next topic...

Where is the line drawn for supporting the troops fighting in Iraq and what they are doing, and whether or not the war is just?

Back to the Use of Animals... for one second...

Ok, so back to the use of animals in unethical ways. How about the use of animals for consumption. This is for all of you meat eaters out there. I am 100% totally a meat eater, and that will probably never change. I don't agree with the surplus of meat we have or abusing the system by killing more animals than we need to eat at one given point in time, however, I do not oppose eating animals as a source of nutrition. I don't believe it is a murderous act that is unlawful. It is something that we need for survival. Not everyone can survive on a vegetarian diet. Some people really need the proteins and minerals meat can provide. So I guess what I am trying to get across hear, is that I don't believe meat eating and the use of animals is an unethical issue, I just believe that it should be limited to the amount we need to eat, and that we don't necessarily need a surplus in meat. If we eat, we kill more to eat more. If we don't eat it, then we don't have to kill to get more.

Stem Cell Research, Is it Ethical?

This posting is mostly in response to some earlier discussion and discussion on other related blogs.

There is no doubt in my mind when I say stem cell research is ethical. I don't think it is really a matter of whether it is ethical or not, I think the ethical issue comes in when we discuss where we get the embryonic cells. I don't believe an embryo has any moral status. It is a cell, not a human being. It is part of a human being, but it is not an actual being. There are currently millions of embryonic cells that are sitting unused in labs, from aborted births, prenatal deaths, and other sources. Stem cell research could be a huge benefit to human life in a medical sense. It can allow scientists to use human cells in cancer research and drug testing.

So lets get down to the nity grity of the ethical issue I am raising...
Where will the embryonic cells come from in the future? I don't think that it should be made public knowledge that stem cells from aborted births are used for stem cell research, because I think that will promote a rise in abortions and irresponsibility among sexual relations. I am not a 100% pro-lifer, however I do believe the only abortions that should be made would be those of women who were sexually assualted and were bearing a child from a sexual encounter against their will.

I think it is perfectly fine to use embryonic cells from prenatal deaths and by any other way in which a scientist can get these cells without resorting to an aborted birth right away.

Is it a need or a want?

Why do we really use animals in medical experimentation? The following statement was made in class the other day: "It is not a want, it is a need." I have to agree with this statement. A few people tried to argue that it was human choice in the first place that people got diseases, however,there are some illnesses and diseases out there that people do not recieve by lifestyle choices, they are genetic, and they just get them. For those reasons, and those reasons only, I support animal experimentation for medical research in trying to find vacines and cures for genetic diseases. If someone is sick merely because they ate too much fatty foods, then that was their lifestyle choice and they have to deal with it. But if someone is sick because of a genetic disease or for a reason beyond their control, then that is where medical research steps in and attempts to find a relief or cure for that disease.

Animal Experimentation

Ok, so when is something so wrong its right? Or when is something that is considered wrong by so many, the right thing to do? I'm talking about Animal Experimentation. There are large amounts of people out there in the world that widely dispise animal experimentation for medical research and claim it is crulity to animals. I'm not saying it is necessarily the right thing to do, but I believe it is the better thing to do. The only other option that has been presented to this point has been clinical research, and in my opinion, animals which are bred for experimentation are more exendable than human lives. The way I see it, the majority of healthy people in this world would never put them into an experimental position that could end up costing them their lives. Now of course animals can not pick whether or not they are experimented on, however, researchers are beginning to breed certain animals just for expermintation, and I see it as a lesser of the two evils. People will disagree with me, and go ahead, disagree, however, just keep in mind, would you rather be in the place of the rat?

Meta, Normative, Applied, and Whatever else

When you look at ethics in the professional world, what comes to mind first? Is it what constitutes as professional? Is it what are ethics? Where did ethics come from? What do professional ethics focus on? Or why are ethics so important?
First of all, lets start with what ethics are... Ethics are a set of standards that people around the world set aside as knowing what is right and what is wrong. A professional is vaguely defined as someone in the working force with power over other people, such as a CEO, or a person working in the medical field, legal field, Military, scientific field, government field, etc... So if you put the two words together (Ethics and Professionals), then you get the term Professional Ethics, and it is vaguely the set of standards that define right and wrong in the professional world.
However, the question is still posed, where did ethics come from? That is where Meta-ethics, Normative ethics, and Applied ethics come into play. In brief, meta-ethics is the study of the source of ethics. Meta-ethics explores many possibilities as to where ethics are derived from. Normative ethics is built off of meta-ethics as the set of standards people follow in order to do good in their life, or create the perfect world. This set of standards and the source of ethics in both normative and meta-ethics are the base for applied ethics, which is used while looking at professional ethics. As I go on about this over the next several weeks, I will be looking at numerous topics relating to professional ethics and exploring whether it is ethical.
Look for the next post, exploring animal experimentation.