Wednesday, December 19, 2007
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.
Friday, December 14, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
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.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
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?
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?
Sunday, December 2, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
