Is NDAA 2012's infinate detention law unethical?

The recent approval of the United State's National Defense Authorization Act has drawn a lot of attention from internet media sources lately as a controversial and probably unconstitutional law. My question is, given the reasons cited by the bill compared to the possible effects on the status quo, is this bill ethical in nature?

In short, I don't believe this bill is ethical in any sense of the term based on 4 premises
1. The NDAA threatens the people's right to habeus corpus
2. The NDAA has the potential to be applied in a fascist and totalitarian way
3. These applications of the NDAA would deprive people of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
4. Denying people their aspirations to be free and happy is wrong

One section in the NDAA says that people will be allowed to be imprisoned, indefinitely without a trial on mere suspicion of a belligerent act, association with terrorist groups (including groups such as Occupy Wall St.) In fact, the list of things that makes you a suspected terrorist in the eyes of the government is quite expansive and includes activities that normal Americans might do every day without having any anti-authoritarian thoughts whatsoever. This combined with the Patriot Act which was extended by President Obama when he came into office for another four years  makes it so that virtually every American could be spied on and deemed to be "suspicious" by the government, and carted off to prison without a trial.

This bill continues to prove itself as unethical because it gives the government far too much power to control the people. If they were able to imprison people who they saw as a threat to the establishment, for merely questioning their government as any true patriot should then this turns America into a totalitarian state.

This bill is pure evil. It goes against everything that America stood for and everything that our soldiers have died to protect (Making it unethical on a whole other level). But because it could deny the American people their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it must be unethical because to deny any one of these is just simply wrong.

Is the use of Illicit drugs immoral? Pt. 2

      Although it would appear that drug use can't be considered immoral on the grounds that it isn't healthy since other things people do that could be proven to have similar adverse health effects, are usually morally irrelevant, such as eating fast food or smoking cigarettes; still there are other issues surrounding drug use and it's moral implications.


      Drug use in itself usually results in little overall negative moral consequences depending on the responsibility of the user, for example, many people smoke marijuana on occasion and cause little damage to themselves or others by doing so. Other people would prefer to have a beer and watch the game, and still other people use drugs for legitimate medical reasons like pain management, anxiety, or depression. However drug abuse typically carries with it other, not necessarily direct consequences but associated ones that could carry morally implicating results. For example, someone who is addicted to, or abuses drugs might have trouble making morally sound decisions, or be put in a place where they can't make such a decision. For example, someone who is addicted to drugs might decide to ignore their family, choosing intoxication over a relationship with their relatives. This is surely an immoral decision, and even though it's not a direct result of drug use it was caused by the user's dependance on them. Other examples of immoral acts that could result from drug abuse could include theft to support their habit, lying to friends and family about their whereabouts and activities, or neglecting general responsibilities.

     In conclusion, it is my resolution that drug use itself is morally neutral, it is indirect consequences of drug abuse that carry morally corrosive attributes.

Is the use of illicit drugs immoral? Pt. 1

To many people, drug use carries with it a stigma of immoral and otherwise unsavory behavior. Drug users are looked down upon in society, imprisoned, and outcast for the most part if they don't seek the help they need. But why is drug use seen as immoral?

The most immoral thing ( when you forget about the laws ) when it comes to drug use is, at least by my thoughts, self-harm. Substances such as alcohol, opiates, and benzodiazepines like Valium all carry with them the risk for physical addiction and with continued use, physiological damage as well as psychological dependance. Other substances like stimulants, including meth-amphetamine and cocaine cause intense psychological dependance which, although it lacks the disturbing and sometimes deadly consequences of physical withdrawal symptoms, can be almost as dangerous. Other substances, namely psychedelics such as THC, LSD, and salvia have little if any physically addictive characteristics, but smoking marijuana or salvia could damage the lungs, and kill brain cells. Also, the powerful psychedelic effects of LSD (which has been proven to be less toxic than asprin) or salvia could bring on manic episodes or possibly bring out underlying mental health issues such as schizophrenia. Clearly, drugs do cause harm when they are used and therefore it could be seen as immoral to take them, from a personal point of view, or perhaps from someone close to a user.

But by that logic, it could be immoral to eat fast food, take OTC medicines, smoke cigarettes, and many other things that are not viewed as harshly, or punished as brutally as illicit drug use. This is why the self-harm argument is flawed. People do things that are unhealthy all the time, with little consequence but the physical ones that manifest because of their activity. Should we imprison everyone on the grounds that they are being destructive to themselves? Who are we to determine what one does with their own body?

At what point does someone become self aware, and a recognized human?

To most, the defining moment where a baby becomes part of the human world is of course at birth.
At this moment, an infant has all the biological features that we have ( although they are in a developing stage ), and they have their first secular experience even though they will not remember it themselves.
But psychologically, infants are obviously still very behind a fully grown being. Even at this moment an infant still lacks a major thought characteristic that defines us as human, i.e. the ability to perceive our own actions and their impacts on others. But, realistically people don't gain the ability to think about their actions until about the age of three, hence the "terrible twos" and the erratic, and unacceptable behavior of most infants younger than that age. But to me, the defining thing that makes us human is the experience we share on this planet. It wouldn't be right to say that an infant isn't a human because it lacks the ability to think of its own impact because it is only beginning its experience here, and hasn't had the chance for their brain to develop to that point yet. In this case, I would say that the majority is right, and birth is the point where someone becomes a human in my eyes because it has joined our world, even though it is only in the beginning of its experience it has still crossed the threshold and is human in my eyes.

Can fetuses really be thought of as human?

After reading Marquis' essay about fetuses have a future like ours I began to think about whether they could even be considered human yet. Sure, they have the DNA, but there are a few other defining characteristics that I don't think they meet.

Propositions:

A. Fetuses have never seen the world that people live in, or had any experiences in it ( which is a huge part of what it means to be human, in my opinion ) All they 'know' is the inside of the womb, a world that would be very alien like to a person who has been alive long enough to know the true human experience.

B. Fetuses lack the capacity for thought, and limited sensory perception. The senses are still developing while a fetus is in the womb. Touch is the first to develop after 5 weeks of pregnancy, but remains limited, with slow but steady development until 12 weeks. This means that for the first 5 weeks, fetuses literally cannot feel, think, or do anything that makes someone human, really.

 Given these ideas I don't think it's right to think of a fetus as a fully fledged human being, but I am interested to have a conversation about this. Comments plz? ^.^

Is 'owning' a pet ethical?

In the modern age many people, especially animal rights activists have begun to question the ethics behind owning pets. Many people maintain that it is simply unethical to keep an animal in your home when it's entirely entitled to experience its life by its own means. But still others say that pets are dependent on humans for survival and therefore we have an inherent responsibility to care for them.

I think that in the case of pets it is important to contextualize the situation and consider the animal's ability to survive without us, and the possible benefits of living with us. In the case of most dogs, it would be crazy to believe that they could survive without human assistance, many dogs wouldn't know the first thing about how to catch prey; but on the other hand, how can we justify keeping a bird that was meant to fly across the sky, locked up in a cage? Or keeping a fish in a barren glass bowl, that if we  were subjected to life inside, would surely cause us to lose our minds. In these cases owning a pet could be likened to keeping a prisoner, because it's less like a pet and more like a living decoration that was deprived of any right or ability to lead its own life. This is why I think it's important to consider the animal itself when thinking about the ethics of pet ownership.

In conclusion, it is ethical to own most domesticated animals in modern times because they have been brought up to live along side humans, and many would be incapable of being independent. But in the case of wild animals like birds, fish, and reptiles this change to living along side humans in cages or water tanks would be catastrophic to their livelihoods, as they aren't adapted to those living conditions and many of these pets die because of it, which to me makes it quite unethical to own any undomesticated animals.

Is "murder" ever morally justifiable?

When it comes to justifying most anything, including murder, evil is in the eye of the beholder. 

     I'm a believer of Frued's idea that as people we inherently justify or rationalize our actions to protect ourselves from any emotional turmoil that could come about from them. People will justify just about any measure of evil as life events filter through their own moral values, the values held by their peers, and weigh against the circumstances driving their actions, their "motives". For instance the housewife who poisoned her late husband's coffee, the cold blooded suicide bomber, and even megalomaniac dictators like Joseph Stalin who had thousands of people massacred, all somehow rationalize their actions. So when asked the question is murder "morally justifiable?" I would say, sure, it just depends on who's asking. To me murder isn't something that you can or should really have to justify. If killing was what a situation came down to, there should be no doubt in my mind that it was a reasonable option given the circumstances, and therefore wouldn't require real "premeditated justification" which really to me indicates that an action was immoral. Of course my idea of what is morally justifiable may not agree with other people's idea of what is. Under the law, most religions, and many people's general moral code all together murder is never morally justifiable; so again, evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Is there a moral difference between killing, and letting die?

In short, yes there is a moral difference between killing and letting die, but not always. But the issue with these kind of moral dilemmas is that there is no single answer, and everything lies in the circumstances of the situation and decisions that are made. I will cite for an example the recent cruise ship wreck off the coast of Italy. The Costa Concordia capsized killing 17 people and the captain is charged with abandoning the ship before all of his passengers were safely evacuated. Some people in Italy want to charge this man with murder! But when you look at the circumstances, you might agree that all this man is guilty of is cowardice and recklessness. Unlike murder, the decisions he made were not based in malicious intent, but rather in self-preservation and fear which is only human, which is just about all we can ask a person to be. But if the situation were different, and the actions that would prevent someone's death were reasonable, letting die brings with it certain guilt. I will cite another situation in New York where a homeless man, Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax was stabbed multiple times and left in the street to die after saving a woman from the attacker in Queens, New York. A total of twenty-five people walked passed the collapsed and dying man without coming to his aid. After an hour and a half someone finally shook Hugo and he was rushed to the hospital where he was pronounced dead at age 31. In this situation, any one of those passer-by's could've easily called for help on their cell phone or gotten the attention of someone who could. In my opinion, when letting die comes down to a decision such as this and you let someone die, you are almost as bad as the murderer. And another possible scenario for consideration, letting someone die intentionally where you had the direct chance to intervene, but chose not to so that the person would die. For example, you're on a hike in the Amazon and you come across your long time enemy waist deep in quicksand. You have the necessary gear to help them out, but instead you ignore their cries for help and keep walking. In my opinion this murder all the same because the intent to kill was there.

Greetings comrades

     My name is Chris McCann, 18 years old ( 19 this Sunday )
I come from Dalton, MA... about 30 minutes from MCLA. Studied at Wahconah high school in the same town, ended up being class president for senior year. Anyways... I'm interested in philosophy because I love thinking. ( We're talking about someone who contemplated the meaning of life and death since the 4th grade. ) I love the word "Why?"
Thusfar I have taken classes in psychology,  humanities (the study of Geniuses), and sociology. I found these classes to be the most rewarding because I of the thought involved, this is why I decided to take this course.
     In my spare time I enjoy making music with my guitar, computer, and any other instruments I might have handy. I've dabbled in painting, photography, writing, and drawing but guitar and music is my strong suit. Currently I'm on a nu-jazz kick that combines the influences of Jazz music with rock instrumentation and electronica-esque use of synthesizers. This of course with my usual love of classic rock, modern indie, old pop music ( think Beatles era pop ), and post-alternative or progressive "metal" (generally nothing heavier than Tool), and chilled out artists like Bonobo are my favorite.