contemporary issues in public policy

If found interesting the fact that people don't feel as shamed of pulling a lever to save five people and kill one instead of pushing the person over the train. The people in the interview think that pulling a lever is better because they wouldn't feel as much guilt as pushing the person down from the trolley. Even if we all know that both are not great solutions. The gut feeling called as "inner chimp" I like how they say that moral sense is a unique and special human quality. Maybe we should ask ourselves what it really is. How the human brain works of different people is also very interesting I find because many people think differently and are ashamed of what other people think or would choose. Out of competition comes morality. We already have a sense of right and wrong when we are born, even before our parents can tell us. Basic primate morality understands the effect of pushing a person off, in this case, the trolley. The "inner chimp", which is "act of deep goodness". this is all connected to the 10 commandments, especially the one "thou shall not kill " Everything is always for a reason. Same story Killing your own baby or saving a village. I find it interesting how people would choose to kill their own baby and therefore save themselves and the rest of the people who live in the village. Others instead are very contrary because they say that a baby is God's gift. Everything now can evolve around having the inner strength for doing things like killing your own baby. I wonder if people that say that they would kill their own baby have actually the inner strength to do it. Actions speak louder than words. I think that it is also different when you have to decide to kill your own baby or save a village especially when you don't have one because you don't really know how it feels to be a parent and have a gift from God that not everyone can rece

I discussed this ethical scenario in depth last semester in my American Political Thought Class. The idea is: Is it ethical to harm one person in the act of saving another? We as humans tend to think these scenarios over all the time. Even at parties, we often entertain ourselves with silly "Would you rather?" questions. The thought is: What makes us reach such conclusions? To me, it seems people reach such conclusions based on the experiences they have had throughout their lives. I agree with the poster above me in the sense that we are not "hardwired" with a sense of moral knowledge. I feel we derive our own morality in decision making based on our own upbringing and lived experiences. For example, I grew up with parents whom were both police officers. From birth, I had my sense of morality influenced by their want to see me follow the law and be respectful to authority. Although I am now an adult, I still feel their parenting has installed a set of values that determines what I view morally right and wrong. I hate people who text and drive, and where do I get such a judgement? From my parents. Now, if I had parents whom texted while driving I most likely would have a different view on the subject. In conclusion, our own so-called moral compass comes from the own circumstance in which we are brought into the world. A boy growing up in Bel Air with rich parents will obviously have a different sense of morality regarding assisting the poor than someone born to more frugal parents. Although the concept of men being born equal can still be held as true, it is the culture that we are brought into that ultimately determines our fate.

This article is a lot to digest because of the socialism analysis. The author suggests that going to a socialistic system would insinuate getting rid of freedom. Essentially socialism is a dictator party for the people that would abolish the monopolies that control the economy. The authors solution to socialism/ fascism is to re-embrace and exercise our constitutional rights.

I would agree with the part where he said that private property is our most important guarantee of freedom. By being able to own our own property and do with it as we please and there is really noone that can take it away from us once we own it we have the ultimate right to freedom right there.

It was really hard to fully understand what the authors two main points are. I interpret the statement "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others" as the author basically saying that everyone deserves the same rights and opportunities as others. His second point, "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage; and b) attached to positions and offices open to all" is very hard to understand the point he is trying to make, or even what his line of thought is for this. If mentioning these two main points was suppose to be some sort of thesis or preview of what the rest of the article is about then it did a very poor job of making it clear and concise.

Green innovation and Eco friendly infrastructures is good news for the world. Especially if the United States has caught on to Amsterdam's Environmental architects. This green innovation is expensive to fund but it is the most efficient thing investors could do for the environment and the global economy.

What I got out of this longitude study "What Makes us Happy" article is that happiness comes not from tangibles but the non-tangibles in our lives.

I find it interesting that they would put so much effort into discovering the secrets to the "good life" when the very definition of that phrase will change depending on who you ask, and the methods of obtaining the good life will be different depending on what it is you want from life.