Best content in New Media Ethics 2009 course

The Moment of Truth - 5 views

The idea of Truth (vis-a-vis truth or Truths and truths) is very interesting and keeps recurring in all ethical debates. My question is, is Truth discovered? Or is Truth invented? As some of us h...

Ethics

started by nora sikin on 07 Oct 09 2 follow-ups, last by Magdaleine on 08 Oct 09

Miss Malaysia Toy Boy - 7 views

Yes, commodification has led to liberation. After all, capitalism is all about creating new markets for more production and consumption. Beauty has all along been commodified since the oldest trade...

started by juliet huang on 08 Oct 09 1 follow-up, last by Weiye Loh on 09 Oct 09

Does patent/ copyright stifle or promote innovation? - 6 views

From a Critical Ethic perspective, Who do patents and copyrights protect? What kind of ideologies underly such a policy? I would argue that it is the capitalist ideologies, individualist ideolo...

MS Word patent copyright

started by Weiye Loh on 20 Aug 09 1 follow-up, last by Weiye Loh on 20 Aug 09

Obama warns about Facebook posts - 8 views

privacy surveillance

started by joanne ye on 09 Sep 09 no follow-up yet

Soldiers feeling the love for their robotic comrades - 6 views

It does remind me of how we're trained to protect and take care of our weapons during National Service, so they will take care of us during war. Very interesting perspective. Very humanist I would ...

Robot emotions love

started by guanyou chen on 15 Oct 09 1 follow-up, last by Weiye Loh on 18 Oct 09

Ethics and Values Case Study- Mercy Killing, Euthanasia - 8 views

www.brainmass.com/...86151

Euthanasia

shared by yongernn teo on 21 Oct 09 - Cached

yongernn teo on 21 Oct 09

THE ETHICAL PROBLEM: Allowing someone to die, mercy death, and mercy killing, Euthanasia: A 24-year-old man named Robert who has a wife and child is paralyzed from the neck down in a motorcycle accident. He has always been very active and hates the idea of being paralyzed. He also is in a great deal of pain, an he has asked his doctors and other members of his family to "put him out of his misery." After several days of such pleading, his brother comes into Robert's hospital ward and asks him if he is sure he still wants to be put out of his misery. Robert says yes and pleads with his brother to kill him. The brother kisses and blesses Robert, then takes out a gun and shoots him, killing him instantly. The brother later is tried for murder and acquitted by reason of temporary insanity. Was what Robert's brother did moral? Do you think he should have been brought to trial at all? Do you think he should have been acquitted? Would you do the same for a loved one if you were asked? THE DISCUSSION: In my opinion, the most dubious part about the case would be the part on Robert pleading with his brother, asking his brother to kill him. This could be his brother's own account of the incident and could/could not have been a plea by Robert. 1) With assumption that Robert indeed pleaded with his brother to kill him, an ethical analysis as such could be derived: That Robert's brother was only respecting Robert's choice and killed him because he wanted to relieve him from his misery. This could be argued to be ethical using a teleoloigical framework where the focus is on the end-result and the consequences that entails the action. Here, although the act of killing per se may be wrong and illegal, Robert was able to relieved of his pain and suffering. 2) With an assumption that Robert did not plea with his brother to kill him and that it was his brother's own decision to relieve Robert of all-suffering: In this case, the b

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">THE ETHICAL PROBLEM: Allowing someone to die, mercy death, and mercy killing, Euthanasia: A 24-year-old man named Robert who has a wife and child is paralyzed from the neck down in a motorcycle accident. He has always been very active and hates the idea of being paralyzed. He also is in a great deal of pain, an he has asked his doctors and other members of his family to "put him out of his misery." After several days of such pleading, his brother comes into Robert's hospital ward and asks him if he is sure he still wants to be put out of his misery. Robert says yes and pleads with his brother to kill him. The brother kisses and blesses Robert, then takes out a gun and shoots him, killing him instantly. The brother later is tried for murder and acquitted by reason of temporary insanity. Was what Robert's brother did moral? Do you think he should have been brought to trial at all? Do you think he should have been acquitted? Would you do the same for a loved one if you were asked? THE DISCUSSION: In my opinion, the most dubious part about the case would be the part on Robert pleading with his brother, asking his brother to kill him. This could be his brother's own account of the incident and could/could not have been a plea by Robert. 1) With assumption that Robert indeed pleaded with his brother to kill him, an ethical analysis as such could be derived: That Robert's brother was only respecting Robert's choice and killed him because he wanted to relieve him from his misery. This could be argued to be ethical using a teleoloigical framework where the focus is on the end-result and the consequences that entails the action. Here, although the act of killing per se may be wrong and illegal, Robert was able to relieved of his pain and suffering. 2) With an assumption that Robert did not plea with his brother to kill him and that it was his brother's own decision to relieve Robert of all-suffering: In this case, the b</div>

...

Cancel
...2 more comments...
Elaine Ong on 22 Oct 09

I find euthanasia to be a very interesting ethical dilemma. Even I myself am caught in the middle. Euthanasia has been termed as 'mercy killing' and even 'happy death'. Others may simply just term it as being 'evil'. Is it right to end someone's life even when he or she pleads you to do so? In the first place, is it even right to commit suicide? Once someone pulls off the main support that's keeping the person alive, such as the feeding tube, there is no turning back. Hmm..Come to think of it, technology is kind of unethical by being made available, for in the past, when someone is dying, they had the right to die naturally. Now, scientific technology is 'forcing' us to stay alive and cling on to a life that may be deemed being worthless if we were standing outside our bodies looking at our comatose selves. Then again, this may just be MY personal standpoint. But I have to argue, who gave technology the right to make me a worthless vegetable!(and here I am, attaching a value/judgement onto an immobile human being..) Hence, being incompetent in making decisions for my unconscious self (or perhaps even brain dead), who should take responsibility for my life, for my existence? And on what basis are they allowed to help me out? Taking the other side of the argument, against euthanasia, we can say that the act of ending someone else's life is the act of destroying societal respect for life. Based on the utilitarian perspective, we are not thinking of the overall beneficence for society and disregarding the moral considerations encompassed within the state's interest to preserve the sanctity of all life. It has been said that life in itself takes priority over all other values. We should let the person live so as to give him/her a chance to wake up or hope for recovery (think comatose patients). But then again we can also argue that life is not the top of the hierarchy! A life without rights is as if not living a life at all? By removing the patient

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I find euthanasia to be a very interesting ethical dilemma. Even I myself am caught in the middle. Euthanasia has been termed as 'mercy killing' and even 'happy death'. Others may simply just term it as being 'evil'. Is it right to end someone's life even when he or she pleads you to do so? In the first place, is it even right to commit suicide? Once someone pulls off the main support that's keeping the person alive, such as the feeding tube, there is no turning back. Hmm..Come to think of it, technology is kind of unethical by being made available, for in the past, when someone is dying, they had the right to die naturally. Now, scientific technology is 'forcing' us to stay alive and cling on to a life that may be deemed being worthless if we were standing outside our bodies looking at our comatose selves. Then again, this may just be MY personal standpoint. But I have to argue, who gave technology the right to make me a worthless vegetable!(and here I am, attaching a value/judgement onto an immobile human being..) Hence, being incompetent in making decisions for my unconscious self (or perhaps even brain dead), who should take responsibility for my life, for my existence? And on what basis are they allowed to help me out? Taking the other side of the argument, against euthanasia, we can say that the act of ending someone else's life is the act of destroying societal respect for life. Based on the utilitarian perspective, we are not thinking of the overall beneficence for society and disregarding the moral considerations encompassed within the state's interest to preserve the sanctity of all life. It has been said that life in itself takes priority over all other values. We should let the person live so as to give him/her a chance to wake up or hope for recovery (think comatose patients). But then again we can also argue that life is not the top of the hierarchy! A life without rights is as if not living a life at all? By removing the patient </div>

...

Cancel
juliet huang on 28 Oct 09

as a human being, you supposedly have a right to live, whether you are mobile or immobile. however, i think that, in the case of euthanasia, you 'give up' your rights when you "show" that you are no longer able to serve the pre-requisites of having the right. for example, if "living" rights are equate to you being able to talk, walk, etc etc, then, obviously the opposite means you no longer are able to perform up to the expectations of that right. then again, it is very subjective as to who gets to make that criteria!

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">as a human being, you supposedly have a right to live, whether you are mobile or immobile. however, i think that, in the case of euthanasia, you 'give up' your rights when you "show" that you are no longer able to serve the pre-requisites of having the right. for example, if "living" rights are equate to you being able to talk, walk, etc etc, then, obviously the opposite means you no longer are able to perform up to the expectations of that right. then again, it is very subjective as to who gets to make that criteria!</div>

...

Cancel
Magdaleine on 02 Nov 09

hmm interesting.. however, a question i have is who and when can this "right" be "given up"? when i am a victim in a car accident, and i lost the ability to breathe, walk and may need months to recover. i am unconscious and the doctor is unable to determine when am i gonna regain consciousness. when should my parents decide i can no longer be able to have any living rights? and taking elaine's point into consideration, is committing suicide even 'right'? if it is legally not right, when i ask someone to take my life and wrote a letter that it was cus i wanted to die, does that make it committing suicide only in the hands of others?

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">hmm interesting.. however, a question i have is who and when can this "right" be "given up"? when i am a victim in a car accident, and i lost the ability to breathe, walk and may need months to recover. i am unconscious and the doctor is unable to determine when am i gonna regain consciousness. when should my parents decide i can no longer be able to have any living rights? and taking elaine's point into consideration, is committing suicide even 'right'? if it is legally not right, when i ask someone to take my life and wrote a letter that it was cus i wanted to die, does that make it committing suicide only in the hands of others?</div>

...

Cancel
Low Yunying on 04 Nov 09

Similarly, I question the 'rights' that you have to 'give up' when you no longer 'serve the pre-requisites of having the right'. If the living rights means being able to talk and walk, then where does it leave infants? Where does it leave people who may be handicapped? Have their lost their rights to living?

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Similarly, I question the 'rights' that you have to 'give up' when you no longer 'serve the pre-requisites of having the right'. If the living rights means being able to talk and walk, then where does it leave infants? Where does it leave people who may be handicapped? Have their lost their rights to living?</div>

...

Cancel

Why Piracy is not theft. - 7 views

piracy commodity

started by Jun Jie Tan on 26 Aug 09 no follow-up yet

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet - 7 views

Privacy Surveillance Protection

started by Jude John on 08 Sep 09 no follow-up yet

Workplace Surveillance - 5 views

Link: http://news.cnet.com/Judges-protest-workplace-surveillance/2100-1023_3-271457.html Summary: A panel of influential judges are taking a closer look at the issue of electronic monitoring at ...

workplace surveillance

started by Low Yunying on 09 Sep 09 1 follow-up, last by Magdaleine on 10 Sep 09

Slacktivism - 7 views

URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/opinion/edit-page/Pay-It-Forward-On-Being-A-Slacktivist/articleshow/5065543.cms The article talks about the point of view of a slacktivist. A slacktivist's ...

online activism

started by Olivia Chang on 30 Sep 09 no follow-up yet

iN2015 - Singapore to become an intelligent nation - 5 views

started by Karin Tan on 07 Oct 09 1 follow-up, last by nora sikin on 07 Oct 09

What if it's parents who violate privacy rights? - 6 views

issue of misrepresentation defamation online rumours

started by Valerie Oon on 20 Aug 09 no follow-up yet

Self-regulation or self-censorship? - 6 views

shttp://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_334426.html Summary: The article centres on the Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) Lui Tuck ...

started by Chong Yi Ting on 02 Sep 09 no follow-up yet

Google applying double standards? - 6 views

We all know that Google revealed the blogger who called model Liskula Cohen a skank, and everyone in the web community was up in arms because it seems that Google has breached its duty to protect i...

started by juliet huang on 09 Sep 09 no follow-up yet

Online politics reserved for the rich - 6 views

online politics activism

started by Jody Poh on 30 Sep 09 no follow-up yet

Bridging the Digital Divide - 6 views

http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/01/011402t_divide.jhtml This article essentially explains the concept of a digital divide, provides some statistics of this issue in the United States and bri...

digital divide

started by Li-Ling Gan on 07 Oct 09 no follow-up yet

Can a laptop change the world? - 4 views

started by qiyi liao on 07 Oct 09 1 follow-up, last by Elaine Ong on 07 Oct 09

Older people 'increasingly isolated due to internet' - 4 views

Age Divide Access

started by Jude John on 07 Oct 09 1 follow-up, last by joanne ye on 12 Oct 09

Animal Cloning: Old MacDonald's Farm Is Not What It Used To Be - 6 views

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pecorino.html Cloning leads to amazing possibilities such as ability to harvest organs from genetically-engineered pigs to save human lives, to pres...

biotechnology

started by Jun Jie Tan on 21 Oct 09 no follow-up yet

Online privacy concerns arise as website lists personal data - 5 views

The link : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/448207/1/.html Case Summary: Red Nano is a people-search engine which allows others to find you in the public int...

rednano online identity

started by juliet huang on 19 Aug 09 no follow-up yet

New Media Ethics 2009 course