New Media Ethics 2009 course

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

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?

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?

"The most comprehensive people search on the web" Just enter the name, country etc, to find the person. I must say it's quite interesting and scary at the same time.

I tried this out - it's extremely accurate and scary!

yeah Juliet. I found information abt myself that I don't even know existed. hahahah. Or I probably knew in the past but have forgotten about them. Digital traces of my history....

Written by Dr Ingrid. The article discusses how new media activism increasingly disenfranchises the (s)lower class. =)

This website includes a video of an interview with a practical ethicist and Professor from Oxford University. I think his pro-designer babies view is relevant to what we discussed in class today. I feel strongly about giving the best possible things to my future child. As according to Professor Savulescu, if "Using IVF would give children the greatest choices and opportunities in life," would it be ethical to proceed with such technologies.. No?

On the Early Show, viewers were asked if designer babies were ethical. Medical specialists have predicted that in 10-20 years time, designer babies will be more wide-spread. On one hand, this is a private domestic choice of individuals and parents. However, is it not performing plastic surgery on a child disregarding her/his choice and opinion even before they are born?

Chrome OS netbooks will not have traditional hard disk drives - they will rely on non-volatile flash memory and internet-based storage for saving all of your data.

Just a link on advances in extensive office surveillance - this program is supposed to "separate the good employees from the bad by analyzing workers 'electronic footprints' -- the emails they send, the calls they make and the documents they write"

One biased news source reporting about the biasness of other news sources. Shows that (self-)reflexivity is key in reading.

According to a news story on nanotechnology, in the future, the wealthy will be able to make use of nanotechnology to modify parts of their existing or future genetic heritage, ie they can alter body parts in non-invasive procedures, or modify future children's anomalies. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/fully-frank/the-tools-to-live-forever/story-e6frfinf-1225791751968 these will then help them evolve into a different species, a better species. ethical questions: most of the issues we've talked about in ethics are at the macro level, perpetuating a social group's agenda. however, biotechnology has the potential to make this divide a reality. it's no longer an ethical question but it has the power to make what we discuss in class a reality. to frame it as an ethical perspective, who gets to decide how is the power evenly distributed? power will always be present behind the use of technologies, but who will decide how this technology is used, and for whose good? and if its for a larger good, then, who can moderate this technology usage to ensure all social actors are represented?

the problem with collective action on the Internet!

Reclaiming the Imagination By TIMOTHY WILLIAMSON

Is 'More Efficient' Always Better?

In June of 2009, philosopher of biology Michael Ruse took a group of grad students to the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum in Kentucky (and also some mainstream institutions) as part of a course on how museums present science. In a critical description of his visit, Ruse reflected upon "the extent to which the Creationist museum uses modern science to its own ends, melding it in seamlessly with its own Creationist message." Continental drift, the Big Bang, and even natural selection are all presented as evidence in support of Young Earth cosmology and flood geology. While immersing himself in the museum's pitch, Ruse wrote, Just for one moment about half way through the exhibit…I got that Kuhnian flash that it could all be true - it was only a flash (rather like thinking that Freudianism is true or that the Republicans are right on anything whatsoever) but it was interesting nevertheless to get a sense of how much sense this whole display and paradigm can make to people.

There is an interesting blog debate going on between PZ Myers and Ray Kurzweil about the complexity of the brain - a topic that I too blog about and so I thought I would offer my thoughts. The "debate" started with a talk by Kurzweil at the Singularity Summit, a press summary of which prompted this response from PZ Myers. Kurzweil then responded here, and Myers responded to his response here.