Kathie Jennie's 'Vices Of Inattention'

As the time period moves forward the quality of the farm machinery increases. Perplexing to me because, the tools of the trade are better; shouldn't the work be easier, with greater profit as well? Not so, because the family farm has been pushed out of the scene by big business. It is ironic, how big business crept in and taken over such a simple and innocent way of life. The problem is, the new farm machinery was over-priced, making it hard for the everyday farmer to purchase it. "Corporate America" has worked its way into nearly all aspects of everyday life activities. The financial burdens of owning a farm are so great, Larry alone was in debt $250,000 in 1980. Family farming as we know it has very nearly come to an end.

Times have changed, and so has the family, the community and our environment. And these changes have impacted our lives and earth immeasurably. This is where the factor greed comes in to play, the need for more. This need for more called for extensive measures, measures like fertilizers, pesticides and equipment to work the ground and harvest the crops became necessity. Agriculture became a booming business that did not and still does not promote the well-being of the employee nor the individual let alone the family unit and community. Since 1950 an average farm size has doubled, but the number of laborers decreased substantially and the number of small local farmers has been cut in half. Farmers have been forced to become more efficient and there 's been a reliance on greater chemicals and technology, which has become very extensive and expensive. Sadly, what has been short term expansion has become a long-term threat (Trautmann, 2012). This greed driven increase has led to subtle damaging ramifications that most people are ignorant to. Their needs are being met as quality is being forsaken. Our environment is being squandered. Selfishness abounds.

This paper explores the things that have influenced my moral worldview. It includes insight on what I consider when making decisions. I discuss who and what I look too when deciding my morals and what I consider to be right and wrong.

Each action we take as humans determines our personal character and ethical theories guide us and teach us right from wrong (Mosser, 2013).

People often only realize this after the worst occurs. One person’s actions can stop something from going downhill. In class, when we analyzed 60 Minute’s “Bad Samaritan,” through David Cash’s story, we came to realize that indeed, just one person’s actions could make a difference. If David Cash had stopped the violence, Sherrice Iverson would still be alive today. If Hitler chose not to exterminate Jews, the Holocaust would not have happened. The takeaway is that if we expand our universe of obligation, we will feel responsible for more people. In turn, we will help more people, and furthermore, we might prevent something terrible; we might prevent a genocide. Through analyses in class, we realize that more often than not, people have a very limited universe of obligation. In the video which we watched in class of a Gay Teen being bullied, many people in the surroundings of the video ignored the incident. It is clear, that they do not feel obligated to the teenager. Similarly, in Night, Franek simply takes out Eliezer’s crown without any guilt. Franek does not feel obligated to Eliezer. This feeling leads to the division of society. An analysis of Night allows teens to understand the need for an expansion, to create unity and change the world for the

Attention Getter: Picture it if you will a world where we rely on a minute percentage of the population to feed our country. Imagine the struggle they may have to produce food for a country as large as ours. Then imagine what could happen if people didn’t enter this industry and the majority of the workers were past the common held age of retirement. This picture is of current production agriculture and this world is the one we all live in today.

Rebecca Saxe’s Do the Right Thing: Cognitive Science’s Search for a Common Morality analyzes multiple research studies performed on the ethical ideas of morality. Saxe uses three current studies to validate her argument, including a Harvard internet study, research on the cognitive activity in the brains of an infant, and analysis of brain imaging using an fMRI. She uses logos and ethos in this essay to support her argument that scientific research will never fully explain the process that a human takes to make a sound, moral judgement, despite all of the innovative studies being performed. Saxe begins her argument by presenting a scenario that helps the reader to further understand the topic being discussed: moral dilemmas. The scenario includes

Free Will: “For the most part, what philosophers working on this issue have been hunting for is a feature of agency that is necessary for persons to be morally responsible for their conduct.” (2)

May we ever choose The harder right, instead of The easier wrong.”-Thomas s. Monson. Sometimes good intentions follow decisions that may not be the wisest, but they can strengthen or weaken you. We are faced with numerous challenges in life where we may have to bring about sacrifices to save the ones we care for. If you're poor and your child is starving to death, you will do everything in your power to accomplish your child going to bed with a full stomach. Even if it means you have to do something rash. Greed,temptation,death and love make us do deranged things. It is ok to get arrested for being an ignorant kid that steals shoes because they were dared to, but it is not acceptable to arrest a mother for stealing food for her newborn so

Most issues on a farm return to the issue of keeping up appearances. (Smiley p.199)

Here, Alex explains that goodness and badness in a human being is a natural trait and every human being needs free will to act according to their inborn trait. Nevertheless, such unbiased perception of free will becomes a problem when it is associated within the larger human society. Alex’s behaviour is a clear violation of the “harm principle” described by John Stuart Mill, which means that humans can engage in any action that does not harm anyone.

The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a

Gilligan’s moral development of “care ethics” is based on the findings that men tend to establish their relationships in a ranked order and pledge to the morality of rights. Women in comparison are more focused on the interpersonal relationships with people that include caring, sensitivity and being connected (Skoe, 2014). Gilligan’s “care ethics” differs from Kohlberg in that she believes emotions, cognition and action are not separate and to really act upon morality one has to know that they are intertwined. Knowing what moral actions to take therefore involves understanding the other person and caring is expressed through emotions. Kohlberg sees moral reasoning directed by principles of right actions and involves less emotions and more rationality (Blum, 1988). Nevertheless, Gilligan stresses that the male “justice” and female “care” theory of moral development are both equal and valid and by integrating the two forms the full potential of moral development (Skoe,

The question of morality has been circulating through the minds of men since our development of a conscious; we all have claims about what we believe is morally wrong or right. In an attempt to define morality and its limitations, philosophers have come up with a concept known as “Ethical Noncognitivism.” Proponents of ethical noncognitivism put forth the idea that ethical sentences to do not express propositions, and therefore cannot hold any truth value. When people make a moral claim, such as “stealing is bad,” they are in effect saying “boo, stealing.” In order to better understand ethical noncognitivism, we will begin by grasping its origins, thoroughly defining, offering principle varieties that have stemmed out of ethical noncognitivism, and critically analyzing various objections.

Whether or not humans are essentially evil or sympathetic is a question that has long left many philosophers in a state of conflict. Through the evaluation of natural human qualities, many different opinions have been formed. The so called “laws” of the world attempt to define a set of uncertain rules which are to govern society in its most raw form, dictate moral rights and wrongs, and create boundaries. Every single action can be separated into any of these three categories, depending upon the action. The Bible states that it is only through baptism that a sin may be removed from the carrier. Non-religious opinions may offer a similar opinion in a sense that humans possess the capability of committing evil acts. Human beings are in