U3A10

Wayne Drehs, a senior writer for ESPN.com, discusses in his article “Future of cheating might rest in our own cells”, the debate of doping in sports. Rather than taking a firm stand on the issue, Drehs gives an overview on the issue of gene doping. Drehs does not incorporate his own views of the matter but uses the knowledge and opinion of different doctors. His article summarizes the main conflicts surrounding gene doping and the different arguments for and against it.

Drehs, Wayne. (2007, August 10). Future of cheating might rest in our own cells. Retrieved from

            http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/cheat/news/story?fromrss=1&id=2966241

The article “Doping is against the true character of sport” written by Kai Holm discusses the conflicting arguments on the topic of doping while the author injects their own views on the topic. Holm does not state any core information or data about doping but rather voices his opinion on the matter. The article focuses on Holm’s belief of the true nature of sports and what allowing doping will do to it. Holm believes that doping is “…not just a violation of a rule…” but a method that questions the “…existence of competitive sports…” (Holm, 2009) and stands firmly on the importance of fighting doping.

Holm, Kai. (2009). Doping is against the true character of sport. Retrieved from

            http://www.sports-drugs.com/against-true-character.htm
(Unsure if this article is appropriate for the assignment, if not, please excuse it)

                Rick Lovett, writer for National Geographic News, discusses in his article “How “Gene Doping” Could Create Enhanced Olympians” the controversial topic of gene doping. Lovett uses information given by Theodore Friedmann, a gene therapy researcher at the University of California, San Diego to give readers a brief overview of the process of gene doping.  After this, he discusses the affects it will have on the athlete that uses the process. While the article informs its readers of gene doping it also gives a positive outlook on the process with the idea that “…sports authorities may eventually have to accept gene doping as a fact of life.” (Lovett, 2008)

Lovett, R. (2008, August 14). How "gene doping" could create enhanced olympians. Retrieved

from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080814-gene-doping.html

What is the good life?

 

What is the good life?

            The good life is one that is full of happiness. You find what makes you happy, whether it be the materials you own, the friends and family that surround you, the pleasures you partake in, the career you have, or the actives you pursue, you find them and surround yourself with them.

           

Aristotle makes a valid claim on how you can lead a fulfilling life. He argued that if you pursue your talents and work towards becoming the best that you can be you may be able to gain eudemonia, or as Aristotle describes it, your destiny (1).

Every person is born with a purpose in life, whether it is to sing, dance, help others, teach, or to fix things. Having a destiny can fill your life with happiness; just knowing you were put on this earth to do whatever it is your meant to, can give your life much meaning. Though you don’t know what your purpose is when you are born you discover it from finding your passions and what makes you happy. So, finding your eudemonia can enrich your life and provide you with much happiness. However, Aristotle claims that you don’t set out to achieve eudemonia but achieve it by finding out your abilities and working towards bettering yourself (1).

However, there are other ways to be happy before you find you realize what your destiny is. If you surround yourself with things that you enjoy and love, such as friends, families, animals, nature, even the colour pink, you can have an overall, better wellbeing.

Aristotle’s claims on the good life are quite true: the good life is one that is different for every individual and all depends on what makes you happy. And finding your path to eudemonia will give your life not only meaning, but happiness.

References

1. HZT 4U (n.d.) Content - What is a "Good Life. Retrieved from: http://tvdsb.elearningontario.ca/d2l/lms/content/viewer/main_frame.d2l?ou=63893&tId=5986602

“Duties are relative to the individual situation. There are often several duties one should do. You must decide which of these duties takes precedence over the others. This will be the ‘right’ thing to do.”

            W.D. Ross and his pluralistic theory of duty states that “duties are relative to the individual situation. There are often several duties one should do. You must decide which of these duties takes precedence over the others. This will be the ‘right’ thing to do" (1). There is not one duty that is right for all situations but rather multiple ones that one must be decided upon every situation that one encounters. There is also not one right action for every situation but is rather one right action for every individual.

Suppose you are in a situation where a masked gunman approaches you and another person, one you do not know. Now suppose the gunman turns to you and tells you to choose between your life and that and the other person. Unlike other theories that may suggest that there is only one choice; the right one, the pluralistic theory suggests that in certain situations much like this one, there are multiple options; the person can choose to preserve themselves or they can follow the duty of nonmaleficence, to not injure others. Ross states that to determine what choose to make, you have to evaluate the situation and once reason is applied to the situation, then the answer, or duty that is right for you, will be apparent. Perhaps you choose to save the life of the other person because you believe that to be right, does this mean that because you assessed the situation and came to the decision that you found was right, is indeed right?

The relativism belief accepts that in a moral dilemma there will be more than one "right" answer in a situation and that ethical judgments reflect the values of individuals (1). There is not one universally right answer but rather a collection of answers that may be right for the individual person. Is nonmaleficence actually ranked higher than self-preservation just because you value the life of others highly and decide to act accordingly? No. But because you value nonmaleficence greater means it is right for you.

References

1. HZT 4U (n.d.) Content - Duty Ethics.  Retrieved from: http://tvdsb.elearningontario.ca/d2l/lms/content/viewer/main_frame.d2l?ou=63893&tId=5986730