Nytimes.com 

 

This informing article, written by Jeremy Peters, does a wonderful job of illustrating the current climate for civil rights in America today. Mr. Peters discusses a group called Alliance Defending Freedom, and how they are using the First Amendment to the Constitution to persuade public opinion. The group was defended by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as he stated that First Amendment rights were being attacked, specifically in regard to "free exercise of faith". Peter's states that this use of the First Amendment is "no accident", and that conservatives are using this narrative to "roll back laws on same sex marriage and abortion rights". The Alliance Defending Freedom is a known hate group that targets the LGBTQ+ community on many issues. Peters goes on to say "gay rights advocates say that Alliance Defending Freedom’s arguments about religious liberty and free expression mask another motivation: a deep-seated belief that gay people are immoral and that no one should be forced to recognize them as ordinary members of society."  

It is clear that hate groups still exist in America, and they are thriving now more than ever. Our textbook, defining moral equality, states "If we do not treat others as equal persons, we are disrespecting them." I believe that Jeff Sessions, as well as groups like the Alliance defending Freedom are morally wrong for treating members of the LGBTQ+ community with disrespect, and hateful speech. Moral impartiality coincides with moral equality, and I think it applies here. If marriage between a man and a woman is morally right, then with moral impartiality, so should marriage between two same sex partners. This immoral use of the First Amendment demonstrates the lack of compassion, and concern for fellow human beings. This is unfortunately a common sight in America today.  

 

References: 

HuffingtonPost.com

Naina Khanna discusses how racism, and ignorance have played a role in the slow dissemination of valuable HIV research, to both the general public, as well as HIV patients. She talks about how viral suppression, when used by someone who is HIV positive, but undetectable, the virus is untransmittable. She says that this information was available as early as 2008. A survey conducted in 2013 by Positive Women's Network- USA, showed that over half of women who were diagnosed with HIV were never told by their health care providers that "viral suppression was an effective HIV prevention strategy". Khanna continues on with her views about how people with HIV "can't be trusted", and that this information needed to be passed out, but it wasn’t happening. She says that it boils down to race, and she gives a statistic that says that 80% of women with HIV in the U.S. are Black, or Latina.  

I believe that this falls under Natural Law, and these doctors and healthcare professionals are in violation of it. I feel that it is unjust to withhold this information from people due to fear, or racism. As Khanna states, "The data was good enough to shift public health priorities but advancing human dignity of PLHIV was not a priority." Human dignity is a basic right, and fear and racism should not take this right away. 

References:
1. Mackinnon, B. & Fiala, A. Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

2. Khanna, N. (2017, December 01). Undetectable = Untransmittable. So Why The Hell Isn't That Catching On? Retrieved December 03, 2017, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/undetectableuntransmittable-so-why-the-hell-isnt_us_5a21b23fe4b04dacbc9bd6f0?section=us_huffpost-partners

Written by Barry Posen 

This article written by Barry Posen, is an interesting read. Posen discusses the looming possibility of war with North Korea, and the risk involved. He states that North Korea, South Korea, and Americans would lose a large number of lives, even if a preemptive strike was successful in taking out North Korea's Nuclear arsenal. He writes that it is unlikely that the U.S. would be able to eliminate all of North Korea's 250 mobile missile launchers, and even if we could, it would expose South Korean, and American soldiers to the threat of attack, and possible use of chemical warfare. Posen is very adamant about the fact that a "surprise attack" would be very unlikely, as North Korea has reliable intelligence sources, and they would know of an impending attack from military operation changes. He talks about President Trump's statements, particularly this quote: “Do not underestimate us. And do not try us.” Posen states that "Mr. Trump should not underestimate the steep human cost of initiating a war against Pyongyang." This is a dangerous situation, because if only a few of the nuclear arms that North Korea has are used, it could have catastrophic results on human life.  

I believe that this relates to virtue ethics. "Contemporary moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre believes that virtues depend at least partly on the practices of a culture or society". (MacKinnon, 2015) Alasdair states that a "warlike society will value heroic virtues", and I believe our society values virtues in line with Trump's aggressiveness. It has become "good" to want to control, and attack other cultures. While I understand that the situation developing in North Korea, and our involvement is much more complicated than this, I do, however, I see similarities in evaluating this situation with virtue ethics. People seem to value President Trump's boastfulness, and willingness to place thousands of people in danger, simply because of a "we are Americans, and you should not mess with us" type of mentality.  

 

References: 

 

This very sad, short article released by the BBC, details a terrorist attack that just occurred in Pakistan. A Methodist church was the target of a suicide bomber, and gun attacks. At least 8 people have died from the attacks. The Islamic State is taking responsibility for the incident. Two suicide bombers were stopped at the door of the church, and one detonated their vest at the door. Officials are saying that if he got inside, there would have been hundreds of casualties. The other bomber was stopped by gunfire by police. Two other suspects fled the scene, and a search is being conducted to find them. Dozens of people were injured. This attack is one of many carried out by terrorist organizations in the area.  

This is a clear act of terrorism. "Terrorist seem to lack the ability to empathize with the innocent victims of their attacks." (MacKinnon, 2017) I cannot see an ethical justification for terrorism. It is so brutal, so violent. These attacks were carried out in the name of religion, something that is still very common in today's times. Discrimination was definitely a motive. I do not believe that these attacks are carried out with the eventual hope for peace. I can't honestly see a point of view on this where one could say that they had the right intention.  

 

References: