Most people in the world eat and use animal products on a daily basis without giving it a second thought. But is this moral?

Applying the moral sphere to this topic, it can be said that eating animals is a conscious act because people choose to do so, and it does affect well-being because the animals are harmed in the process. This would result in the consumption of animals products being considered immoral.

However, in all the previous blog posts, we only ever considered the well-being of humans. Can the moral sphere and thus morality be implemented in the same way towards animals?

To me, I see animals as equals and value their lives just as much as humans. In the same way as humans, animals are conscious beings with a will to survive. They feel pain and avoid it when they can. They experience joy and sadness and are vastly more intelligent than we give them credit for. Because of this, I do not think it is right of us to exploit animals just because we are more powerful.

Since eating animals is not a necessity for humans to survive, I do not think it is moral for us to do so. What right do we have over animals to continue eating them at the expense of their well-being? A counterargument to this might be that human well-being is improved by eating animals, but this is entirely false. Studies have proven that eating meat and other animal products leads to an increased risk of many diseases and health complications. Meanwhile, people who stick to a plant-based diet are much healthier and tend to live longer. So it is actually in the best interest of the well-being of people and animals to stop consuming animal products.

One response to this may be something along the lines of: well, eating meat is wrong because it kills the animals, but just consuming their other products such as milk or eggs is okay because they are not killed in the process, and thus their well-being is not negatively impacted. However, once again, this is not true. For a cow to produce milk, she has to have a baby. However, because the milk industry wants all the milk to go to the market, they separate the mother and baby cow within 24 hours of birth. If this isn’t bad enough, since male calves are useless to the dairy industry and cost too much to feed and raise to be used in the meat industry, most are killed and discarded. The same goes for chickens. Only hens lay eggs, and since male chicks born in the egg industry are not genetically modified to have large breasts, they are useless to the meat and egg industry and are killed within hours of birth.

As large corporations have taken over the production of our food, we have become detached from what we are truly consuming. That bacon, scrambled eggs, and glass of milk you had for breakfast was not just food. It was once living animals that had a right to life that was unjustly taken away. Because of the inhumanity of the animal food industry and the suffering it causes, I do not believe that consuming animals products is moral.

Content Warning: This blog post discusses sensitive topics of self-harm and suicide that may be triggering to some readers. Viewer discretion is advised.

One of the most taboo subjects considered one of the most immoral actions a person can take is to commit suicide. But why is this? Why do people view this deed as so harmful and look down on those that do decide to take their own life?

Using the criteria from the moral sphere, it can be said that suicide is a conscious act and thus be evaluated using the moral sphere. But does suicide affect well-being? The obvious answer is yes because suicide is the ending of someone’s life which most people do not view as beneficial, and when someone takes their own life, it hurts the people that love them, affecting their well-being.

From this surface analysis, it seems that suicide is outright immoral. However, when employing the moral sphere to determine if suicide is moral, immoral, or amoral, there are specific distinctions and personal factors to take into account. So, let’s delve deeper.

Firstly, when determining if other topics were moral, immoral, or amoral, we were always considering the well-being of others due to the action someone takes, not the person doing the deed. The moral sphere does not specify if the well-being in question is only for others or if this also includes the person performing the action. Can someone really wrong themselves if it was their choice to do so? Yes, when someone kills themselves they are harmed, but they did it willingly with the knowledge of the outcome, so are they hurting anyone in any way that can be considered immoral?

The next element to consider is who really matters in this situation? Most people might say suicide is immoral because it hurts the people that loved the person that took their own life. But why do they matter? Why is this about them? They were not meant to be hurt, they just happened to be an unfortunate side effect. Do people have a right to say that suicide is immoral because it negatively affects the people around them when it was never about those people in the first place?

The last consideration to take into account is how negatively affected is the suicide victim? No one kills themselves because they have a perfect life. People are pushed to suicide because they do not think their lives will get any better, and it seems like the only possible escape. If people are suffering when they are alive, is it wrong to judge them for wanting to be dead? Some people’s lives are so bad that their misery will only increase if they stay alive, but suicide can end it all. If suicide takes away all the pain, can it actually be considered moral?

These are all hypothetical questions meant to make you think about suicide in a different light. I am not entirely sure where I even stand on the issue. To me, the morality of suicide is a very complex issue because the victim thinks that they are doing what is best for them which ends up hurting others. Suicide is definitely within the moral sphere because it is a conscious act and affects well-being. But because it is difficult to determine whose well-being is actually impacted and whose actually matters, I would say that suicide is morally ambiguous.

War affects many lives at once in many different ways. Just like in all my previous passion blog posts this semester, I will be using moral principles established last semester to analyze and determine the morality of war.

Firstly, can war be evaluated using the moral sphere? Well, war is a conscious act, and it does affect well-being, so yes, it can be evaluated using the moral sphere.

But in what way does it affect well-being? Here, it is similar to how guns affect well-being which was discussed in the last passion blog. War can affect well-being in a positive or negative way. War is a selfish act, so usually, one side is fighting for something they want or need while having a negative impact on the well-being of the other side. Meanwhile, the other side is just trying to defend themselves, but have to do so at the expense of the aggressor’s well-being. From both perspectives their actions are justified, but just because something is justifiable does not make it moral.

Let’s look at an example. Say there are two civilizations. There is Civilization 1 that has a certain resource, and Civilization 2 that needs the resource to support its people. If Civilization 2 declares war on Civilization 1 they think they are justified because they need the resource so that they can improve the well-being of their people. If Civilization 2 fights back, then they feel justified because they are defending their well-being. So, who is in the right and wrong? Is it either side? Does it make a difference if Civilization 1 has a surplus of the resource but refuses to share or trade? Does it change if more people in Civilization 2 would die without the war than with it? I think that both are partly in the right and wrong because they are simultaneously having a positive and negative impact on well-being. Because of this, I do not think that war can ever be fully considered moral or immoral. To me, the best option is always a solution without violence. Of course, there are some instances when this is impossible because the assailant refuses to give in. But I still don’t believe that it makes war morally justifiable because people will still be hurt.

Some real-life examples are WWII and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In WWII, Hitler was definitely in the wrong because the genocide of Jews was unjustifiable. He could not be reasoned with, so the only option was to fight. Although the Allied powers were in the right to fight back, this did not make the war moral because German soldiers with lives and families still died. With the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides are fighting for their heritage and believe they are justified in doing so. The fighting and killing are certainly immoral, but what about the reasons for the war? Who is to say which side is in the right or wrong?

In conclusion, it is difficult to define war morally because sometimes it is hard to determine who is in the right or wrong, and it is always partially immoral because people’s well-being is negatively impacted.

If you couldn’t tell I am very anti-war, so my bias may have influenced the conclusion. I would like to hear others’ thoughts and opinions on this topic.

Guns are the most violent weapon that average citizens can own. Over the decades, they have only become more violent and aggressive. This raises the question of whether we can morally justify guns enough to continue to allow them as regularly accessed and used tools.

Looking at the moral sphere from PAS 5: “Crash Course Morality,” using guns is a conscious act and can affect well-being and thus can be evaluated using the moral sphere.

Guns impact well-being in two ways: they protect people and kill people. Guns can be considered moral when they keep people safe because the moral sphere states that things that have a positive effect on well-being are moral. Guns can be considered immoral according to the moral sphere because when they harm or kill people because this has a negative impact on well-being.

We could end it here and say that guns are in between moral and immoral. However, I have another approach to consider.

Guns cannot be used to keep people safe without harming or threatening to harm others. For example, people who own and use guns in self-defense do so at the expense of the well-being of the person on the other end. But perhaps this is justifiable since the person on the other end is most likely putting the well-being of the person who feels the need to use the gun in jeopardy. Either way, because guns cannot be used to protect someone without hurting someone as well, guns cannot be used morally without also being used immorally.

To add to this, guns can be used immorally without being used morally. For example, someone can be killed by a gun even if it does not positively affect anyone’s well-being. Thus, someone’s well-being can be negatively impacted with no benefit to someone else’s well-being. In this sense, guns are outright immoral.

Like the prison system discussed in PAS 11: “Utilitarianism and the Prison System,” guns as an overall topic are not an action and cannot be judged using the moral sphere. Thus, I result to evaluating the justification of guns based on utilitarianism. Utilitarianism looks at the net benefit or detriment to determine if something is moral or immoral. So, do guns have more of a positive or negative effect on society?

Based on what I said previously, I think guns have more of a negative impact on society. They harm more people than they protect, they cannot be used morally without being used immorally, and they can be used immorally without any moral benefit. It seems that even though guns can have some positive impact on well-being, the net effect is negative. Based on these conclusions, I think that guns are immoral; although, I can acknowledge a grey area in some instances where guns are morally beneficial. 

After writing this, I realized that guns alone are not moral or immoral, but it is what people decide to do with them that affects well-being and has moral implications. Perhaps it is not the guns, but the people that need moral fixing.

The most common consequence of violating what society deems as moral is the prison system. But is the prison system even moral? Is it right to lock someone away for doing a bad thing?

The prison system is not an action, so it cannot be evaluated using the moral sphere like queerness and abortion were in the previous two passion posts. Instead, I will be assessing the morality of the prison system based on the philosophical principle of utilitarianism. Introduced in PAS 7: “The Trolley Problem,” utilitarianism states that the benefit of the majority always outweighs the benefit of the minority, and thus, anything can be morally permissible if it is in the best interest of the majority.

Firstly, why do people go to jail? The adoption of the prison system was due to people wronging others and society agreeing that the best way to deal with it was to remove them from society. The concept behind the justification of sending people to prison is that if you cannot follow the agreed rules of society, then you do not have the right to live in said society. This makes sense, but is it the best option for everyone involved?

Removing people that wrong others from society has a positive impact on the well-being of society. However, taking away someone’s freedom and making them suffer in prison has a negative impact on their well-being. Based on the moral sphere, crimes are considered immoral because they are a conscious choice and have a negative impact on the well-being of others. Utilitarianism supports the prison system because removing people that wrong others from society positively affects the majority and negatively impacts a minority. Through this perspective, the prison system is moral for the wronged and immoral for the wrongdoers.

It seems reasonable to negatively impact the well-being of wrongdoers by putting them in jail since they morally wronged others. But is this morally justifiable, especially if there are better alternatives? Some substitutes to prison that do not have such a large negative effect on well-being are fines, community service, and rehabilitation. The mode of retribution does not affect the well-being of the wronged as long as the wrongdoers do not commit any more crimes. However, there is no best way to ensure this because people can still commit crimes after they are released from prison or fulfill any other justice system.

So, is the prison system overall moral or immoral? It is difficult to say because it has a positive impact on the well-being of society, but a negative effect on the well-being of the criminals. Utilitarianism maintains the validity of the prison system because it benefits the majority, which excuses any detriments that may come to the minority. Utilitarianism is the philosophical principle that most people follow. However, this does not mean that it always supports the best option for everything. Personally, I think there are better alternatives to the prison system that do not have such a large negative effect on the well-being of wrongdoers. In conclusion, the prison system could definitely be reformed to be effective, but also maximize the positive well-being of everyone.

One of the most heated and controversial debates to exist is abortion. However, the debate is often seen and argued through either a religious or human rights lens. Instead, I am going to analyze it through a philosophical lens using the moral sphere.

If you remember from PAS 5: “Crash Course Morality,” the moral sphere is a general formula with set criteria to determine if something is moral, immoral, or amoral. Using this with the application to abortion should yield us an answer to this long-held debate based on morality.

The first requirement that must be met for something to be considered moral or immoral is whether or not it was a conscious act. When someone finds out they are pregnant, they get to decide whether to fulfill the pregnancy by giving birth or terminate the pregnancy by receiving an abortion. So, yes, abortion is a conscious act and meets the first provision of the moral sphere. On a side note, some people consider miscarriages as morally wrong. However, based on the moral sphere, this is irrational thinking because a miscarriage is not intentional (an unconscious act) and thus cannot be judged as moral or immoral.

The second condition on the moral sphere is whether the action affects well-being or not. Abortion does affect well-being, so it can be judged as moral or immoral, but which one? Well, does abortion impact well-being in a positive or negative way?

Many people view abortion as the killing of a child. If this is the case, then abortion has a negative effect and is immoral. However, it is not that simple. An embryo is not conscious. It does not know that it exists, and if it is aborted, it never will. Abortion has no effect on a fetus except ending what could have been. It is hard to determine if this is intrinsically a good or bad thing. Can one really say that ending something that never really started is a bad thing? Even if the fetus was brought to term to live, it is guaranteed a life with pain and struggle that every human experiences. This seems to be a negative effect on the well-being of the fetus, so is abortion actually moral? This doesn’t seem entirely correct either. However, there is another side of the story to consider that might help clear things up.

Abortion also affects the person carrying the fetus. Pregnant people often get abortions because they believe it is in their best interest. Giving birth and caring for a child is expensive, time-consuming, and overall difficult. For some people, they are not at a point in their life where they can make this commitment. There is also the instance where a person may have been impregnated through rape. Carrying the fetus of their rapist to term could cause them significant emotional and mental trauma, which definitely is a negative effect on well-being. In these situations, abortion seems like the best possible option because it ensures the well-being of the pregnant individual.

From this analysis using the moral sphere, it seems like abortion can be considered moral. However, my personal beliefs and bias could have potentially played a role in this outcome. Nevertheless, abortion seems to be a multi-faceted issue with many parts to take into consideration to deem moral or immoral. This makes abortion morally ambiguous, and not inherently right or wrong.