In this episode I found myself disagreeing with the majority in some of the cases. I think that it is acceptable for people to find a substitute to fight if they were drafted and they can afford to do so. If you can pay then you should be able to opt out of fighting as long as the substitute was not forced into it and agrees on the price. A point that was not brought up in the argument is that a poor family might need the money. A father will do anything for his family to have a better life so he accepts the money even though he has to go to war in turn. If it means that his wife and his children won't starve and can have a shelter over their heads, then he may do anything for that. That is what he wants in life and to be able to provide for them could bring him a great sense of pride, happiness, and accomplishment. This situation is better than him being drafted and having to leave his family and give them nothing while he is gone. In the surrogate mother situation, the mother already had two children, so I believe that she should have realized what she was doing when she was signing the contract and how difficult it would be to give the baby up. She should have just imagined trying to give up one of her children and how that would feel. However, morally and legally I believe that the results are the same. The biological mother is the baby's mother and if she wants the baby she should be allowed to keep it (although I think it was wrong for her to enter into the contract in the first place). I agree that the bond between a mother and child is different than the bond between a father (who just donated sperm at a sperm bank) and the child. I also agree with what Michael Sandel ended with when he said that maybe there are certain goods that money just shouldn't be allowed to buy. Buying and selling children is dehumanizing.
In this episode I found myself disagreeing with the majority in some of the cases. I think that it is acceptable for people to find a substitute to fight if they were drafted and they can afford to do so. If you can pay then you should be able to opt out of fighting as long as the substitute was not forced into it and agrees on the price. A point that was not brought up in the argument is that a poor family might need the money. A father will do anything for his family to have a better life so he accepts the money even though he has to go to war in turn. If it means that his wife and his children won't starve and can have a shelter over their heads, then he may do anything for that. That is what he wants in life and to be able to provide for them could bring him a great sense of pride, happiness, and accomplishment. This situation is better than him being drafted and having to leave his family and give them nothing while he is gone.
ReplyDeleteIn the surrogate mother situation, the mother already had two children, so I believe that she should have realized what she was doing when she was signing the contract and how difficult it would be to give the baby up. She should have just imagined trying to give up one of her children and how that would feel. However, morally and legally I believe that the results are the same. The biological mother is the baby's mother and if she wants the baby she should be allowed to keep it (although I think it was wrong for her to enter into the contract in the first place). I agree that the bond between a mother and child is different than the bond between a father (who just donated sperm at a sperm bank) and the child. I also agree with what Michael Sandel ended with when he said that maybe there are certain goods that money just shouldn't be allowed to buy. Buying and selling children is dehumanizing.
Friendly and quick. For a person who hated going to the dentist I am not dreading my next cleaning!
ReplyDeletepainless root canal treatment in madipakkam