1. The New York Mosque situation:
Questions on topic
-Is it right to ridicule this Mosque from being built?
-Who is the real enemy here?
-What should be done?
When I first heard the news that a mosque was to be built over Ground Zero, like many American citizens I was horrified. Not just horrified, but angry. This sparked a mental rant inside me that cursed America’s constant yearning to be 100% politically correct (PC) and ultimately welcome to everything. But once I actually started researching into this story, things took a turn. What many citizens don’t know is the Mosque itself is not on Ground Zero, and in no way is it even CLOSE to Ground Zero – it’s 4 blocks away. Also, many outraged US inhabitants shake their fists and ask “How can this be built? It’s an insult to all of us, and to those that died on 9/11!” Another aspect most people don’t know: the building that used to be there BEFORE 9/11 was in fact… a Mosque. After watching FOX News and CNN, not once has this one fact been said. This is solely because news stations want controversy. They want an uproar so that their stories may be followed-up in the ongoing weeks and months. In no way should withholding vital information like this from the public be considered ethical. Because the people don’t know these things, religious propaganda has been amplified into a religious crusade.
However, the owners of the actual Mosque may be somewhat at fault as well. There are many other sites of which they can build their place of worship, so why rebuild it in a place they know full well will spark outrage and controversy? Simply that, they want exposure.
To solve this problem would be to let it pass on its own. Let it be.
In essence, this is a problem that is not being helped by the Media, but thankfully the yelling and page-burning has died down in the past few weeks. We are fortunate that this did not become a bigger problem than what it actually was, if that.
2. Kate Perry on Sesame Street:
Questions on topic
-Was this suitable or a children’s show?
-Is Kate Perry herself at fault?
-Should this be allowed in the future?
Very recently, pop star Kate Perry appeared on the highly famed television show Sesame Street. She performed several singing numbers with Elmo, and acted as an on-screen guest host. On paper this may not seem at all that offensive, but what caused a serious fracas was that fact that Ms. Perry wore what can be considered “unsuitable attire.” Throughout the her skits, her gratuitous cleavage was exposed to viewers as if nobody was to care. This falls into an ethical issues category because this did not happen on a TV show in Fox or NBC… it happened on a program garnered to children in the age group of ages 1 to 10. This is not something we want our children to see, and let alone remember from their childhood.
Kate Perry by herself should not be held liable for these actions. She clearly doesn’t dress herself, no celebrity does. This is her agent’s job. It is astounding to think anybody at all would think of this as a good idea, and you would also think Ms. Perry would speak up with an opinion of her own about it – but sadly that was not the case. If anybody was to be blamed it would simply be EVERYBODY. These are ethical implications that should have been considered by Sesame Street’s station, Kate Perry’s handlers, and Perry herself. While this is not the end of the world in terms of the show itself, it is rather unsettling to see this kind of thing transpire, especially in front of our kids. For future events, it would be wise to keep pop stars off Sesame Street, especially those that cannot wait to flaunt themselves blindly and obliviously.
3. The BP Oil Spill Backlash
Questions on topic
-Was it right for BP to be so slow in fixing this?
-Should the environment be considered when the interest of commerce is involved?
-Is offshore drilling right/safe?
This is an issue that stems from an ethical dilemma to a public conflict in the eyes of an entire society. The BP oil spill was horrendous – we know this. Though how could this powerhouse company be so lackluster in its cleanup efforts to rectify the situation? The Gulf of Mexico is practically all blacked out now with loose oil strands and chemicals, but nobody seems to care. This mainly focuses on BP CEO Tony Hayward’s terrible business and ethical decisions to release more oil into the ocean before temporarily plugging the leak itself with a weak cap. His decision was not to stop the leak from happening, but to continue his pointless tirade at staying such a competent businessman.
The environment should always be a consideration when plans such as offshore drilling is involved. This is our home. It was exponentially wrong to put the Earth in such danger by implementing such mediocre workforces that had no business running the Gulf Oil Rig. It was wrong to even put these plans into execution in the first place.
The real question is: Is offshore drilling safe? Well, you can’t really witness what happened this year and strongly believe that it is safe, but that can be said about a lot of projects. Though in a nut shell, offshore drilling is unsafe, but not in the hands of competent individuals/professionals that actually know what they are doing.
4. Is A.I. ethical?
Questions on topic
-Should AI be implemented to an endless degree?
-Is AI a safe substitute to human?
-Do we want to essentially create fake people?
The concept of Artificial Intelligence has been under constant debate for many years. Just the very idea of having machines do the thinking for us sparks interest and also controversy in every conceivable measure.
There are countless acts of AI at work today, many of which are still in their experimental phases – for example, there are computers with their own controlled software that actually teaches young children the basic concepts of life. Education, athletic procedures, etc. But is this ethical? Should we allow our next generation to be taught by software rather than human beings?
It should be recognized that a machine, a computer, or a program cannot take the place of a real person. A computer is a synthetic brain that cannot create logic, understand emotion, feel in true sense; it’s only job and function is to transmit information from point A to point B. That is all. This isn’t something we as people should live by, moving from A to B. If that was the case, then how would we understand outside elements such as common thought or perhaps human feelings which fall outside of a computer’s known protocol?
AI is a fantastic advantage, make no mistake. However, the use of it must coincide with what it’s purpose is – that will decide whether a machine or person will do the teaching. Children must be taught by adults, otherwise they will not understand the most important aspect of growing up: human contact and interaction. Adults may be taught by software since they are their own person now, they are well aware of the computer’s synthetic fabric, etc.
5. Stephen Colbert at Congress
Questions on topic
-Was this necessary?
-Should both parties listen to or disregard Mr. Colbert’s message?
-Who was this helping?
It was a real treat seeing Mr. Colbert spout his satire at Congress, of all places, and it truly has done all of us a great service by showing us what our benefactors are really about. His words were ridiculous to say the least, but his message was in fact the opposite of what he was proclaiming. To say such things such as "I'm not a fan of the government doing anything. But I've got to ask: Why isn't the government doing anything?" That is remarkably tongue in cheek, but insanely true. He was well aware of his tongue in cheek performance not being taken seriously because that was his whole point. Congress is not taking their job seriously to begin with, so why would they allow a known comedian to present himself before them on the grandest of stages? This was a great thing to witness.
No comments:
Post a Comment