Panels Schedule

Thursday 2/11
7:30 Aidan -- Allan, Tim
12 Esther -- Eric, Bob
3:15 Bekkah -- Bryce, Ben

Friday 2/12
12 Hannah -- Annie, Mike
3:15 Sarah M -- Eric, Annie

Monday 2/15
7:30 Andrew -- Mike, John
12 Spencer -- Lou, Guillermo
3:15 Haley -- Jon, Carrie

Tuesday 2/16
12 Naomi -- Willy, Jon
3:15 Emily -- Eric, Rachel

Wedensday 2/17
7:30 Sarah NC -- Mike, John
12 Kelsey -- Bob, Fred

Thursday 2/18
12 Morgan -- Jon, Mike
3:15 Shane -- Bryce, Anthony

Email Addresses

Eric:
edowning "at" email.unc.edu

John:
jpm "at" email.unc.edu

remix

The infamously complex inner workings of government are constantly subject to many questions regarding the oppression of its citizens. The social foundation from which these questions arise is one which attempts at a marriage between social efficiency and welfare of its citizenry. Almost immediately it becomes obvious that some measures must be taken to prevent people from acting in a way which would disrupt or prevent a society from achieving a state of harmony. The most common of these preventative measures is incarceration or other means of punishment as a response to one's refusal to adhere to certain laws or doctrines which are most often established to promote and preserve the desired state of social harmony. At what point does the roundabout protection of a citizen's welfare develop into an unnecessary hindrance of the citizen's freedom?

Revision of "The Freedom within Urbanization"

The purpose of urbanization is to provide humans with the necessary equipment of survival (food, water, clothes, and shelter). Many citizens of all different economic statuses desire to live in the city in order to absorb all of its activity, and to be able to take advantage of its resources. This growth has caused urban areas to become the centers of activity, providing a multitude of entertainment, which can be considered over-stimulating. A gruff and protective attitude develops from the over-stimulation of urban areas. This gruffness protects citizens; because it allows them to brush off the everyday horrors they encounter on the streets, such as, poverty. This defense enables citizens to keep moving in society, which keeps the working cogs moving. This gruffness separates citizens does not only protect them from horrors on the street, but their own emotional self, eliminating their more personal needs and desires.¹ One of these desires is to have privacy at home, a place where citizens can call their own and not feel the pressures of society. In the center of activity, it is difficult to escape these pressures. As humans flood in to cities and urban areas, the quantity of land a citizen owns becomes a monumental factor of his economic status. When a person has more private access to a greater quantity of land, he has more means to accessing his freedom.

1-This view was influenced by my reading of Georg Simmel's "The Metropolis and Mental Life"

One of the largest issues in medical ethics today is assisted suicide. In most of the United States, there are laws banning the aid of doctors when terminally ill patients wish to end their lives before their illness has run its full course. In the 1997 Washington v. Glucksberg Supreme Court Case it was decided that patients should be allowed to refuse medical care and hasten their deaths without invasive treatments. When, however, death is not immediately imminent and a path of suffering and hardship is set, a patient is denied the right to end their life with dignity and without pain. The consequences of the act of condemning a person and those they love to suffer unnecessarily transcends the ideas concerning the morality of taking a life. Consequential imperative, rather than the categorical ideas of morality, must be used to consider the freedom of the individual to spare their self and others from suffering.

Don't Let the Man Bring You Down

In Section 6 of their party manifesto, the Ten- Point Program, Black Panther Party founders Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton advocate the use of violence as a means of self- defense, saying, “we will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the racist police and racist military, by whatever means necessary” (The Ten- Point Program). The ultimate objective of the Black Panther Party is to attain the basic rights that the constitution has determined makes us “free”. In order to do so, they must first act in refutation of the system into which they ultimately wish to be incorporated. In this sort of self-defense, the notion of freedom assumes two different values. It is both a state of being and an action. The state of being free has a predefined societal value, while the action of attaining freedom is a subjective endeavor based on the perception of a social discrepancy. To the Black Panthers, becoming “free” within the system involves first acting against the system and in accordance to a personal definition of “freedom”. In acting against the system, the Black Panthers ultimately bring about a betterment of the system: not only do they achieve individual freedom, but they become responsible for the freedom of society as a whole.

Germline Engineering

Genetic engineering encompasses a multitude of subjects from cloning to medicine to germline engineering. What began as a way to prevent horrible and fatal diseases – such as Tay-Sachs - has since progressed to a way for parents to decide life changing characteristics for their children. Such a desire is understandable, but one must consider the wishes and freedom of the child; in the sense that the parents can have no idea of what the future will hold, yet are predetermining an individual’s existence. This is where the debate on the matter begins and a line is drawn between the acceptable and objectionable. We shall say that this line lies between therapy and enhancement. We can safely say that it would be unethical to have a family suffer through Tay-Sachs when it could be prevented, but when it stops being about giving an individual child a life without a debilitating disease and starts being about creating a smarter, stronger more talented populace we have stepped over the line of ethically acceptable and used these individuals as a means. The potential for genetic engineering is enormous, but without a clear understanding of the consequences of our actions, we should not be able to determine the future of an individual. Our responsibility then becomes to ensure that the lines and ethical boundaries between therapy and enhancement are kept with consideration for the individual’s well being.