Final Thoughts on PH1000

Following the questionnaire, I thought it would be appropriate to comment on the PH1000 course as a whole...

I have enjoyed the past 11 weeks. The lectures covered a wide range of interesting topics that are indeed controversial and do merit the questions: Are they Bad?

In particular, the a lot of the past histories of topics, such as masturbation and body modification, provided a lot more insight into the topic than common stereotypes. For example many doctors believed that masturbation was hazardous to your health and therefore used barbaric methods to prevent individuals from doing it. This is what caught my attention and made it worth putting more effort into researching the links for the weblog assessment.

Following the lectures, the discussions in class were not as informative as would merit from the way the course was structured. Lecturers did not encourage much debate; possibly stifled by a noisy audience of students! But, the materials provided in class were more than adequate for background information.

The assignments given were not as challenging as first glance. Maybe introducing more varied topics would make this more interesting. I am genuinely interested in the topics covered but the questions were so specific, it made it difficult to express more attention to detail when completing them.

Finally, the weblog has provided me with the most entertainment. I have learned a lot from an activity I would have otherwise not partaken. It is a valuable way to learn how to write personal diaries/logs/journals for yourself or for work and others.

I would like to thank the PH1000 staff for their efforts and look forward to attending the further Philosophy module in the next year...

Thank you for listening!!!

PH1000 Questionnaire

Age? 25

Sex? Male

What is your degree subject (both if joint)? Creative and Professional Writing and War Studies

Does ‘Being Bad’ relate well to the other modules you are taking? Not related directly as such but improves my computing and writing skills

If so, how? And if not, why not? Not doing Philosophy as part of my degree course

Have you found ‘Being Bad’ too demanding, too easy, or at an appropriate level? Too Easy

Do you think the list of topics covered on the module was appropriate? Yes

Are there any topics not included in the module that you would like to see included? Can't think of any offhand

Do you think that the format for classes has worked well? Yes

What did you think of the module team? Very good

Do you think it would have been better to have had more:
Small group discussions? Yes
Discussion and debate among the class as a whole? Yes
Information and talk from lecturers? Yes

The approach taken in the module is interdisciplinary (drawing on perspectives from English Literature, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Media Studies and Politics): do you think this a useful way of approaching the topics covered in the module? Yes, it covers a wide range of subjects that are interesting no matter what subject you are studying

Do you think that interdisciplinary modules are a good idea? Yes

Do you think you have benefited from the interdisciplinary approach taken in the module? Yes

Would you like to see more modules that cover this kind of subject matter? No, no need to make the course content more complex

Are you planning to take the follow-up module PH2004 ‘It Shouldn’t Be Allowed’ at level 2? Don't Know

Would you recommend ‘Being Bad’ to a friend? Yes

Do you think that the blogs (web logs) were a good idea? Yes

What did you think of the other assessments (e.g. would it be better to have one longer assessment rather than two shorter ones?)? It would be better to give a more in depth question that reflects more issues on the subjects I am studying rather than generic titles

What have you learned from the module? I now know how to write a weblog and learned more about issues that could be considered 'bad'

What parts of the module have you found most useful and why? How to write a weblog: could be useful in the future.

What parts do you think were a waste of time and why? Some of the lectures were poorly run and difficult to follow because of people talking. Non-relevant material made me feel bored and switch off my concentration.

Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding ‘Being Bad’? Keep up the good work and make a couple of changes to course should make it a more enjoyable module in the future

Capital Punishment

It is well known that in many countries in the world that capital punishment is still used as a form of indictment for certain crimes: murder and armed robbery being the main ones. The individual usually has to spend some time in a prison for an unknown period of time until the final day of reckoning before being killed for his crime. In the US, many states use the electric chair or lethal injection to implement the death penalty on the indicted individual. Can Capital punishment be justified and is it bad?

To kill someone is always bad since it breaks the laws that keep order and balance in society; there is no quarrels with this. But to take 'an eye for an eye' i.e. punish the murderer with the loss of his life is controversial. The loss of one person is tragic; is it right to condemn the murderer with death? Is capital punishment a convenient way to reduce the burden on the prison services? In the UK, it was a moral question that changed the law and the use of hanging was stopped in 1964. So why do many less-developed nations and the US still use the capital punishment system?

In the US, it could be due to the fact they have a population of 200million and law and order must be maintained with a punishment that pays the ultimate price: your life. This might keep the US justice system in balance. In less-developed nations it could be the fact that authoritarian governments see any form of crime a form of dissent against the state and leaders, therefore disloyalty on their part, and death is the only punishment. Such regimes would be seen as abhorrent in Western eyes. But is it right??

Countries have their own laws and it is their decision to make whether capital punishment is a form of indictment. But, they do have a moral obligation to their citizens. This is where it could be bad; if it is blatantly obvious that capital punishment is a tool of terror and coercion to control the population then it could be deemed bad. In the US, it is used to set an example: break the law and you could pay with your own life.

Capital punishment is and shall remain highly controversial. It could be classed as a morally bad subject but it can be an effective punishment when implemented in a controlled manner.

Here is a link to the History of Capital Punishment in the U.K.:

http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/contents.html

Euthanasia

The choice to end one's life early due to terminal illness/disability/in a permanent vegetative state or in a coma has always been controversial. Should people be allowed the choice to die early if it is their express wishes to do so, even if it is illegal in most Westernised States, and is it bad?

The bad concept, or argument against the use of euthanasia, is the fact a life could be ended without the consent of the individual concerned, even if it would end their suffering; they may have not wanted it. A doctor's opinion usually the determining factor: his medical knowledge is normally the best course of action to follow. But medical science is never 100% successful: medical professionals can get it wrong. The moral and religious obligations of ending life also come into play: many religions perceiving this as suicide and therefore, a sin against those who commit it.

The argument expressed for euthanasia is that it does end suffering of the patient. If I were given the choice between perpetual pain and a quick, painless death; I would always go for the latter. There is no worse suffering an individual can experience when there are choices to null the pain. One could argue that it would reduce costs but this is purely a cosmetic benefit rather than a way of reducing a burden on medical health services.

So is Euthanasia always bad? It can be when despite all avenues of medical care have been exhausted, it is always the patients decision that always counts; not the express wishes of others. The other complication is that people feel it would abuse the fabric of life and death: Who gets to choose who ends someones life? With the slow introduction of living will's in Europe, people are concerned there shall be unnecessary terminations leading to death with little regard, dignity and respect for the individuals concerned.

Euthanasia shall always be controversial but like many others discussed, the conflict of interests shall remain until more research into more humane ways of terminating a life, in certain circumstances, are found. It shall always be an option if needed: the only other alternative being suicide...

Here is a link for more on the issues of Euthanasia: http://www.euthanasia.com/

Pornography

Along with many topics discussed on this course sexual issues, such as masturbation, always raise an eyebrow in Western Societies. Pornography is another issue that receives equal support and condemnation in its own right. Many believe pornography is hazardous to young people who might consider taking up socially unacceptable practices from viewing images/films on the Internet or other mediums. Others believe it is a free choice and that as long as it is in the privacy of your own home, then it is acceptable. How bad is it?

Certain forms of pornography can be socially, if not morally unacceptable. Necrophilia (sexual intercourse with dead bodies), Bestiality(Sex with animals) and sex involving human waste shall always be considered bad despite the minority of people who practice it. It shall always be difficult to argue that sex with animals is healthy and acceptable in the privacy of your own home, and difficult to explain to friends/family why you engage with this activity. It is likely to socially exclude you from living a normal, happy life regardless of the pleasure involved.

However, conventional pornography has a case to argue in favour of itself. Most people engage in sexual activity on a regular basis in relationships and pornography is merely a tool or distraction of sexual gratification to make up for the absence of sex until they meet with the partner again. Is this bad? Most would say this is not bad, as long as it is not exposed to public viewing.

The pornography industry exists because of people's needs and desires for sex and consequently, porn film directors/publishers make millions every year from it. If people did not want pornography then people would not watch it. The advent of the Internet makes it even easier for people to view pornographic images 24/7. People feel this is bad, especially since children (those under 18 years of age) can access them. This can be considered bad since it is breaking the law and exposing children to issues that they do not understand fully until latter years. However, it would be difficult to argue that because one child views pornography in early years they shall become a sexual deviant in later ones.

Is pornography bad? Certain forms are distasteful and should be kept far from public consumption as possible. Pornography does not harm people when kept in private and allows people to experience their sexual desires in a form they might not get on a regular basis. The pornography industry shall continue to exist regardless of what minority of people disagree with it...

Here is a link to more on pornography (an appropriate one, and I'm not posting an image in case this withdraws my whole weblog!!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

War

Is all war bad? In recent times, war against extremism is perceived as a good way to solve the world's problems. The 'War on Terror' is the instrument where good shall triumph over the Axis of Evil. But is this always right?

Wars have always been fought over territory/resources/empire conquest/religion and race. The wars in the past were bloody and often long conflicts and indecisive. Were they bad? In a way if they had not happened, the current world we live in would not exist. The cultures and races of people we have today would not exist; it would have looked very homogeneous as Hitler had perceived: a master race would rule and life would have been very boring.

But, contrast that to the modern day? The current conflicts are less bloody, but cause much more damage. The atrocity of 9/11 propelled the world down a path of global conquest to rid the world of evil. In reality, they have created a world of mistrust and perpetual fear of terrorism and war. Was the war in Iraq justified? They removed an evil dictator from a persecuted people, but have the current regime improved things with the aid of America and Britain as promised? No, this shall take a long time to solve although things before the conflict were running smoothly under Saddam Hussein.

So is war bad? I can give a Yes and No answer to this question.

It is, in my opinion, a last means resort; not a first means as used instead of diplomacy. It has its uses to prevent one nation from aggressive intents towards another maintaining a status quo (peace) in the world. Past wars have created nations; destroyed them; rebuilt them and flourished the world with diversity. These I believe make war a less harmful prospect than normally perceived when the conflict ceases and peace prevails.

War is bad since people, soldiers and civilians die. Genocide and civil conflict blight neighbouring nations for decades with little sign of reconciliation. These factors make war a horrible scenario that people in the West little ever experience. People who live in continual conflict have different views: they would perceive the death of an enemy their goal: therefore, war being seen as good in their eyes. Of course, this view is morally repugnant in democratised states who use wars to police the world.

To say war is always bad is an over simplification of the truth; war has a purpose for limited gains and is a means to an end when ALL other avenues have been exhausted.

Drugs

Drugs, along with alcohol and smoking, are highly debated topics in modern society. When compared against these drugs tend to be placed in the most hazardous to your health category. However, the effects of drugs in the short term are just as bad as the other two in the long term. But is this a 'bad' thing?

In my opinion, I do not enjoy the thought of taking hard drugs i.e. Heroin, Crack and LSD. The thought of injecting a cocktail of potentially lethal stimulants is frightening, even if the experience of taking them is meant to be heavenly. The fact that drugs are illegal also would make me think twice before taking them; going to prison for possessing them is not worth the bother. The social impact can be tremendous when people become addicted to drugs and the associated crime to pay for your habit when all your money is gone. Families can be broken and tear people apart before either prison or death from an overdose. These are the worst aspects of hard drugs.

However, is there a case of taking softer drugs? Are they as bad?

Marijuana has been hotly debated ever since the re-classification of them as a Class-C drug: placing them on the list along with anabolic steroids. The effects of marijuana are not lethal; no risk of an overdose in one smoke. But, they have been linked with mental health problems when used in the long term. Scientific research is taking place to determine whether marijuana has potential medical benefits to patients with MS/ME. When placed in this context, are they bad?

I would still say that despite the fact it is not lethal, taking drugs is not socially acceptable. Smoking marijuana is not as bad in the short term as alcohol in the long term. But, the fact they are illegal makes it 'bad' whatever the case; breaking the law is always bad!

But drugs do provide an interesting subject since they provoke many reactions. There are some favourable aspects of drugs in medicine and research, but the overall argument would have to say that drugs are indeed 'bad' for you despite the potential buzz you get from them; it is not worth it for your welfare...

Here is a link to inform people of all the drugs available to you and their affects/effects of them:

http://www.talktofrank.com/home_html.aspx

Bad Comedians

Offensive Comedians have become more frequent in the modern day. The humour that is shown by TV and on Radio in recent years is markedly different than that of early decades. Comedians such as Chic Murray, Bernard Manning and Tommy Cooper were the beginning of controversial humour during the 1970s. They did not necessarily use offensive language but made fun of topics that could be considered controversial. For example, Bernard Manning was known for his racist jokes that would be frowned upon in the modern day.

Further comedians like Billy Connolly and Eddie Izzard have stretched this by adding much swearing to the routine although it does usually tie in with the story/joke they have told. Is this necessarily a bad thing??

Unless the joke is highly offensive, for example racist language, then it could be considered inappropriate for a general audience. Making fun of controversial topics, such as mental health problems, can be also be offensive. The key to the answer lies in whether your particular audience finds it funny or not is the real key. Students are more likely to find very controversial topics funnier than a mature one. Is this a bad thing?

To me...any joke is funny as long as you are not looking to cause a problem for yourself. You have to take some jokes when they are about you and give them out when the situation merits it. I love to laugh and to make people laugh; life without laughing is not worth living!

Here is a link to one of the UK's most offensive comedians, Bernard Manning:

http://www.bernardmanning.com/

Gambling

Gambling has become a hot debate in the UK in the last year. The proposal to create Super Casinos: 24hr Las-Vegas style Casinos, has been controversial. Many believe it shall prey on the vulnerable or the young who might want to get addicted to gambling. Others believe it is a good thing providing much need jobs in hospitality and entertainment sectors. This can pose an interesting question: Is all forms of gambling bad?

Gambling comes in many forms: Horse racing, Greyhound Racing, Motor Racing, Sports Bets, Poker, Fruit Machines and so on and so forth. Gambling once every so often is quite popular especially with the advent of the National Lottery where anyone can win huge sums of money for a £1 bet. This sort of gambling is less risky since the chances of winning big are slim and it is unlikely to lead to further gambling. When Gambling becomes a daily routine or when the addiction to winning takes you over; that is when it becomes 'bad'. The prospect of losing all your money in one bet is catastrophic and it can lead to social problems; sometimes leading to those stealing money from loved ones or committing crimes to fund their habits.

These are the bad aspects of gambling and responsible bookmakers and casinos should stop those who are quite obviously going to put themselves in danger of bankruptcy. More help should be given to the vulnerable; not punishment.

As for Super Casinos, I don't really believe they are needed; the UK has plenty already. The only people who benefit are the people who run the establishment; not the lucky few who make a tidy profit on a game of chance.

For gambling issues and to get help, here is a link for all your needs:

http://www.gamcare.org.uk/

Alcohol

In the UK, drinking has been so common that it is classed as a hobby! Alcohol has become a recent problem where excessive 'binge' drinking threatens to destabilise the over-stretched NHS and the Police Service to its limits. Alcohol can be extremely damaging to your health; too much in 1 session can be lethal. Drinking excessively can lead to cirrhosis of the liver and other long term health problems. But overall, is drinking alcohol bad?

From what health experts say, drinking one glass of wine or beer per day is actually good for you: wine and certain beers contain antioxidants that reduce the risk of cancer. Alcohol in a controlled environment affects no-one. When it is combined with Happy Hours and drinking promotions it can be a problem. Under-age drinking is on the rise and is proving problematic to all concerned. Alcohol has the potential to break up family relationships despite the obvious health concerns attached to it.

Advertisements for smoking were banned some years ago and the same is becoming true for alcohol. The government believed 24-hour licencing in certain establishments would reduce the drinking culture to a more relaxed, cafe European style: it is evident that this is failing. It is still quite surprising that the UK has some of the highest taxation on alcohol in Europe, yet has the most alcohol related illness cases out of them. Someone please try and explain that analogy...

Overall though, compared to drugs and smoking, we could oversimplify and say it is the least dangerous out of the three and not as bad. But, in the long term, it is no better; if not worse than them.

Here is a link for more information on alcohol and the affects it can have:

http://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/servlets/home

Abortion

One of the most controversial topics in most modern western societies is the subject of abortion. Abortion, being the practice of terminating a foetus before it has matured in the womb, has provoked extreme views; some believing it is murder; others a necessary action to prevent genetic defects; or simply to terminate unnecessary pregnancies. But is it bad??

Abortion is legal in the UK until the foetus is up to 24weeks of maturity. After this limit, it is illegal. In direct contrast to this, the U.S.A has made abortion illegal in most states. Moral and religious considerations have been taken into account for this and shows that not all western countries are the same. Many countries in the developing world continue the practice of abortion although this can be hazardous to all parties concerned: potentially fatal due to the lack of professional medical care and sterilised equipment.

In my view, abortion is a last case resort. If it is indeed deemed a child shall be born with a disabling genetic condition, such as Down's Syndrome, then it may be both morally and ethically correct to prevent a life's suffering for both the individual and the parents concerned. The use of abortion as a preventative measure for unwanted pregnancies is difficult to justify. However, should the party be made pregnant through incest, rape or being underage, then it could be right to have an abortion since the persons involved have not the choice in the pregnancy.

Is a foetus murdered? The main argument suggests that the foetus was indeed able to feel, think for itself and other human traits that we possess. This is difficult to prove. But then again, most foetuses have no identity, name, or thinking that would challenge this otherwise. Can you murder something that is not truly matured, living, thinking, feeling? Is it right? Like I have already stated there are reasons why it should be done. The death of a foetus is as traumatic as murder: this could be the true comparison. It is a very difficult question to answer.

Abortion is difficult to class as bad; it is indeed highly controversial. Abortion is a medical technique that shall continue to be used should individuals have a genuine reason to use it. The various lobby's against it shall continue, but until there is another medical technique used to prevent all medical problems of the foetus then it shall continue to be used into the future; rightly or wrongly.

Here is a link for more information on abortions as provided by the National Health Service (NHS):

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=1

Comment on Kat Mellie's post on Decency

"I don't understand how people can't think of others."

http://katmellie86.blogspot.com/2007/03/descency-is-that-how-you-spell-it.html

The answer here is very simple: too much work; not enough time off; too much money and too much alcohol. People are beginning to live closer and closer together and it is becoming more and more of a problem. Having a party is fine, but, like you correctly identify, when it goes on for an unreasonable length of time and being extremely noisy is very inconsiderate. Some people are genuinely apologetic for these things; but most don't care. When confronting the offender you are most likely to experience abuse; no person should be exposed to this if they politely ask them to quieten down. This is common decency!

The government should do more. Their unsuccessful attempt to curb this problem with the introduction of ASBO's (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) shall only exacerbate the rising problem and it shall become even more frequent in everyday living. People cannot live in perpetual conflict like some people have to experience in high-rise council buildings. It leads to a breakdown of society.

The police should take an interest in this problem, but rarely prosecute on the level they should. Society is becoming more unruly; someone should step up to the plate and teach people how to get on with each other.

I agree with you 100% on this issue that decency is being eroded in society.

Comment on Edward Parsley's post on Gambling

"Gambling addiction isn't like a substance addiction, you can't tell someone just by looking at them."

http://eddies-ph1000.blogspot.com/2007/03/gambling.html

I can agree with the above statement. Compared to some of the other topics discussed during this module, Gambling is one of the most difficult to identify. I agree that Gambling is not as bad as other vices to your immediate health, such as alcohol and drugs, but they can be equally as destructive to your image and relationships.

Gambling has the potential to make you; win money and live a potential life of luxury; or break you; bankruptcy and the destruction of relationships. Gambling is a knife-edge and the risks are there for a reason. Gambling in small doses, like the National Lottery, are relatively harmless to the average person and household. Regular gambling on horse-racing and other sports, for high-stakes, can be bad especially when normal people become addicted to winning. If they lose, then it can ruin someones life especially when it could involve stealing from family and friends to fund the habit.

That is the worse aspect of gambling: the addiction of winning. Bookmakers and Casinos should be more vigilant against addictive gamblers and help them; not take more money from them. The idea that the U.K. requires Super Casinos is laughable: Do we not have enough casinos and bookmakers already?

All it can do is make vulnerable people's lives a misery and make a very lucky few rich. The people who win in the end of the day are the small minority of people who run the casinos and make a very tidy profit from it all...

Lying with integrity...

Lying is one of the qualities that separates humans from animals. Lying can come in a variety of forms. It can be simply getting things to go your way through deception; to conceal the truth from others; and to get someone to be more attracted to you through lies. The question that must be asked is is all lying bad?

In most cases, we can say that by not telling the truth or modifying facts can be considered morally bad. Our consciences normally say that it was bad to tell a lie normally since further lies may have to be told to cover your tracks. The degree of severity of the lie is a factor. Cheating on a partner and lying about it is worse than saying you went to the dentist when you did not! But, there are certain circumstances where I believe it is justified to withhold the truth.

For example, telling young children that Santa Claus exists to provide them presents at Christmas time is an obvious lie, since Santa Claus does not exist, and the parents provide the presents. The magic lies in telling them about this amazing man who everyone loves and provides presents for children every year. The naivety of children makes a better scenario than our parents giving us gifts.

Lying could also be justified if it involves protecting yourself or others from serious harm. However, if it did involve breaking the law I would personally have to admit to the problem, even if it did mean serious consequences i.e. going to prison after committing an offence. Lying would only exacerbate the situation and make it worse.

Lying is a defence mechanism, as described by Lister in Red Dwarf, but it is only justified in limited circumstances. Lying can be bad, and I do not like to lie, and when I do, it is not often. There are certain times I have lied in the past to get out of minor trouble but, I don't think I have ever had to lie to cover a major fault. I am a very honest person and as the famous quote goes "Honesty is the best policy..."

Here is a link to an interesting article on the current war in Iraq and should George W. Bush be impeached for the reasons for going to war in 2003:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

Comment on Alexsy Budaj entry on Religious Cults

"There is nothing to be said in favor of Religious Cults, they unlike infidelity, lying or smoking cannot be excused in anyway and represent the worst thing you will find on this blog, (well apart from masturbation, gambling and drug abuse)."

http://evilentries.blogspot.com/2007/04/religious-cults.html



I do not completely agree with you on your opinion of Religious Cults. They are not always a bad thing. They can provide harmony and unity between people who have similar thoughts and feelings about the way they see the world. Not all religious cults are bad. They do not all involve the "brainwashing" and the "giving away of possessions" that you describe.

I do agree that some cults and sects indeed prey on the vulnerable. And, yes, some involve people to contribute to the "cause". A cult only becomes "bad" when it involves the targeting of another religion or ethnic grouping, or ideas they do not find favourable and threaten violence.
unfortunately, they do not all form this and this is why I do not agree with you in all aspects of your posting.

To compare religion and other "bad" habits as worse or better is not possible. Religion is a way of life, and any other example you quoted do not equate; they are choices that can be rescinded at anytime; you cannot simply rescind religion if you have a change of heart.

Comment on Kiri Horne's post on Body Modification

http://kiri-beingbad.blogspot.com/2007/03/body-modifications.html

I also thought the lecture on Body Modification would be not that interesting, but was pleasantly surprised to find it to be one of the best! It is interesting that body modification encapsulates everything including the regular cutting of hair or simply putting makeup on. I am not surprised the individual concerned fell off his seat!

I too did not realise the significance of tribal tattoos and the implications of getting them.Indeed I never thought them racist or potentially harmful by copying them; in Robbie Williams case, if he ever visits New Zealand, he's in trouble for copying ta-moko and tribal tattooing.

Indeed it was interesting to know that the Queen mother and Winston Churchill's Mother had tattoos. You never can tell with certain people if they have had body modification done.

Some extreme forms of body modification are hard to stomach especially those involving genital piercing. I would never consider having them done, but if people feel the need to do it I would never condone it; everyone has their own reasons for it.

I do not think body modification is a bad thing and they liven up a very boring canvas of your body.

Comment on Catherine Holmes Post on Smoking

http://cat-beingbad.blogspot.com/2007/03/smoking.html


"HOWEVER, I do not want to die from a disease caused by inconsiderate people choking me with their smoke..."


I agree with everything you say with smoking and that it is bad; it does indeed lead to smoking related diseases. What I do not agree with is the fact you say you do not want to die from the result of other people's smoke. Where is the medical evidence? There is no study that proves passive smoking can kill. Yes, smoking can be detrimental to your health but there are more hazardous activities we could be doing to ourselves, such as taking Class A drugs.

Drugs lead to more harm than anything else: crime, social deprivation, mental health problems and in some cases, death! Smoking does not lead to these problems. It can kill, but over a long period of time. Drugs are becoming even more detrimental problem to the NHS than smoking ever has been.

Do you believe people are inconsiderate if they smoke in designated areas like the situation always has been? Yes, again, I can agree the smell of smoke is unpleasant, but this is a minor cosmetic benefit rather than a major reason for banning smoking.


There is also a lack of evidence that when the ban comes into affect that people shall indeed quit. Back home in Scotland there has been no impact on smoking sales or reduction in smoking levels like the Government wants to see. All it has done is affected local publicans, bars, cafes and restaurants trade. That is not what the smoking ban is about; putting people out of work.

I merely put the case through that once one thing can be banned where does it end. Of course, the law is the law and I would never break it. There are, however, reasonable limits to what is allowed, and can be introduced, and what is not. How would you feel the the government decided to stop the sale of alcohol or restrict what you can do in your home?

I believe we have more important issues on the current political agenda than a ban on smoking; taxes, immigration, environmental issues and many others.

'Being Bad' Cinema: Kids

The film, Kids (1995) by Larry Clark, is an excellent example of a controversial film that brings a variety of themes to light such as sex, violence, drugs, alcohol together into a realistic true-to-life story.

It follows the story of Telly, a skateboarder, who likes to 'deflower' virgins since he believes he can sleep with them without protection and would not catch a sexually transmitted infection. However, the story takes a twist when an ex-partner, Jenny, goes to the local sexual health clinic and discovers she is HIV-positive. The rest of the movie shows her desperate attempt to tell Telly he is HIV-positive and prevent him from sleeping with other girls. Jennie is raped at the end by an inebriated Telly's best friend, Casper, and the film concludes with a hallowing message: "What happened?"

Is this film bad? It certainly has a visual impact on the audience from the beginning: graphic sex scene and then, open use of drugs and alcohol by under-age teenagers. Whether this would influence people to go out and do these things I would hesitate to agree. Teenagers are known to go and do rebellious acts and even by watching this film, I do not think it would make a difference on any statistic you could attempt to analyse.

In the end of the day, cinema provides a form of informing/entertaining people. The film, Kids, is one that should be watched to understand the lives that some teenagers experience in North American inner cities, like New York, and the reasons behind them. Is this film in bad taste? Shall it be an influence on young people? No, but it shall remain controversial since no-one can ever agree what is right or what is wrong. I was initially surprised at some of the content, but I believe the direction and acting were excellent and made the film almost documentary-like and real.

I have provided a link for the 25 most controversial films in cinema of all time: http://www.listsofbests.com/list/7650

Body Modification

Body modification and tattooing have become very popular in the 20th and 21st centuries. They have been depicted as rebellious; associated with the lower classes and bad attitudes. Does this mean they be can considered bad?

Tattoos and piercing have been used in tribal cultures for hundreds and, if not, thousands of years. They can symbolise the transformation of a boy to a man; the fertility or wealthiness of woman; the identity of one member of a tribe to another. Tattooing such as Moko, or Ta-Moko, used by the Maori people of New Zealand, identify the member of one tribal member to another by the different face pattern tattoo they have.

Piercing is also significant in Inuit cultures: men pierce their faces to become almost Walrus like and show their status in the social hierarchy. In western cultures, the status of tattoos and piercings is that of a fashion accessory, although this is not in every person's case; some do it for religious reasons or a particular cult they follow. But are they bad?

If the tattoo is offensive then it could be considered bad, but then, is it any worse than committing a crime? I should think not! Piercing is never a bad thing, unless it is harmful toward yourself, especially some of the more extreme forms of genital and body piercing. It should be noted that body modification does come with its associated risks of health problems and potential fatal consequences! As long as people are old enough to make their own choices and go to regulated tattoo/piercing artists then it is relatively harmless and painless.

I personally believe tattoos are fascinating and nice to look at. I have a tattoo and piercings and I believe they have never done me any harm and I look forward to getting more in the future!!!

Here is a link to look at more pictures of tattooing, body modification and there is a forum and articles to read too: http://www.bodymod.org/home.asp

Being Too Religious?

Can we be accused of being too religious? And if so, is it a bad thing? Religion in itself does no harm to anyone. It allows people to see the world in the light they choose. This is a good thing and no-one should be condemned for following any religion. However, The recent media of the hype of Islam does no favour to any of the religions/cultures of the world. All it does is breed resentment and hate. Some people do, however, use religion as an excuse for their actions; targeting other religious/ethnic groups saying they shall be killed for not believing their religion.

This is the bad aspect of religion where no-one can accept that everyone is equal. Also when religious leaders attempt to force others into their religion when they have no right to do so: everyone has their own choice/freedom of expression and if it is their choice to stay non-religious they should be free to do so.

If people could understand religion, then the world would be a better place. With the religious tension in the Middle East brewing, this ideal scenario is far from coming true... and the world is a far more dangerous place until this is solved.

Can someone be too religious? No, they can be misguided into believing they are. Is it a bad thing? It would depend if their actions were deliberately targeting a group. If it was simply because their fervour made them see things different to others, then there is no harm done and is not necessarily bad.

I have provided a link for more information of the main forms of religion taught across the globe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/

Bandits and Outlaws

Are all Bandits and Outlaws bad? They did commit heinous acts; namely stealing and killing all in the name of providing for themselves instead of working a proper job. However, for the famous few who made a name for themselves, such as Robin Hood, Jesse James and Ned Kelly, they did not manage this simply with their own two hands. This is where the definition of a social bandit comes into play.

A Social Bandit is one who uses the local population, namely peasants or low working class, to further their gains. They would help the local populations to then plunder from neighbouring populations on their reigns of terror. These were not necessarily political gains as some would think, merely to gain some form of status and power in the hierarchy of Society. Does this then make them bad by committing acts of crime against one and charity against another?. It is a very difficult question to answer. This scenario is best exemplified by Robin Hood.

Robin Hood myth has provided the background for many of the bandits and outlaws throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. By stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, this notion has allowed others to have some sort of excuse for the acts they did commit. I do not believe this is a valid argument in any case, but some reasons are better justified than others. Some outlaws do not intend to kill, yet others revel in the fact they can kill someone for the sum of a few pounds/dollars in their back pocket.

Bandits have provided interesting role models since people have such varying views on their attitudes actions in society: a peasant living in Robin Hood's vicinity would class him a hero; the next village, a bloody thirsty killer. Who is right and who is wrong? I believe that unless people work within the fabric of our laws and society then Bandits shall always be wrong regardless of motive or situation.

For an indepth search on other outlaws, see this link that provides information on America's infamous outlaws:

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/LA-OutlawsandLegends.html

Infidelity

Infidelity is a very controversial subject in the modern day. Infidelity encapsulates a lot of interesting themes such as betrayal, lust and taking risks. But, to what degree Infidelity is 'being bad' as such is debatable. To one person, the opportunity to be unfaithful to their partner causes no great concern; to another, it is abhorrent behaviour and should be looked down upon and discouraged.

The media continually bombards us with images of sex and it is unsurprising that infidelity is possibly less frowned upon in the modern time than at any other. Films also portray infidelity as somewhat acceptable although to be fair, films tend to be based on fictional scenarios. But, they can play their part in influencing others to commit acts that they may not otherwise feel aligned to do, out of the feeling of uncontrolled lust to others. This is not always a case but, the mere idea of it can have consequences on a seemingly stable partnership, no matter which gender is involved.

It can be understandable that in some cases it is neither the one extreme or the other. Occasionally people feel they are neglected by their partner and would like company from another. Others feel they are not given the sexual satisfaction they should deserve and, therefore, seek it from others. But to what degree is this bad?

I believe deliberately being unfaithful is wrong since humans are supposed to be monogamous mammals, the traits of polygamy lost through evolution and our higher social structures. But then again, if it is just for company or feeling alone and needing someone to talk too, there is no harm involved for either party.

Sex is not a bad thing, but when it is manipulated to be pleasure for one party and harm/humiliation/hurt for another, it could be deemed 'being bad'.

I have provided a link to another blog that deals with the issues of infidelity:

http://infidelityrants.blogspot.com/

Here is a further link on how to get back at partners who have been unfaithful:

http://www.infidelity.org.uk/

And a link for how to deal with Infidelity: http://www.infidelity.com/

Masturbation

Masturbation is one of the subjects I would least likely to find in the curriculum of a Philosophy module, but nonetheless is an interesting subject to bring up! Apart from masturbation being a social taboo for many, it was fascinating to find that it has such a colourful and expansive history I never knew about.

Even in the modern day, many people cringe at the sound of the word, but always laugh at the associated pseudonyms: 'Jerking off', 'Pull your pickle' or 'Flicking the bean'! It became clear, during this lecture, that this trend was set since Victorian times, where various chastity devices were available to prevent the desire of masturbation. Even doctors, up to the early 20th century, were convinced that masturbation was a health risk and used clearly torturous methods to prevent them from doing the 'unnatural act'. It is clear now that they were unnecessary and wrong; I wonder how many people suffered at the hands of them?

Consequently, I never realised the importance of masturbation for certain African and Asian cultures: masturbation is the 'creation' of life and culture. To many in the West, it is simply a way of sexual gratification; to others in deeply religious or pagan cultures, it symbolises the importance of creating culture, nature and society.

In the end of the day, is masturbation 'bad'? I would have to answer 'no', since masturbation is a personal choice. It is an act where it tends to occur in solitude and is up to the person when, how and why they should do it. Masturbation does not 'hurt' others, unless it involves deviant behaviour or takes place in public. What is interesting is that sex is talked about all the time in the media and receives no scorn, while masturbation is seen as being wrong. There is no major difference between the two, maybe the reason is that no money can be made from it? Or are people are still too scared to talk about a personal issue that is no worse than the act of sex?


I have included a link to the wikipedia website that shall allow you to see the meaning and associated information about the subject. It also has further links to other websites concerning the history and associated pseudonyms for your enjoyment!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation

Is Smoking Bad???

Is smoking bad? There are many answers to this question; it is simply not a definite 'yes' or 'no' answer. If you argue that smoking is bad for your health then the answer would be 'yes': smoking has been medically proven to be bad for you causing lung cancer and smoking-related diseases. But, what about the alternative view that people could in fact be partaking in more harmful pursuits, such as drinking too much alcohol or taking hard drugs? They can be as harmful and taken in smaller doses can be potentially fatal (smoking 1 cigarette may not kill you, but 1 ecstasy tablet can). So in this sense, smoking is not as 'bad' as other pursuits (although it would certainly not be viewed as good compared to them!).

In my view, smoking does not bother me [I am a non-smoker]. I would not consider it any worse than drinking too much in 1 evening. Yes, it is bad for you; I would not argue otherwise. What is potentially bothering to me is the aspect that a smoking ban in public places is away to come in force south of the border (Being a resident of Scotland, the smoking ban has been in force for nearly 1 year). The smoking ban is to be enforced due to the risks of 'passive smoking'. Passive smoking, being the affects of secondhand smoke on non-smokers, is the recent scourge of public health; although this has not been proven yet to link to non-smokers deaths. But, why it has taken so long to ban smoking? It is interesting since we all knew that smoking was bad for us since the fifties, why not ban it then?

The premise of banning something is 'bad'. Once one aspect of our lives is banned by the Government, then other things can be banned and intrude in our lives, for example banning smoking in cars. Simply, banning smoking in public places is not the answer despite their health risks. People shall smoke regardless whether it is 'bad' for you or not. The Government should think of a more manageable plan for smokers and non-smokers to cohabit peacefully as they always have. People should be protected from smoking, since it can be obtrusive, and I can respect that. But, to mean that one group is targeted over another is no better than prejudice in its many forms.

Is smoking bad? Bad for your Health: yes. Bad compared to drugs and alcohol: No (but it is no better than them). Banning smoking is the 'Bad' factor. Who knows what is next to be banned...alcohol? drugs? bad language? We just don't know but once we go down this path it shall be difficult to return...

Link to ASH (Action against Smoking), advice and info on smoking: http://www.ash.org.uk/

Here is a further link to FOREST (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco): http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page1.asp

And one final link about smoking: http://www.gosmokefree.co.uk/

PH1000 Lecture 3 Questions

On the 15th Feb, we were asked to answer 3 questions relating to film clips on various topics including Stealing, Prostitution and Stalking. The respective questions and answers to these questions are as follows:



SUBJECT: SHOPLIFTING/THEFT

1) IS SHOP LIFTING ANY DIFFERENT TO ANY OTHER KIND OF THEFT?

Yes, shoplifting is different to other types of theft since the magnitude of them (for example, armed robbery involves weapons and violence to extort vast amounts money/valuables with the possible result of someone being injured and killed) is usually less and is only for a cosmetic gain (for example, stealing food or clothes to benefit only yourself and, in reality, does not hurt anyone since the goods are of little value). The moral impact maybe the same in all theft, but the physical one is apparent in violent crime.

2) WHY DO PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD TO BUY THINGS SHOPLIFT THEM INSTEAD?

For some people, it is the sheer thrill of taking things without being caught that makes some shoplift. Like some people take alcohol or drugs to give them a 'buzz' or excitement, shoplifting is the chosen activity to keep them going in life.





SUBJECT: PROSTITUTION

1) IS IT PROSTITUTION TO TAKE MONEY FROM SOMEONE WHO IS EXPECTING SEX, BUT THEN NOT TO SUPPLY IT?

If the intention of the 'prostitute' is to embezzle money from a potential customer, then it is not prostitution. But, if it was purely a change of heart at the last minute (for whatever reason) then, yes, it would be prostitution! I am talking about an incident where a man would be looking for sex and is paying money. Other examples were given in class about dating and possible situations where sex might be expected, but I'm not considering this in this answer.

2) IF IT ISN'T PROSTITUTION, THEN IS IT MORE OR LESS SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE?

It would probably be more socially respectable if it is not clear of the man and woman's attentions at the end of the day. If she is merely providing company, a meal and a couple of drinks...then it would always be more acceptable than finding them having sex in a bathroom in a public place!

3) IF IT IS PROSTITUTION, THEN HOW MUCH IS A REASONABLE CHARGE?

Since I have never required the services of a prostitute this question is difficult to answer. It does not fluctuate like the FTSE or the current value of the U.S. Dollar so I will only say that whoever uses the services pay a reasonable amount (i.e.never less than £20, but not up to £1 million as such!)




SUBJECT: STALKING

1) WHEN DOES A CONCERNED INTEREST IN SOMEONES ACTIVITIES BECOME STALKING?

To have an interest in someones activities is normal and to ask questions/talk about things are a part of human nature. However, to become obsessed to uncover more about a personal activity: what they do and where they live for example, would constitute 'stalking' where possible criminal elements (i.e. breaking into someone house) are required to spy on a person's life. Simply making people uncomfortable by constantly asking questions, making too many phone calls or e-mails could also be constituted as 'stalking' but, in an impersonal way, especially if you do not know the person well and they manage to obtain your contact details.

2) ARE SOME KINDS OF OBSERVANCE ALLOWABLE AND APPROPRIATE? WHICH ONES AREN'T?

If it an observance on a basis of safety and security: then this shall always be accepted. For example, neighbours in a high-rise flat who are concerned about each others welfare. But, observance through secret cameras, holes in walls and bathrooms should never be tolerated. These are criminal acts. To be concerned about others is normal, but to personally gratify yourself, in whatever manner you choose, is NEVER acceptable under any circumstances.

Suggestions for PH1000 Field Trip?

As mentioned by Mark Jones, we have to suggest a field trip for the "Being Bad" Module. Now, he did not say to what degree it had to do with the course, but I would personally like to suggest either (a) We go to Alten Towers for the day and suggest that "Is having lots of fun 'bad' when we should really be working?" or (b) Visit the Cadbury's factory in Birmingham and ask "Is Chocolate 'Bad' for you?"

See what everyone thinks??