KQs

[ST. JOHN]

Each week (or so), I will assign several people to post a Real-life situation (RLS) and a related Knowledge Question (KQ). Everyone else is responsible for responding to AT LEAST one of these KQs.  Please reply directly to the original person's post, not to someone else who has already responded.  (However, in addition to your required response, you may reply to your other classmates in a CONSTRUCTIVE and POLITE manner).  

To receive credit, your response must:

• Specifically address the KQ, not just the RLS 
• Add something significant to the discussion.  ("Me too," "yeah," "ditto" are not acceptable)
• Be written in complete sentences (2-3 sentences at least).
• Address at least one of the WOKs and/or AOKs.
• NOT insult (or in any way disrespect) another student, either the original poster or a respondent
• NOT copy someone else's response exactly.

NOTE: You may attach quotations, pictures, videos, audio files, etc., but they MUST BE SCHOOL APPROPRIATE.  This discussion post is an extension of the classroom; it is not a purely social or informal place to chat.  You have many other options for such communications.  

[LeahHardigree5]

RLS: The new Windows 10 update allows Microsoft to collect information about the user including chat history, downloads, usage, location, personal information, etc. in order to learn more about the user.

KQ: To what extent should technology be invasive for one's benefit? 

---

Microsoft's Windows 10 has permission to watch your every move

[PatrickMurphy5]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/20/hillary_clinton_email_scandal_explained.htmlRLS : As Hilary Clinton runs for president, the controversy of her using a personal e-mail for work related tasks and potentially destroying thousands of confidential documents is constantly brought up by the press.

KQ : How harshly should we criticize others for past mistakes? When is it okay to forgive and move on?

---

Hillary Clinton email scandal: Explained. - Slate Magazine

[CarlosBeasley5]

In order to potentially move on, I do believe that justice must be served. Whether it is Hillary Clinton going to jail or losing her position in the government, doesn't matter to me so much. However, she should not be allowed to escape this untouched. I also do think that we all should criticize very harshly those running for an elected office, because they represent us and our nation to other nations. If we just so happened to elect some "bimbo", that ran office very ridiculously, then that could have very negative affects on us, the people of this nation. So therefore depending on the situation, the level in which we criticize must adjust in order to make the best decision possible. This all comes down to the Wok's of faith, intuition, reason, and language as to how we make the best decision and forgive others. It also has to do with the Aok's of ethics, human sciences, and history as to knowing our options for our decisions. 

[SalmaHuque5]

Technology is a tool whose extent in people's lives is very controversial. Some people embrace it, citing how easy and organized programs like Facebook and email make their lives, while others consider the fact that personal information is being stored about them to be creepy and an obstruction of their rights. It is difficult to say for certain to what extent technology should be invasive because every person feels differently about their privacy. With this in mind, I believe that technology should not be invasive, but that its inevitable that it will be more and more. Technology is extremely useful, and that usefulness causes most people to overlook how much of a threat it is to their personal lives. People consider the pros and cons of having technology, and then decide whether they'd rather have privacy or ease of communication. For most people, ease of communication has become paramount. This knowledge question mostly considers reason and language as ways of knowing, and ethics as an area of knowledge. Ethics are important here because the difference between each person's values and moral philosophy are will cause them to have a different view on technology in their lives. Reason is important because people must consider the impact technology has had on their life versus their desire to retain privacy. Language is important because it is the form of communication we use to decide privacy settings and terms and conditions we accept when giving up our privacy.

[JeetenMistry8]

Over a period of a few years, the Greek economy has been in crisis, but time and time again they have been bailed out by the European Union. The Greek government has even gone bankrupt at points, but they continue to be saved by the EU, albeit at great cost. This leads me to ask this question: at what point should entities stop being given chances to redeem themselves?

[SierraGray5]

In relation to ethics you may also want to ask : How do we know where to set boundaries in our lives? This is easily associated with human sciences as there are many polls and conspiracy theories out there when it comes to online information being accessed.

[SrinidhiDupaguntla8]

I personally believe that everyone deserves a second chance, however even after the given chance if they repeat the same mistake then it's pointless and a waste of time to give another chance. Perhaps in this case, instead of giving the Greek Government a chance to redeem themselves, the European Union is planning something deeper. What if they want to annex Greece..?

[BradleyHutchinson5]

For every action, there must be an outcome or consequence. Morally, most people equate the outcome to the degree of the action. In Hilary Clinton's case, it was a big federal offense to go and have a non-governmental email. Despite this, one cannot be so harsh to punish her for this offense and use reasoning to determine the extent of the situation. Along with this event occurring 4 years in the past, there have been no issues with her having this account until it was blown out of proportion, therefore I believe that this should be dealt with and moved past. There must be an ethical consequence for her actions against the regulations but as for making it a huge issue, this should be overlooked. If the actions in no way affect another party negatively, then there should be no reason to continue creating drama over the subject.

[LianaHa5]

Technology is a man made resource that is constantly evolving to better the way humans function daily. The purpose of technology was never to harm or invade the privacy of those using it, but in recent times that is the way it comes off because of this new fad of user experience customization with tools like "smart search" or word prediction. These things only work because they study the human sciences or behavior of the user through what can only be compared to a computer's equivalent of sense perception/observation of the user. In conclusion, it seems reasonable to say that technology is allowed to be invasive to the point of human consent because on such technology like windows 10 there are privacy settings for those who are uncomfortable with the customization features and want to control what is shared with big companies like Microsoft.   

[MaverickBeaudreau5]

I believe that every action taken by anyone or anything will have a reaction, whether it be small or large. In the case of Hilary Clinton, it is hard to ignore the actions that she seems to have taken, mostly because she could be our next president in the upcoming election. That being said, I think that if the person who committed the miscue were to change their ways, in a manner that is blatantly obvious that they have changed, they should be given a second chance. I'm not advising that we let a murderer walk free because he seems to have learned his lesson, I'm just saying that we should give everyday people who make common mistakes another opportunity, so long as they have learned from those mistakes and change their ways.

[MarthinePaul5]

People always pay attention and bring up the mistakes someone does. No matter what she does, the press will never let her be about the situation. It is okay to forgive and move on if the person is willing to stop what they are doing but if they keep doing the same thing over and over then they should be harshly criticized. The press keeps bringing life to a dead situation. Everyone has a different perception on how she should be dealt with. I think the situation should be dealt with rationally and that they should use reason and make deductive conclusions about the situation and get over it and move on.

[AbbyLhoste5]

As technology continues to advance, boundaries between it and our personal lives become unclear. Technology should be allowed to be invasive into personal lives when it is being used to potentially prevent danger to a group of individuals. For example, the government censors the internet. They look for alarming activity as an attempt to prevent terrorist threats. In this example it is acceptable for technology to be invasive.  This lends to Ethics because it is a question of whether or not invasive technology is good or bad. My answer is that it can be good or bad depending what the intent of the user. In this particular RLS, I think that Microsoft is being too intrusive because it should be an individual's option whether or not they want to share their personal information. 

[MayaJackson5]

I believe political figures are often subject to the thought they must make no mistakes. The life of a political figure is under a magnifying scope for millions to see, in retrospect, their every move is essential. Hilary Clinton should be treated like any of person and face the legal reprocussions of her actions. Forgiving is a personal preference, some people can't take as much emotionally and are incapable of forgiving. Some are able to give chance after chance. I believe in holding people responsible for their actions and forgiving but not forgetting. Punishment should be given equal to the action, the same as good doings should be rewarded.

[SydneyPalmer5]

RLS: Recent studies show that large amounts of homework/schoolwork are the leading causes of stress for kids in school. Over 53% of parents say that their children experience anxiety due to all of the homework.

KQ: To what extent is it ethical to add stressors if they are meant to be beneficial to someone?

---

Back to school: What kids are most anxious about is ... - CNN.com

[JustinHendee5th]

I do believe that this study was well founded and that yes these kids are quite stressed about their homework and the workload, but i saw nothing in the study about when the children do their homework. For example, this post is being made at 9:30 on the night 3 hours before it is due and ive had almost 3 days to do it. Procrastination can be a major factor in the stress of the children. Over the summer many people didn't do the 3500 word Extended Essay the week before the due date, me being included in that number. Before i go to far off subject, i think that the study would have been more accurate if the times the homework was completed was also taken into account.

On another note, from experience with three schools, their main point of the homework and workload associated with it is to prepare us for college. Yes we will have much to do in the short run, but looking into the long run, won't more now prepare us for our future in college where the workload can be even greater than it has been?

[ErikaPadierna5]

Homework is something that is usually given to students so that they may review what they have learned in class. That way, they won't be so prone to forget. Using reason, a person can draw the conclusion that homework should be a small task and not something extremely overbearing for the student. If kids are experiencing anxiety due to homework, they either have a large amount of work each night, are procrastinating, or they just have not learned what their teachers expect them to do. 

Also, sometimes we have to take in account the fact that these kids may have been frightened by teachers in the past who piled homework assignments or just individuals that may have exaggerated the work load.

I believe that it is ethical to give students adequate stressors for their age and grade level, especially since it is preparing them for future classes. However, it should be to a certain extent because no student should have to do about 3 or more assignments in any given subject area in just one night. 

[Chris Kauffman]

I Believe After the first time that some one or something is given something and they do not pay back their debts they should not be given a second chance because this will only lead the person on the receiving end to be in deeper debts  and the person on the giving end to lose more and more. in Greece's case they are a whole country and having to be bailed out multiple times has only left Greece and the EU only one option, which is to clear out the current government and let the EU take over financial responsibility till Greece can pay back their debts.  

[TulsiPatel5]

I believe that a person should be given a second chance when they realize that what they did was wrong and try to amend for it. But in order to forgive someone I feel that reason should overpower emotion when considering the consequences. Hilary Clinton should accept the consequences that are given to her and hopefully then this issue will finally be resolved as Clinton wouldn't want to jeopardize her plans for presidency by committing the same mistake again.

[JovanyDorsainvil8]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/entertainment/bruce-caitlyn-jenner-vanity-fair-feat/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/entertainment/caitlyn-jenner-accident-investigation/

Caitlyn Jenner recently changed her sex, becoming a female from her original male birth. This generated social controversy and, in tandem, a discussion about gender rights. In the same token, and on what seems to be an unrelated note, Caitlyn was involved in a fatal car accident that killed a man, two months shortly after her sex change. Inevitably, the situations that people go through affect our opinions on them, and change our perceptions; i.e. giving us sympathy when there was none before to be had. These situations (though can be incredibly unrelated) can have a giant effect on how these people are judged. It is possible Caitlyn will recieve, at least from society, a great degree of sympathy regardless of this accident, due to the recent events she underwent in June.

KQ: To what extent do fortunate or unfortunate occurrences impact our emotional bearing (opinion) and ability to judge events or people?

[DionneWareham5]

When a wrong doing is done, I believe that their should be a punishment givens to the person who committed the crime; however, I also believe that second chances should be given. In the case of Hillary Clinton, I believe that she also deserves another chance. Though she could be our future president, she is still a person and people make mistakes. However, I believe reason should be used over emotion to determine an ethically correct punishment for her.

[CamilaVizcarraGuevara8]

It is important to think about what somebody has gone through before judging them. For example, in some cases, judges are stuck between putting a man dying from cancer in jail for accidentally running over somebody and killing them. The cancer, and chemotherapy if applicable, could have interfered with that person's reasoning from getting in a car as well as realizing that there was a person in front of them. This is a distinct case that could take more thinking over other cases. Caitlyn Jenner went through so much as a person, and it is possible to say that she is courageous for undergoing this enormous change. However, she did not change herself completely. Just because she changed how she appears, it does not erase the things she did in the past. Although it is important to think about her big physical and emotional change, we cannot forget the pain she brought to somebody's family, no matter what body she was in at the moment. A different appearance is not the same as a different person.

[SpencerCaro8]

"Benefit" is a broad term that can mean many different things for many different people. So, to account for this, I would say that the extent that technology "invades" one's life should be entirely up to the "invadee". This would not be without consequences, however. In the state of Georgia, you can refuse to take a breathalyzer test, but that heavily implies that you would fail anyways, and results in the suspension of your driver's license. But perhaps the refusal of this invasion is beneficial (somehow) to the person, thus they have the choice. It is the same concept with technology. Reason is a valuable tool, and people should be given the choice to reach the conclusions regarding the extent that they want invasive technology in their lives. In the case of Windows 10, perhaps one user chooses to not disclose location information. This would hinder their ability to have real-time navigation information, but that might not be as beneficial to this person as it is to another. Windows 10 implements this in an effective way: users manipulate their own settings to reason out their line between "benefit" and "unreasonable invasion".

[LoganSweeney5]

I do believe that we can only move on when others have learned from their mistakes. If someone who is known for the mistake or someone else is repeating the mistake, then we have the right to criticize them. This is because the person in question is not learning from the past to better themselves in the present. For instance, World War Two Germany placed Jews in concentration camps for work towards the Nazi war effort. When Germany was split between the USSR and the United States, the USSR had many in opposition of the toltarian government were placed in concentration camps including Jews. The USSR repeated the same mistake by placing innocent people into concentration camps as previously done by Germany. It is up to us knowers to use our memory and intuition to make reasonable criticisms about others who refuse to learn from the past.

[JaymieBromfield5]

(I've been trying to upload a file with my response since 9:00 but I gave up so now it's just here!)

In my opinion, in order to judge whether or not something is ethical, it is necessary to look at the long term consequences of it. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether or not assigning students large amounts of homework is ethical since numerous factors play a role in a child's ability to be successful. Teachers have faith that this method will benefit their children, but they do not know for certain. Furthermore, the word "beneficial" is ambiguous because people interpret it differently. What is beneficial to one person may not be beneficial to another.

 

A stressor is sometimes necessary as it promotes progress, it, in fact, can push people to reach for success and promote the "struggle". However, there has to be a limit to stressors, because they can actually create the feeling of being overwhelmed, and increase the chances for someone to not fully buy into the effects of, as an example, doing their homework. Practically, it can create the illusion of a larger hill that cannot be climbed all the way, therefore why try?

 

[Elizabeth Sit 5]

How society functions today is heavily influenced by technology. Technological advances are the results of shared knowledge and often make certain things simpler for people to do. The more current technological advances, such as social media, are used to make social interaction simpler. Social media, such as facebook and Instagram, are staples in modern society. However, as the world grows more and more connected, the question of personal online privacy becomes an issue. Windows 10's ability to collect a user's personal data is not a recent nor surprising development. Already, several Internet browsers, including Google Chrome, aggregate data in order to create a more user friendly online experience. This includes personalizing advertisements based off of one's search history and using one's location in searches. These are beneficial but to what extent is this ethical? Is it ethical to aggregate hundreds and hundreds of gigabytes of personal data? Or rather, do these technological advances encroach upon our ethics? It is important to protect everyone's personal information but it is also viewed as ethical to provide the best experience for users everywhere. When dealing with a situation where opinions are so varied and divided, it is important to allow these settings to be personalized.  

[AndreaTully5]

When it comes down to it, politics are based on a foundation of trust. Candidates run for any position in government with the motives of collecting as many votes to secure their position as the next office holder. How do they do this? They present their platforms and state their promises, ideas and what they want to change to make "everything better and the world a better place." It is up to the people to decide who they trust and believe to be genuine enough to execute said promises when in office. Basically, it is also a matter of faith since the outcomes after an election is decided cannot be completely predicted or foreseen; however, it is an easier matter to hold the politician accountable for their lack of meeting expectations, etc. With the issue of Hilary Clinton, as a politician, you are held accountable to express a high amount of professionalism, proper etiquette, etc. When any person is in any political power, they give up a part of their privacy and, in an essence, freedom of doing anything they want. But, this is because they have a responsibility to represent and protect the people of the US, so it is in everyone's best interest to know what's going on. In politics, it's not simply a matter of "sorry I won't do it again." Yes, Clinton has every right to a personal email. However, she deliberately created her own networking so that it would be convenient for her, going against the authorized, supervised, government email. Every question may never be answered such as her true motives or what info was actually erased. Again, it comes down to a matter of trust. Yes, anyone can forgive her because every one is entitled to their mistakes. But, consequences for legal wrongdoings are held to a much higher gravity.Criticizing politicians actions are of utmost importance because their dealings directly affect the government system of the US. That is why the government supervises Internet transactions. They do it for protection and by Clinton using a private email for government work, as an outside viewer, it's too fishy a matter and raises many red flags.

[CarolLin8]

Some people want to believe that people who do wrong things are properly punished by the greater authority; however, this does not necessarily happen. Caitlyn Jenner, who is believed to be courageous in undergoing the controversial surgery that changed his/her gender accidentally killed a man in a car crash. The media seems to play a major part in sympathizing Caitlyn, although, he basically killed a man. I believe in equality and that she should be charged or punished just as a normal person would; however knowing today's society, he/she might get a less severe sentence than what a regular person might get. Nonetheless, I also believe that people should not judge or criticize other people unless they know the other person and their circumstances very well, because that would just be prejudice and possibly discrimination.Therefore, fortunate or unfortunate occurrences impact greatly on people's opinions and their ability to judge events and other people.

[SymonneMartin8]

Although I believe that everyone deserves a second chance after making a mistake, I also believe that major mistakes should not go unpunished. If a person makes a mistake, realizes where they have messed up, and takes steps to fix the problem they created, they should be given a punishment equal to the problem they have created, and then forgiven. A problem arises in this logic when the mistake that was made is on a larger scale, like with Hilary Clinton or any person working in the government. Problems like these are not as easily fixed or excused and a second mistake could lead to major, irreversible problems. In cases such as these, punishments to the extent of being fired could be the appropriate response because elected officials are held to a higher standard than an average citizen; however, if the problem can be fixed and avoided in the future, the person should be forgiven and allowed to move on. 

[Azrah Khan8]

Knowledge question: To what extent does morality play a role when it comes to making money?

---

Millions donated to free Pakistan's bonded laborers - CNN.com

[DeviDayal8]

Ethics plays a huge role. You can't put a price on someone's life. However, some people would go through the extremes to make money. This could be a good or bad thing depending on what you are doing to earn it. Bonded labor is probably seen as a good way to pay off debt to some of the people in Pakistan because maybe it is the only way to do so. If they can't pay off their debt any other way, how else would they do it? I think that it's not right for people to be forced into slavery again. I also find it ridiculous that even the police are working for them. 

[SavonteMcCuller8]

Because we are imperfect human beings, it is inevitable that we will make mistakes throughout our lives. Through the use of inductive reasoning, we know that all mistakes have consequences and that the severity of those consequences depends on the size of the mistake. Some mistakes solely affect the person who makes them while others affect multiple people. These people can either choose to forgive the person who made the mistake, or they can forever hold the mistake against that person. Furthermore, the time it takes for the person to earn forgiveness differs upon how gravely it impacted the people affected. For example, if a child accidentally slaps his or her sibling, the child's parents may be angry and decide to put him or her in a five-minute time-out since it is important to teach the child that slapping people is wrong and causes pain. However, after a few days the parents and the sibling, who were originally upset by the incident, will probably forget that it ever happened because the pain of a slap usually fades within seconds. The age and position of the person at fault also play a role in the time span it takes for him or her to earn forgiveness. Adults are held to a higher expectations than children and teenagers because they have more experience in life. Parents and teachers are especially held to high standards because they are responsible for raising the future children of our world, so it is important for them to avoid making mistakes because depending on the type of mistake they make, a child can be negatively impacted. However, we cannot forget that life is a continuous learning process and that becoming older or holding a certain position does not guarantee immunity from imperfection. In addition, we know how terrible it feels to have someone be upset with us for mistakes that we've made, so when we criticize others for mistakes that they've made in the past, it is important for us to place ourselves in their shoes and imagine how they feel. Therefore, I believe that when it comes to criticizing people for their past mistakes, we should not only criticize them based on the severity of the situation but also based on how sincere they are when they try to correct their errors. If we look at both aspects, we are able to serve justice for the people who the mistake affected while, at the same time, show that we understand that the person who made the mistake is probably very ashamed by it and wishes it never happened. As for the Hillary Clinton situation, I do not believe that she genuinely tried to correct her mistake because she seemed reluctant to cooperate with the State Department and turn in all the work-related documents that were requested. As secretary of state, she is expected to be trustworthy and responsible, and the deliberate destruction of the possibly work-related documents that she deemed "personal" raises questions about her integrity. Because she is a presidential candidate, it is extremely important for her to show that she has integrity because no one wants a president who lies, especially when the President is responsible for our nation's well-being.

[PaulaTorres-Wilcken8]

Having an emotional attachment to something, whether it be positive or negative, can lead to personal bias. This bias can re-emerge in a situation that includes that object or person, and affect our ability to fairly judge the event/person. These emotional attachments and biases generally stem from interactions and occurrences. Our impressions of these situations become associated with how we view and judge these events or objects in the future. For instance, if someone you'd never met before knocked you over in the hallway and didn't apologize, you may get the impression that that person is rude. This opinion of the person would become associated with them every time you later passed them in the hallway. This is more commonly expressed as the old saying, "Your first impression is the last impression." While it, of course, isn't always a first impression that makes the most impact, the emotional reactions we initially have to the situation will always be associated to it. Since emotion is a way of knowing, it can play a large role in what your beliefs are and why. These personal biases can easily impact our ability to truly judge right from wrong, and make us stray into the "gray" moral areas. This is why in our legal system, it's so stressed that jurors reach a verdict based on the "hard facts" of the case, and not on their (or the media's) opinion of the defendant, as it's more biased.

[AndyAustin8]

Morality is a motive of most human actions, so it would make sense that it would largely come into play when obtaining money. This fact should not be of shock due to many people spending money at places that either have or respect their personal values. For example, people often base their contributions to companies on their own religious knowledge systems. A real life situation where this was evident was the surge in demand for Chick-fil-a a couple of years ago due to their stance against gay marriage. This was literally an event of people giving their money to a company or group due to their moral code. The same point lies in the real life situation at hand. People are more willing to give due to them believing it is the morally correct thing to do.

[KiranLakhani8]

By being able to relate to a situation (like feeling uncomfortable in your own skin) or understanding that the circumstances and effects that the major change has on a person greatly impacts our ability to judge events and people. Say for instance, someone owes you a lot of money but their sister passed away. You may really need your money back in order to pay your bills but you must be sympathetic to the person because you have also had someone very close to you pass away/ understand that losing someone important to you is no longer in your life and will never come back. Because you are sympathetic with that person you won't ask them/ demand your money back. Bruce Jenner's change to Caitlyn Jenner is still trending because not only is she popular but because people can relate to feeling uncomfortable in their own skin. This change has a huge impact on her mental and physical well-being because of hormone treatment etc. Many people will look at her with sympathy because she now "fragile" from the change so they "forget" and don't question the car accident for the time being. 

[BenProtzman8]

Let me pose some questions in response to this. Should entities being given chances to redeem themselves? If so then why? Is it out of human kindness that we give second chances, or is it something more? After being given a second chance, who benefits more, the entity being given the second chance or the entity giving that chance? I believe that entities should stop being given chances to redeem themselves when it is clear that to do so would backfire and cause trouble for both parties. 

[MarnageeScott8]

Everyone should be held responsible for their mistakes and face a consequence for their wrong actions. However, once that punishment or consequence has been served a person should not continuously be ridiculed and judged for their mistakes. When celebrities and political figures make mistakes that become aware to the public I feel like people criticize them more than they would criticize an average person. The problem is that these notable figures in our society are seen as perfect and held at a higher standard that do not allow for them to make mistakes. When they do mistakes it takes months and months for people to move on and forgive them for what they did. The media is a big contributor to the problem because they like to highlight the negative aspects of a person to bring in more viewers and keep their audience entertained. We must learn to forgive people for their mistakes and move one, BUT only after they have faced some sort of punishment, understood why they were in the wrong, and have learned from their mistake. One WOK that is used to do this is faith. We must have faith in the person and trust that they have learned form their mistake and are truly sorry for what they have done.

[ChristineJones8]

It is easy for people often times to allow their decisions to be swayed by their emotional responses. I think it's perfectly fine to contemplate how a person's unfortunate past may have impacted their actions in the present. It allows for a better understanding of motive. However, I think people tend to allow their emotional responses to impact their judgments. We tend to be more forgiving toward people with sad or inspirational past and judge people with simple and easy backgrounds harsher. We use their past as justification for the present.

[RebeccaFarley8]

I believe that people should be given second chances and if they have proven themselves worthy then maybe even a third chance. However proving themselves for this example would mean that Greece would have to actively be trying to improve their economy. Now not only would they have to be trying their efforts would need to show proof of at least a little improvement and trying new things. In Greece they have been caught borrowing more money then they have reported. They seem to be borrowing money and getting in more debt in order to spend more money. This shows that Greece is not working enough to deserve the help of the European Union. Now the question asks when the help should be cut off and I think that memory, reason, and intuition can be used to decide when enough is enough. The European Union should use their memory to keep in  mind the past mistakes of Greece to be able to judge whether or not there has been any change in the way that they are running their economy. The use of reason should also be used because the EU should also take into account all of the situations in Greece for example the borrowing of money to decide whether or not to continue to support them. Finally intuition can also be used because at some point there should be an inner feeling that Greece is taking advantage of the EU and that there is no real effort from the Greek government to change. So, once there is no effort or poor effort from the receiving party to change the reoccurring problem then that is when they should stop being given chances to redeem themselves.

[KalifaPearce8]

Stress can lead to many health problems. Many situations could either help or harm depending on the person and/or amount of stress added. Stress can be helpful for developing better study habits and learning to deal with future situations, but on the other hand can create both short and long-term health issues such as depression, heart problems, and eating disorders. The main problem is figuring out whether or not the "stressors" could be beneficial or detrimental. If the impact is less beneficial than detrimental, they either need to be altered or removed.

[KalifaPearce8]

I know personally that stress can lead to many health problems. Many situations could either help or harm depending on the person and/or amount of stress added. Stress can be helpful for developing better study habits and learning to deal with future situations, but on the other hand can create both short and long-term health issues such as depression, heart problems, and eating disorders. The main problem is figuring out whether or not the "stressors" could be beneficial or detrimental. If the impact is less beneficial than detrimental, they either need to be altered or removed.

[DestinyOkpomo8]

As a human being, we must always take moral values into consideration. Morality are the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong: good and bad. I feel that morality plays a huge role in any money making industry. This is because the laborers, the people, must have certain needs met in order to produce good labor. If moral codes are broken, then the quality of labor will decrease, resulting in a decreased amount of profit. for example, when labor strikes occurred due to poor working conditions, there was a significant decrease in the amount of money made. In conclusion, if morality is not kept, there will not be a large sum of money in profit. If morality is kept, there will be an increase in the amount of profit received.

[JordanBenedict8]

I believe that what happens, happens and you cannot change the past but that does not mean you do not have to face the consequences for your actions. In some ways we do hold people seen often in the media (i.e.: celebrities, government officials, ect…) to a higher standard and put them on a petal stool. Along with this we often come down on/ criticize those same people to a much harsher degree. To be able to move on and to be able to forgive and two entirely different things that I believe are more dependent on the person and situation. Another factor is how much does the mistakes that were made effect you. The degree in which we criticize people on their mistakes should be dependent on but not limited to these factors such as these.

(Hillary Clinton)

[JamesHood8]

Morality and emotions serve as huge motivators for people to act. In life people are always using morals to motivate people to act whether it be to donate money or just preform an action. Many organizations use depressing images so to get people to act whether it be donating money or just acting differently about a specific topic appealing to morals and emotions help to reach the goal. Emotions are so commonly targeted when appealing to people because nothing gets a greater response than people being able to do what they feel is right. One common example of this is Donald Trump, though people may not agree with his positions and policies he believes that they will work and are the right thing to do. This sense of right continues to push him to support his ideas and to speak and feel more strongly about them. 

[KhalylaWarrington8]

I think the point at which chances are no longer given depends on the circumstances of the entity. A child being potty-trained ethically deserves more than one chance at properly using the toilet because they are new at it and it is meant to be a learning experience. However people running a county's economy are not children being potty-trained and the consequences of failing are far more detrimental, so they should be given no more than one chance. 

[CarsonWiles8]

Morality is a big factor when it comes to making money. Most people want to be rich and successful but they want to obtain their money in a lawful manner. Obviously you could make a lot of money being ripping off people or selling drugs but most people have better morals than to even think about these things. A real life situation this applies to is the infamous drug dealer El Chapo. He offered 10 million dollars to any US citizen willing to give shelter while he hides out. This seems like an easy way to make a lot of money but not many people are willing to associate with a known drug dealer/murderer. Their morals prevent them from accepting this offer.

[AnayaGibson8]

As humans, we are subjected to making mistakes. These mistakes may have a negative outcome, but in the end, a positive one, because we learn from them. As far as harshly criticizing the mistakes of others, however, it is wrong and unfair, because the person who is harshly criticizing the person, probably in their lifetime, made a huge mistake. It is not right to dwell on mistakes, because then that would create an interference in the progress of what is needed to be done. In Clinton's case, because she is a public figure head who is involved in politics and fighting for the presidency, she has a negative connotation (to some people) because of this email incident, however, I am sure that she learned from her mistakes, and as far as those who have seen that scandal, have gained some kind of learning experience. However, dwelling on mistakes only elongate the process and make matters worse, therefore it is best to forgive, take note, and move on. 

[LindseyStanley8]

     Morality is often associated with the area of knowledge- ethics.  However, the difference between the two is that ethics is more general and morality is mostly a specific set of rules constructed by society.  Since study of human sciences reveals that humans are naturally social creatures, morality is so influential in people's behavior because humans seek the acceptance of others which causes them to adhere to whatever is considered to be moral in their society. 

     In the case of the bonded laborers, both morality and ethics are relevant.  It is imaginable that many people donated money to help the laborers because of the ethical responsibility that they felt to help those in need.  This feeling of obligation is very common because of the part of human nature that makes us sympathetic towards each other.  However, it is also quite possible that donors felt a moral obligation because of the social expectation to donate to people in need.  In this case, and often in many other instances, morality plays a major role in making money by appealing to people's feelings of socially-imposed duty.

[ElijahBransford8]

I believe that unfortunate and fortunate occurrences both greatly affect how we judge other people; however, negative occurrences have a bigger impact. In our society, the epistemic default is almost as if good things are expected of us, and we should not be rewarded for doing what is expected of us, and therefore we should not be rewarded for doing good things. On the contrary, wrongdoings are frowned upon and often punished severely,since they often have a greater effect on the order of things. For example, stealing a candy bar from a store causes the store to lose money, while holding the door open for someone may not even get a reaction from them and only serves the purpose of keeping them from holding the door themselves. Throughout my life, I have noticed that whenever I do good things, no one remembers, but whenever I do bad things, no one forgets, and I am viewed differently because of it. Because of this, I believe that both fortunate and unfortunate occurrences affect how we judge people, but unfortunate occurrences have a more significant impact on this.

[Ali Robinson8]

I believe a entity should be given chances as long as they are making process to their goal. If Greece doesn't attempt to fix their economy then the European Union should not bail them out. So if the European Union has evidence that the economy of Greece is improving they should bailed out. On the other hand is Greece's economy continues to get worse and they are not trying to fix it they should not be bailed out.

[Joe Caldwell8]

I don't believe that ethics plays a very big role. My reasoning is that paper money is just that, paper. There is no real intrinsic. Ali's to it. So, printing money is not related to ethics. Ethics only comes in once you start using things for purchases such as religious idols or relics and people.

[LaikenBaumgartner8]

I believe that ethics and morality are linked more closely than Webster's Dictionary would like to assume. Ethics may be the public standard as to what is viewed as right and wrong, while morals may be the personal thoughts and ideas of how things should be, yet they are inevitably linked due to the fact that one cannot exist without the other. Morality is taught. To teach, there must be standards of knowledge. A "bar" someone else has set. Ethics cannot exist unless someone had already had personal morals in the judiciary branch of government or the pinnacle of society, deciding what is right and wrong.

With the stuff in Pakistan, is slavery coming back to the public surface? Or is it simply the only reasonable way to pay off debt. Surely, the person in debt must've had to agree to the labor if it is a business deal or exchange of goods/work. Is it unethical to corner someone into working for you to pay off their debt? It's probably not against their law code over there. Is it immoral? To us, of course, but again, they are from a different region and culture. They were taught differently.

[LaurenWheeler5]

I think that it is okay for the people to collect information through this method to find out about the user; this is what cookies already do. Many people don't know that cookies are usually already allowed for instance, while a person is browsing the Internet. This makes me question show detrimental ignorance can be, and also question the progression/improvement of technology. I believe that it can be either intentionally invasive(as with the RLS) or unintentionally invasive (as with the cookies) but it should not overstep boundaries such as that of using the information gathered on a person to keylog and receive/save credit card information and passwords

[Jessica Miralda8]

Morality plays a big role when it comes to making money because it what we use to see if our actions are good/ bad . We use morals to influence other in making decisions, for example donating to charities; we use morals to influence people to sympathize with a certain cause. We see this type of advertising on TV most days, "Just 10 cents a day could help a child in need " or the depressing commercials with abused animals and "In the eyes of an angel" playing in the background. The use of morality in the business industry has its pros and cons, if a person is driven too much by morals they can easily be taken advantage of and if you do not obtain as much morals you're frowned upon for being a cold person.