Last Blog Assignment

(1) Question:

I chose the question that asks if humans have a natural tendency to do good or evil and what are the implications of this answer to ethics.

(2) Conceptual Clarifications:

What this question is asking is whether or not people are inborn with the actions to do well to other and themselves. Depending on what period and which philosopher you want to follow than it depends on how you think. Mill (Ruggiero, 146) states that he didn't believe it was inborn but was acquired. He continued to note that whether acquired or inborn it had little difference because the point was that it did exist.

(3) Answer:

I don't think people are naturally inclined to do good or evil. I think humans are naturally brought upon to do what it is needed to survive. I think personal survival is the final decision for what is ethical or un-ethical. When put in the most dire and extreme of circumstances people are going to do what they have to, to make sure they survive and move on with their life. The methods may be good or evil depending on how you review it after or before the action has taken place but the fact of the matter is that the action does take place and actions made in real time can not be second guessed. I do believe where survival is not the underlying item of motive that people are taught to strive for goodness of self and others around them. I believe everyone likes to be happy and likes to see others around them happy. I agree with Mill that it is acquired through life experiences and teachings rather than inborn or inherent. You are a product of those around you, those who teach, and what you experience in life. The implications on this for ethics is that if you believe that good can be taught and learned that evil can be taught and learned on the flip side. Someone can grow up and learn to do evil things that make him happy. If the goal is happiness and evil ethical decisions are made are they truly evil at heart? This makes for the never answered question. I would say if evil act is done unto yourself than yes it is ethical if the action is done to harm others for your own personal happiness than the action is still evil though the person is made happier because of it.

(4) Example:

Multiple examples of this would be saying murdering someone when you are cornered. Say you join the military and have to go to war. Whether you believe war is right or not the fact is the soldier is there and can not change his mind. He comes up upon an "enemy" and they start shooting at each other. The only way that he makes it out is to kill the other person. Survival is kicking in here and he kills the other person. Is killing and murder and evil act yes, but in terms of survival it is warranted because he is in a corner and must make a real time decision to either survive and move on or die and not continue on per say. In terms of when survival is not effect, say someone captures and tortures someone for his own personal pleasure. Say he does not kill or injure the person but tortures them mentally. This makes the torturer very happy and is good in his eyes because he is happy. The tortured is obvious not happy to what is happening to him at this time. Even though this makes one person it leaves one person unhappy and is there for still an evil act. Good acts are only good if they help the person who is doing the action and anyone else who may be involved. You can not harm someone in the process for you own good and happiness and it still be considered a good act.

(5) Word Count:

665 is what my word tells me. :)

(6) Image:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/survival%20killing%20is%20ok%25253F/xel123/survival.jpg

(7) References:

Ruggiero. (2008). Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues. McGraw Hill.
Mill

Mill. (1861). Utilitarianism. Fraser's Magazine.

Blog Assignment #10

(1) Choose one inquiry, from inquiries 1 - 28 (pages 114 - 117). Indicate which inquiry you chose, and then briefly explain it in your own words: I chose the one about the 2 doctors having to choose between the 2 patients to give a heart transplant to.

(2) Stakeholders: The doctors, both patients, the families, other people on the list.

(3) Are the details given sufficient? Why or why not? No because you need answer to make a fair and ethical decision.

(4) What additional questions does this inquiry raise? Transplants are normally done on a first person on the first to recieve a heart basis. We have no idea who is first on the list. We also don't know what other preconditions each patient could potentially have.

STEP TWO: THE RELEVANT CRITERIA

1. Obligations (aka "duties"): Optional this week
2. Moral Ideals (aka "virtues"): See breakdown of ideals below
3. Consequences (aka "outcomes" or "results"): Optional this week

NOTE: Not ALL of the following ideals will apply! Only consider the main ones that you believe apply, in the inquiry you chose. Don't just pick the easy ones to consider, because you didn't take the time to thoroughly read the chapter and learn what each one of these actually means. I will quiz you when we do group work on Thursday.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Prudence: No because they should have thoughtfully decidied and weighed all the options before making a decision.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Justice: Yes because you should count each person as equal and give to higher value to either of their lives. They are both equally important to the people around them and it should be done fairly and without prejudice for age or anything else.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Temperance: No because this based on more indiviualistic views which aren't really present here.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Courage: No unless you put the patients next to each other to make the decision of who got the heart which I doubt would happen.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Loving Kindness: No because they should be making their choice based on a set of rules or other ideals more than just love since they are patients rather than family or friends which complicate the matter.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Honesty: Yes because they should be honest about who is on the list and not about who necessarily deserves or needs it more.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Compassion: Yes I think it does because the doctors may want to choose the child because they think she has more to live for than the older lady but they should add in other judgements to help them.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Forgiveness: No because I don't see any wrong doing that cause the issue.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Repentance: No because I don't think the doctors should feel sorry for their decision as long as it was fair.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Reparation: No because no harm was done unfairly to another person.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Gratitude: You could maybe say the recipient of the heart could give gratitude to the doctors for picking them but I think that is more just the emotions rather the ethics.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Beneficence: The surgery could be deemed beneficence but other than that they did the act because it was their job rather just for no reason.

* Conflicting ideals--consider the relative importance of each; determine which ideal represents the greater good (or the lesser evil). See pages 110-11 for clarification. Erase this sentence & insert your own answer. I don't see any conflicting ideals. The rules and obligations should be set out for the doctors. Whether they agree or not is up for debate but it should be much simpler than that.

STEP THREE: POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION

Alternative #1: To give the heart to the other lady.

Alternative #2: To wait for 2 hearts if possible so both get one and neither is out of a heart.

Alternative #3: To continue with giving the young girl the heart as the decided before.
STEP FOUR: THE MOST ETHICAL ACTION

Examine the action taken or proposed and decide whether it achieves the greater good (the most widespread "respect for persons")...if it does not, choose one that will, from your alternatives. Where the choice of actions is such that no good can be achieved, choose the action that will result in the lesser evil.

I think as long as they followed the rules set down to them by the obligations of work and location than giving it to the young girl is correct but if they passed over the other lady because of her age that is not right and it should be given to her.

SELF EVALUATION

1. In your own words, describe something new that you learned from this week’s assigned reading material and guidance. I learned are much more complicated than previously thought and that you need to weigh them and give them each a proper examination so that they are followed and thought out. You may even think of ones not previously and could end up changing your decisions.

2. In your own words, describe in detail some insight you gained, about the material, from one of your classmates' blogs this week. MCK-thics was the blog and I learned that he posted about weighing consequences early even though we haven't covered that but they do go hand in hand with the ideals because it may look good with the ideal but it may have very serious consequences depending on which path you choose.

3. Did you post a thoroughly completed post to your blog on time this week? I think mine is pretty thorough but that could be up to debate depending on your definition of the word. :)

4. Did you ALSO print this out, so you can bring it to class and earn total points? Nope because I am in Atlanta for work reasons for the rest of the week so it did not happen though I wish I was there to learn the lesson.

5. Of 25 points total, my efforts this week deserve: I deserve a 12.5 since I posted the online version but did not show up to class for the week. Sorry!!!!

Blog Assignment #9

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASSIGNMENT PART ONE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this section, we're going to return for a moment to Chapter 7, to the section that discusses errors that are common in the analysis of moral issues (p. 89). Breifly explain each of the following errors in your own words, as if you were explaining the concept to a friend who had never taken this class (consider who, what, when, where, why, how, when); and then give an example of each one, preferably from your own past experience.

Unwarranted Assumptions: Unwarranted Assumptions are simply assuming things that you have no fact based information to bring to the table to support your theory. Take for example if Ms. Pierce is getting a fee for us to attend these seminars or group Philosophy events but if we were to go and show up our beliefs or ideals could be challenged and we could leave very unhappy or worse with a lose of respect for her inviting us out there. Not that I assume that would happen but what if she knew the topic could be something offensive and just didn't inform us on purpose? :)

Oversimplification: Oversimplification is nothing more than leaving out key pieces of information that are important to the topic or issue at hand. Say for example Ms. Pierce hosted class and people just rose up and interupted her and didn't care. Well she could just tell each person to shut up everytime she does it and that would fix the issue. Well there is more to it than that. Can she even tell us to shut up? Is there a serious penalty if she does? If she can what tone of voice can she use for it? These are all issues that complicate the quick fix.

Hasty Conclusions: Hasty conclustions are nothing more than jumping to a decision without doing due diligence to the issue at hand. I love using Ms. Pierce in my examples because she challenged me to use her in each one so for this one let's use a positive hasty conclusion. Say Ms. Pierce just gave each a full 100% on all of our blogs just for posting it. She just went into reader saw the topic of Blog Assignment 9 and said 100 good to go, rather than reading through each one to make sure the questions were answered properly and fairly to each of the students. Not all of the examples have to be negative and I think she should take this theory into serious consideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASSIGNMENT PART TWO

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Briefly answer the following "chapter opening" questions, in your own words, based on what you learned by studying chapter eight:

1. What do we do in situations where there is more than a single obligation? When you have to choose between more than one obligation logic tells you that you will weigh out all the options and pick which one is most fitting and important to you. Not sure if Karla wants examples but I think I can think of one for her. Take Ms. Pierce used to be a bartender so we will assume she likes beer (even though we know she does). So what if on a Thursday night she really wanted to go drink instead of having class and making money to pay rent or for the beers she is about to have? Well hopefully if she chooses to go have a drink she invites all the legal students she has to have class out there while doing both or that she chooses to keep her employment obligation to all of us. Let me know if that is innappropriate and I'll change it.

2. How can we reconcile conflicting obligations? There is no way to resolve conflicting obligatoins. No matter what you do you are going to be breaking an obligation to another party or person. You just have to weigh all the ideas and options out there and make the decision on what you feel is best for the situation at hand. Take Ms. Pierce again for example. Say I show up late everytime for class or just plain don't show for what ever reasons. I then go apply for a campus job and she seems to not hate me for a teacher so I use her as a reference. The people call and ask if I can make it on time and all that. She is now stuck will telling my could be future employer I am never on time to anything in my life or lie for me and say I am always punctual to everything I do knowing that I am not. She has conflicting obligations that could be bad for both us depending on the consequences.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASSIGNMENT PART THREE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. In a nutshell, what is the most important thing, for you, that you learned from this assignment? I learned that jumping to hasty conclusions is usually the best way to make a decision if you are pushed for time and have no other choice. No really it is the fact that when you are going to decisions on issues and situations it is the fact that you need to take into account every point of view and consequence and obligation because a lot of times you are going to affect just more than yourself with the choice.

2. How will you apply what you learned through this assignment to your everyday life? I will look more at what my actions do to affect the other people arround me rather than just myself.

3. What grade do you believe your efforts regarding this assignment deserve? Justify your answer. I think I should get full points. I answered each question fully and gave proper examples each time and take your challenge on and passed.

Blog Assignment #6

QUESTION #1: If an action that is praised in one culture may be condemned in another, would it be correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in?

ANSWER 1A:

I believe that yes all moral values are relative to each others culture. Here in the USA most of us eat meat from cows where in India most people will not eat cows for whatever reason. We also say most girls should wear white on their wedding day where in other countries they may not. It is all relative to where you are.

ANSWER 1B:

P: All cultures live on the same moral principles.

P: Morals are brought about to be relative to where they are.

------------------------------

C: Therefore, it is right to say all morals are relative to their culture.


QUESTION #2: Isn’t it a mark of ignorance to pass judgments on other cultures or to claim that one culture is better than another?

ANSWER 2A:

Yes it is ignorant to say one culture is better or superior to another. They are all relative to how you look at it and if you truly understand what it is. If you were to grow up in one culture and look upon you may think the "superior culture" is worse than yours on the other side.

ANSWER 2B:

P: It's not correct to say one culture is better than another.

P: Respect other cultures you may learn something from them.

-------------------------------

C: Therefore it is a mark of ignorance to pass judgments on other cultures.

--------------------------------------------------------------

PART TWO

--------------------------------------------------------------

See page 63 in our text. Choose one inquiry, from inquiries 3 – 11. Briefly describe the inquiry as the first part of your answer, so your readers know which one you chose. Discuss whether or not the action / decision in each case is ethical. And then, put your argument in equation form. Try to include an ethical principle as one of your premises, as modeled below...


I chose to talk about the issue that deals with the ideal of the eye for an eye theory for crimes.

An example of majority view & culture in action from a different class:

Argument #1:
Arguable issue: Whether or not mutilation is an appropriate form of punishment.

P: Mutilation is a wrong form of punishment for people.
P: Mutilation would be extremely painful and inhumane to that person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C: Therefore, mutilation is not a good form of punishment.

Ethics from my Snowboarding Trip

Hello again everyone. Thank you to the 1 person who responded to my last random blog post with an issue. This one will not be about me but will contain an issue someone I met while snowboarding. Please post about the ideas around the issue and not gossip stories. Tell me what you think of what the man said and whether he was right or wrong about the idea and your reasons or morals why he was wrong.

Story:

I was getting my snowboard stuff ( boots, board, bindings, helmet, etc.) and I started to talk to the guy, and he started to tell me a story about one of the times he came down the mountain. I'll give some background to help with the understanding. If you have never been skiing or snowboarding the grade or rate the trails on a scale of green being the easiest or circles to double diamond or black to being the hardest with blues or squares being the intermediate trails. Well as the story goes he was coming down the mountain on his snowboard on the blue trails. When he was coming the down the mountain a family with their 7 or 8 year old child was coming down as well. The child crashed in front of the snowboarder and he ended up running into the child and injuring himself pretty bad while the child escaped without harm. Now he thought the family should be sorry towards him since he was injured and the child was not. He dislocated his shoulder and couldn't snowboard the rest of the season.

The question I ask is whether or not you think the snowboarder should feel bad for hitting the child or should the parents feel bad since he was the one who was injured. Why or why not. Give your reasons in a comment and I will give back my thoughts on the situation. What other information if any would you like as well.

Enjoy!!

Blog Assignment #4

Relationship b/n Religion & Ethics

1. Paragraph:

I think the relationship between ethics and religion is one that is a very similar because we base a lot of our ethic thoughts of how were raised and some people are raised in very religious households so normally they base some of their ethics off of religion. It only becomes difficult when you are trying to argue points for certain issues that can cause certain problems with how you present your argument.

2. Paragraph & Link:

The person who wrote the article describes the basis of religion and ethics as one of revelation and reason. He says that religion can not be the back bone because the readings and teachings are not verifiable and therefore can not be justifiable. He says that it relies on human beings to make the decisions based on their own well-being while being mindful of others as well.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2006springsummer/donahue.html

3. Argument: Compose a short argument, in “argument elements” form. I’ll provide the arguable issue; you provide the rest. Make sure each of your premises is a complete sentence, and that your argument doesn’t break any of the rules listed in the first chapter of the Rulebook for Arguments:

Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not ethics and religious beliefs are complementary.
Conclusion: Ethics and Religion are not complementary.
Premises: Ethics and Religion are not complementary because
(1) Both deal in absolutes.
(2) Religion has no room for growth in ideas.
(3) Arguing religion can lead to attacking someone's deep personal beliefs.

The Role of the Majority View

1. Paragraph:

The Majority view is just the fact that in a pole or vote that 51% are in agreence on a topic or issue that was presented to them. It does not matter whether they fully understand what is being presented to them or not just that feel one on or another, right or wrong. The textbook "Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues" was my source.

2. Argument: Compose a short argument, in “argument elements” form. I’ll provide the arguable issue; you provide the rest. Make sure each of your premises is a complete sentence, and that your argument doesn’t break any of the rules listed in the first chapter of the Rulebook for Arguments:

Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not the Majority View is a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
Conclusion: Majority view is not a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
Premises: Majority view is not a reliable basis for ethical decision-making because
(1) The majority is not always educated correctly.
(2) The majority takes away ones individualistic views on ideas.
(3) The majority may have a bad sampling group to represent what is truly how people feel.


The Role of Feelings

1. Paragraph:

When Rousseau said " What I feel is right is right, what I feel is wrong is wrong," I immediately thought that this is the common issue of listening to the heart or the mind is the correct way to go. Feelings always play a role in some of ethical decisions we have but sometimes what we feel as feelings are not always the best thing for us or for the decision itself. Issues as Abortion and Capital Punishment can really test ones ideas on heart and mind for making a decision in each case. My source was the textbook "Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues."

2. Argument: Compose a short argument, in “argument elements” form. I’ll provide the arguable issue; you provide the rest. Make sure each of your premises is a complete sentence, and that your argument doesn’t break any of the rules listed in the first chapter of the Rulebook for Arguments:

Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not our feelings are a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
Conclusion: Feelings are not a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
Premises: Feelings are not a reliable basis for ethical decision-making because
(1) Feelings may sometimes blind us to the greater good.
(2) Feelings can conflict with other peoples feelings and ideals.
(3) Feelings are wants more than good reasoning sometimes.

The ability to express yourself in your own words is essential in this class. Did you put everything in your own words this time?

I always express myself in my own words in anything I do unless I am going to be quoting what someone else has said and than either build off of it or just leave it at that quote.

What was easiest / hardest about this assignment?

The hardest was doing the arguments because I missed last week so I didn't get any lessons or practice on them so I hope did well on them from just reading and teaching myself.

How will you apply what you learned through this assignment to your everyday life?

I take all these ethics lessons and apply them at work a lot because I am always wondering how I should handle certain situations there and also with friends and family that I deal with. When arguing with religious people or issues I will just leave them be seeing as how you can really hurt someone over it and get nowhere doing it.

How well do you think you did on this assignment? Explain.

I think I did really well on this assignment for having missed class week and having to take in the learnings on my own and try to go in the direction you wanted. Also, teaching myself was something that wasn't fun but I hope I did well enough to get a good understanding for when I come to class and how I presented my arguements and ideas in this assignment.

Just for fun

As we all know Ms. Pierce wants us to post comments on people's blogs that we have. I know for me personally posting on assignments from books and other things related to class work can just be complicated and time consuming process trying to really think about how to handle posting on some one's blog to challenge their ideas or thoughts, so I figured I would post something that has to do with more real situations that I deal with from day to day and pose some sort of ethical dilemma and people can post how they would have handled the situation or give advice on how they think I should handle the situation. Following people's comments I will post how everything was handled and my reasons for doing so and we can see how we are alike or different and why we would handle things certain ways.

Since Karla doesn't want our blogs turning into gossip columns, I would ask that anyone who responds to this post do the following:

1. Give your view of the situation

2. Support your answer with good reasons (because unsupported opinions are just that--opinions).

3. Explain what principles and values you are basing your decision / view on.

So here goes the first one...

On Thursday nights at 8 p.m. I help a friend host a trivia show. It was our last show after hosting there for almost a year together. We were having drinks and food and an all around good time with all the staff we knew and the regular teams that showed. Well during the show I got a call from a girl who for anonymity sake we will name Amanda. Now Amanda and I have had this attraction that everyone could see for close to 6 months now. She has been dating this guy Ryan (fake name again) for most of the 6 months. Now Ryan and Amanda are on and off all the time and she always calls me and what not when something goes wrong with Ryan and her. So when she shows up I am all like what does she want this time. Normally, it is just to play games with my head or try to get all into me and then just not talk to me for a while and it really just gets old. As my friend starts to hound on her about Amanda and I getting together since her and Ryan are no longer "together," I guess. Well as we sit there and have drinks till after close we all decide to pack up and leave. As we leave she is saying walk me to my car. I'm like OK fine I can do this again and get a hug and blah blah blah... So we talk for a minute outside and give her a hug and she does something she has never done before, kisses me on the cheek which was odd to me. After wards I lean back think to myself for a split second and go in for a kiss thinking to myself this a make or break moment for me and her.

So my ethical dilemma is to kiss her or not. I'm pretty sure she is still "with" her current boyfriend in some way but she obviously wants something from me. So would you go in and kiss her knowing you are ultimately participating in cheating on someone else or do you pull back and just go on your merry way and think what chance you maybe could have blown there?

I will post how I handled it after 2 people respond with their thoughts and/or questions.

Blog Assignment #2

1. Were the questions on the Moral Sense Test difficult to answer (psychologically, emotionally, conceptually, technically, etc.)? Why or why not? Do you think your responses to the Moral Sense Test questions were consistent? Does this matter?

I did not think it was difficult at all to answer the questions from the Moral Sense Test (MST). Most dealt with material over physical issues and was easy to decide which was more important. I think most of answers were consistent and I think staying consistent proves that you follow a certain set of ideals and morals you have whether you consider them as correct or incorrect is up for debate but sticking to how you feel is better than always changing what you believe in at least in my opinion.

2. Should people always follow the law? Why or why not? When might one be justified in NOT following the law? Give examples.

I think people should always follow the law. They were put there and decided on to help keep you safe for a reason and what makes you different from any other person who lives in this society to not follow the law? A justified case may be speeding to get an injured person to the hospital or defending yourself in a deadly situation which you may consider legal or not. I would say if your life or someone you cared about life's depended on you breaking the law or not I would break it.

3. In your own words, explain what "social convention" means. Give examples.

I would describe "social convention" as the understanding of unwritten laws or basic understandings of how things in a given society operate blindly. A couple examples would be normally people who like to speed or drive faster than normal are in the left where slower traffic usually stays to the right lane. Most men open doors for women or allow to precede things before them even if they were to arrive earlier say to a door or waiting on an elevator.

4. Should people always follow the conventions of their society? Why or why not? Give examples.

I don't think people should always follow the conventions of their society because then everything becomes to confertable and change never happens. Now I don't think changing for changes sake is a good idea but amazing things come from people challenging the conventions of the time. I mean our country was founded by challenging the conventions of the Brittish. Also, I personally am not a big fan of the standard 9-5 work schedule, I believe in the much more less conventional goal oriented work time. You recieve a goal to do and work as many hours you need to get it done to the specifications if that means 3 hours 1 day, 12 the next and 8 the following than you can take off the rest of the days than so be it. On the flip side if you have to work 60 hours instead of 40 that also has be to done as well.

5. Should people always follow their own principles? Why or why not? Give examples.

I think you should always follow your principles or what is even the point of having them, wouldn't make very much sense if you asked me. Now I think principles can change over time but that is different than not blantantly not following them. Some examples of principles would be if I decided to believe in any religion that is a principle you have made to go to church/mass/temple/mosque or any other form of prayer or respect for that religion of choosing. Saying you are something and then not actually following what you say is not something that would make sense.

6. Explain in your own words the difference between socially acceptable, legally acceptable, and morally acceptable.

Socially acceptable means that you do things that people will accept whether law breaking or not, some people would could consider underage drinking socially acceptable. Legally acceptable would mean that you accept things that are law abiding and not breaking it in any way. Morally acceptable would be based on accepting things based on your morals like abortion or the death penalty would be examples.

7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.

I guess I got mine up late by 20 minutes cause I thought I had submitted before I went did things so I would deserve only 0 points but I am going to post anyways since I spent all the time writing this out.

Blog Assignment #1

1. How would you have explained the meaning of the term "ethics", before taking this class?

I would have explained "ethics" as the morally reasoning behind every decision a person makes in their day to day life.

2. What are some of your deepest held values?

My deepest held values are loyalty to friends and family and trying my hardest at everything even if I think I am going to fail.

3. What are some main principles you try to live your life by?

I try to be positive and work as hard as possible to complete everything I try. I try to make friends and be nice to everyone I meet because you never know who you are going to meet.

4. What moral qualities do you look for in others?

I look for people who are positive who enjoy life for what it is right now. Nobody wants to hang around with someone who sees everything half empty.

5. How were your values and principles developed?

I was raised as a military brat for 19 years so I believe most of values and principles come from that upbringing and life style.

6. How have your values and principles changed throughout your life so far?

I think the biggest one is my work ethic. I used to be really lazy when it came to school and life and I work a lot harder to succeed and do well than I used to now that I am older and more experienced in the real world.

7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.

I think I should get a full 25 points because I have answered each question completely, checked spelling and gramar, and posted on time.