Howdy!

Hi class. I know it seems I have been MIA on here, and I was not in class last week, I was having a massive allergy attack, thanks to all the beautiful pollen out there. Besides that I thought I would comment on here this week. I was reading the Chapter 7 in strike, and I was thinking about the whole due process that he was referring to and making us think about during the whole ethics book. It is interesting that some do still want to consider religion in those ethics and some still agree that they cannot possibly be discussed without including religion, however Strike has proved that different that those thoughts and ideas can be discussed without the religion. He gives us different ideas to think about, and different cases to think about to help us see this clearer. As Billie and Kelsey mentioned he refers to the two ways of thinking such as consequentialist and nonconsequentialist views. I do believe as mentioned in one of their questions that most people take some from each view point to come up with their own reasoning or answer. Strike really opened my eyes to different ideas and looking behind the actual moral values and into just ethics not based on religion or what not. I ran upon this site and thought it was neat. It goes along with the whole strike book and there are different cases of people going through due process and their perspective on it. There was a child's perspective, mothers, and a ton other cases. Just thought I would share.




http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/dp.child.perspective.brody.htm



See yall Wed!