Morality of euthanasia

The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word which means good death. It refers to the practice of putting an end to someones life in a painless way. It can also mean deliberate termination of life at the precise request of the person who dies. For the word euthanasia to qualify for use, the act must be started by the person who intends to die. The term can also encompass voluntary and involuntary ending of life. There are also some terms which are not clearly defined but are related to the term euthanasia. They include passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and involuntary euthanasia (Walter, 1999).
   
Passive euthanasia, involves quickening the death of a person by removing life supporting equipments, stopping all medical procedures and medications, stopping food and water and allowing the patient to dehydrate and die of hunger, and stopping cardio- pulmonary resuscitation. It may also involve administering high doses of pain killers like morphine with the full knowledge of the effects of high doses of the drug given. This can be done to terminally ill patients who are experiencing a lot of pain so that their death can be faster enough (Barry, 2004).
   
Active euthanasia will mean causing death of a person directly while responding to the appeal of the patient. Patients who normally request for such death are those who are aware that in the long run they are going to die and the death may not be a descent one. Another term is physician assisted suicide whereby the physician avails the information or provides the means for terminating life like lethal doses of sleeping pills. In this method it is the patient who administers the life terminating substance. Finally the term involuntary euthanasia means terminating the life of a person who has not requested to be killed (Walter, 1999).
   
The debate on the morality of euthanasia has been debated extensively in the recent past. The topic is considered important and draws a lot of attention because it touches on the life and death. Owing to the nature of the topic, there is no single resolution to it which will satisfy both parties involved in the debate. There are several groups who believe in right to death and consider euthanasia as a morally accepted practice in conditions where human dignity is compromised like in severe pain. The groups which are supporting life view euthanasia as being morally unacceptable regardless of the situation the person may be in (Gormally, 1997).
   
The lawmakers all over the world believes that suicide is acceptable or that it cannot be efficiently be criminalized. In situations where the doctors are allowed to help patients to end their lives, most countries view it negatively. In some countries, it is allowed under very precise conditions like unbearable pain, but it is rarely practiced. Roman Catholic Church remains strongly opposed to the subject of euthanasia and suicide. The reasons which the church opposes are that committing suicide means that an individual is the master of hisher body but not God. Suicide also shows that the person doing it has no charity for himherself. It is also cited to result in failures of  individual responsibilities like parental and social duties. Suicide is considered as being against the law according to the teachings of the bible and the holy church of Christ. It describes suicide as the most terrible crime and a person who commits suicide should be denied Christian burial (Barry, 2004).
   
Official declaration on euthanasia as issued by the sacred congregation for the doctrine of the faith stated that the church prohibits all forms of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Performing euthanasia on another person or doing it for your self is considered to go against the divine law, crime against the dignity of man, crime against life and an attack directed against humanity. Even on the current version of the catechism of the Catholic Church, suicide and euthanasia still remains unlawful.
   
Because of the moral reasons most people are not comfortable that other factors which are not related to the well being of the patient may be used as a reason to perform euthanasia. In this case a son may want his ill father to be killed so that he can have his inheritance, or even doctors who need a hospital bed occupied by a patient who is seriously ill and is not responding to treatment may use euthanasia to eliminate the patient (Gormally, 1997). Cases of attempted suicide clearly show that there are many people who would have loved to die, but later reconsidered their action. If euthanasia was legalized, even people with mild depression would request for euthanasia. It is also not easy to know whether the persons request for death is not due to depression but because of the pain they are going through. Practicing euthanasia go against the Hippocratic Oath which the doctors swore in order to protect life (Barry, 2004).

People who take part in the debate on the morality of euthanasia have their reasons for the support or for not supporting the act. Both sides have their valid reasons for the stance they have assumed. People supporting euthanasia want to ensure that terminally ill people are not forced to undergo prolonged pain and lose their human dignity, while the people against the practice dread the possible abuses and also view it has going against the right to life. They also value their religious values which states that life should be respected regardless of the condition.

Global Ethics Case of Mutated Swine Flu

In considering the proposed situation that most children could not survive the threat of a mutated swine flu virus without the intervention of new antiviral drugs, it is interesting to consider what the moral considerations of the United States should be.  In aiming to guarantee the survival of all people around the world, the promotion of health care must be a vital concern of the public United States government as well as private companies.  Although this specific case deals with the threat of a virus to children, it is true that all individuals, adult and child alike, are deserving of the best and most effective possible protection and health care.
   
If most children were mortally threatened by a new swine flu strain, it would be the responsibility of the United States government to ensure that all parents and caregivers across the world receive the necessary antiviral drugs for their children.  Parents of children with private health insurances, public health insurances, and no health insurance would be mandated to receive the drugs for their children.  Government would not assume the role of the parent and take direct action with the children, yet all parents and caregivers would be mandated to receive the drugs to administer to their children.  It would also be appropriate to mandate that all health care providers witness that the parents and caregivers actually do administer the drugs to their children, in order to ensure that all children are immunized.
   
In regard to the private drug companies, they could not refuse to make the drugs or attempt to price the antiviral drugs at high rates.  If the drug companies were not compliant with government regulations, then the government would have to take over the entire operations of the private drug companies in order to provide all global families with the necessary antidotes.  If there was absolutely no possible way to produce enough drugs for all people, which is highly unlikely, then it would be appropriate for there to be a transparent international lottery for the distribution of the drugs to random families in countries around the globe, with socioeconomic status playing no part.  When it comes to something as necessary as survival and health care, there are no excuses to be made for profiteers.
   
The values being honored in this plan for treating the children at risk of being infected by this new strain of swine flu are the values of community, survival, life, humanity, benevolence, philanthropy, and love, among many others.  The need to care for oneself and ones neighbor outweighs the values of autonomy, independence, and liberty.  When it comes to deciding whether oneself of ones neighbor should be saved, should live or die, then the answer must always be to choose life.  To willingly allow oneself or others to die, knowing that they could have been saved by community effort, attention, and nurturing, is not very short of murder.  Perhaps this should even be classified as a type of murder, in order to uphold the true sanctity of every human life.
   
There are certainly people who may disagree with government intervention, who value stoic independence and autonomy over loving teamwork and cooperation, yet the fact remains that people would die without the concerted efforts of politicians, health care providers, parents, and caregivers.  It is not alright to slack off of being devoted to oneself and ones neighbors, to act as if one soul is expendable.  When one soul is able to be sacrificed without care, to be ignored as somehow insignificant, then there is no one left of any true full worth.  One of the primary focuses of the United States government is to ensure the life, liberty, and happiness of all people, and it is very fitting that life is the value which comes first.

Ethics and Global Issues

The increased demand and consumption of energy has led to invention of new types of energy. Energy is very essential in carrying out various human activities. Energy is used for heating houses, in agricultural and for industrial purposes. Energy generation is essential in meeting these needs. Consumption of energy has been high for the past few decades. Renewable and non renewable energy sources have in use. Renewable energy are the energy sources that replaced over time and thus can not be depleted. Replenishment occurs over time. Non renewable energy sources can not be replenished over time and thus are capable of being distinguished. The introduction of new sources of energy has brought about impacts to the environment (Daniel, 2009). Fossil fuels have used both domestically and commercially. The use of fossils as a source of fuel has brought about environmental due to the chemical substance released to the atmosphere. Other new types of fuel include nuclear power, solar energy, wind energy. Recycling of waste products such as plastics has been used to generate energy. All these new types of fuels have impacts on the environment. The renewable energy includes wind energy, water energy and solar energy.
   
The introduction of carbon dioxide in the atmospheres has brought about environmental impacts such as green house effect and global warming. Fossils fuels are formed from decomposition of once living organisms. Fossils fuels due to decay and compartment of organic matter and thus takes many years before they are formed. Carbon and hydrogen are the main chemical components found in fossil fuels. Fossil fuels which are commonly used include natural gas, coal and oil.  Oil deposits have become less advocating for more use of coal as a source of fuel. Coal is mainly obtained from coal deposits through mining. The use has been high, although its use has declined over the past few years. Natural gas and oil have been scarce making many developing countries adopt to use of coal as a source of fuel. The main users of coal as a source of fuel in the world include India and China. The remnants of sea organisms decompose over several years to form oil. Oil is normally trapped in the rock where it is obtained through drilling. The mostly widely used fossil fuel is oil (Meisch, 2007). Oil is heavily used in the vehicle industry. Coal and oil have more impacts to the environment compared to natural gas. Natural gas is newly adopted source of fuel. Natural gas consist of methane which a chemical substance which has impact to the environment. Power plants are used to convert fossil fuels to other forms of energy such as heat and electricity. Fossil fuels consist of hydrogen and carbon which react upon burning to produce carbon dioxide and water. Heat which acts as a catalyst is also released as a result of the reaction.
   
There is major concern over of fossil fuels due to environmental pollution.   Burning of fossil fuels leads to forming of green house gases. The rapid growth of industries has led to high use of fossil fuels which contributes to atmospheric pollution. There are various environmental impacts which occur during burning of fossil fuels to obtain other types of energy. The environmental impacts include ozone layer depletion, air pollution, green house accumulation, land degradation, acidification, plant and animals effects.
   
Global warming occurs as a result of releasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Sulfur and other chemical substances are formed during burning of fossil fuels. These compounds react with oxygen to form acidic rains which are injurious to both plants and other living organisms. Global warming leads to high temperatures and increased sea levels due to melting of ice. Rising sea levels is detrimental since it affects living organism and recreational activities. Toxic substances such as vanadium are released to the atmosphere during conversion of fossil fuel to energy. Nitrous oxide is produced after burning of coal (Ann, 2006). This chemical substance causes environmental impact since it remains in the atmosphere without being recognized. Solid waste is accumulated after conversation of fossil fuels. This causes impact to the environment since waste disposal requires big land. Accumulation of solid waste is also dangerous since toxic runoff is encouraged. Toxic run off affects the environment since it affects wildlife, vegetation and marine life.
   
The increased demand of energy for both domestic and commercial has led to the invention of new types of fuels such as biofuels. Biofuels are obtained from plants. The biofuels include Bioethanol which are produced through fermentation process of sugar components in plants. Ethanol production which is mostly used in vehicles has been prospered with advance in technology. The mostly widely used biofuels is ethanol fuel which is produced by fermenting of sugar components obtained from plant material such as sugarcane, wheat, molasses and sugar beets. Enzymes are used to aid in fermenting. Biodiesel is another form of biofuels used in Europe. Biofuels have also brought about environmental impacts.

Biofuels are produced from plants. This means that huge pieces of land are put under plants which are used for fuel production. This leads to deforestation since forests have to be cleared to plant trees. This leads to land degradation. The fertilizers which are applied on plants also affect the environment. Most of the fertilizers applied on crops end up being washed in to waters sources which affect living organisms in water bodies. Toxic fertilizers affect plants growth due to the acidic in the soils. Biofuels also release chemical substance in to the atmosphere (Daniel, 2009). These chemical compounds bring about green house effect. Depletion of Ozone layer occurs after combining excess oxygen. Biogas is a new type of fuel which is obtained in an anaerobic digester. Decomposition of organic matter is aided by anaerobic bacteria.
   
Nuclear power which is obtained from radioactive substance has been widely used. Radioactive substances such as uranium are used. Uranium is a radioactive substance which undergoes radioactive decay. The half life of radioactive substances defines their dangers. Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion occurs during production of nuclear power. Nuclear reaction leads to production of huge amounts of heat which can be dangerous. This heat is tapped and converted to other forms of energy such as electricity. The use of radioactive substance in production has some environmental impacts. Radioactive substances are normally disposed in sea because of much heat they produce. This affects the living organism in the sea since the sea temperatures are increased (Daniel, 2009). The radioactive substances are also poisonous. Radioactive substances have long term effects since they affect the gene make up in human beings. Nuclear plants emit a lot of heat to the atmosphere which affects the environment. They also emit chemical substances which lead to environmental pollution.
   
Energy can also be obtained through recycling. Recycling of plastics has been used to produce new types of fuel. Plastics have been widely used in various application leading high plastic wastes. The used plastics are normally recycled using plastic recycling plants. This method has been widely used in United Kingdom. There are many varieties of plastic which can be recycled. Some of the plastic varieties include polystyrene, polyvinyl Chloride, polystyrene, low density Polyethylene and High density Polyethylene. Plastics use has much environmental impacts. Burning of plastics leads to emission of chemical substances which are released to the atmosphere. They release green house gases which cause environmental impacts. Plastics are non biodegradable and thus they stay for a long time without degrading. After recycling the by products are disposed on the surface. This cause land degradation since do not decompose.
   
Other new types which have some environmental impacts include wind energy. Harnessing of wind to produce energy has also been used. Wind energy is obtained by using wind facilities which are driven by wind. Wind energy is converted to other forms of energy by driving turbines. Environmental impacts occur since wind energy facilities have to be fixed on the land (Meisch, 2007). These wind energy conversion facilities should be installed in an open area to enable maximum utilization of prevailing wind.
   
In conclusion, there are many new types of fuels which have been introduced due to increased energy demand. These new types include fossil fuels, solar energy, wind energy, biofuels and nuclear. There are many environmental impacts due to use of these fuels. The environmental impacts include environmental pollution, acidification, green house accumulation, global warming, solid accumulation and land degradation.

Error-Provocative Designs Ethics in Engineering

According to the article, the engineer is at the center of judgment when it comes to issues about causing harms. After all is being said, everything rises and falls on the engineer. The engineer is saddled with the responsibility of ensuring that the design he makes is excellent and reduces the harm that might occur. 
In the engineering profession, there are several environmental risks. In the creation of a design, the engineer is faced with a dilemma - of what is important between solving a problem through the designing a model or the environmental impact that the design might bring. Does the need for transportation, for instance, outweigh the potential environmental pollution that the exhaust of the car might cause Indeed, the engineering practice comes with potential environmental impacts of pollution in its widest variants. Apart from this, experience has shown that engineering equipments cause a degradation of the environment like the destruction of the ozone layer that cause of the much discussed recent global warming.

In the book, Error-Provocative Designs Ethics in Engineering, Robison argues that ethics lies at the intellectual core of engineering.  According to him, the fact that finding solutions to design problems comes with a choice means that ethics is a central part to the engineering profession. In his words, no engineering choice is morally neutral, that is, the solutions to design problems incorporating choices that either are or are not harmful and either do or do not cause harm (Robison, 2009).

Furthermore, Robinson argues that most design problems in engineering are avoidable. The problems that are caused by a faulty design might have been rectified but they are often left unattended to and like he described it, is like a physician that neglects a diagnosis but gives a wrong medication that has nothing to do with the patients ailment. The ethical aspect of engineering is shown when the problem persists and leads to an accident or harm. However, this is not to say that the problem has not been there since the design has been created.

Summarily, all the issues above can be linked. Considering the fact that there is an option or choice when it comes to designing a model coupled with the environmental impacts engineering profession bring, Robisons position that ethics is at the heart of engineering is not far from being the truth.

Is it justifiable to perform an evil act in order to achieve good consequences

Is it justifiable to perform an evil act in order to achieve good consequences
Many have argued that it is the end that justifies the means. A wide spread school of thought in many people would argue that right and evil depend on the end results. If the end result of an act is good, then the means used are perceived as ethical and justified (Alexander,  Moor, 2007).This philosophy has largely influenced the thinking of many people. Certainly, our culture is diverse and this philosophy appears to be practical in many ways. 

Many have argued that sometimes it is necessary to carry out an evil act in order to achieve good end results. For instance, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States is said to have highly contributed to the end of world War two. In fact, this invasion, though resulted to death of many, is said to have prevented a full scale war between the United States and Japan, which would have led to even more loss of life and property. Therefore, it can be argued that this bombing was necessary because it saved far much worse scenario. It may also be argued that the end result of peace justified the means of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Carlisle, 209). But, it morally wrong and evil to kill innocent civilians and this cannot justify end result of peace.
   
The school of thought that the end justifies the means has also been argued in terms of the consequences of the end results (Alexander  moor, 2007) Here, I will show that an evil act is an evil act and that in many cases, what people call necessary evil can actually be abused. For example, torturing a suspect to get false confessions would be unjustified.

Another case is a lie. It is clearly understood that lying is evil, but many believe there can be exceptions to this believe. For instance, lets say a co-worker at your workplace is breaking the organizations rules, but heshe needs his job to feed hisher family. When asked by the boss if your colleague is breaking the company rules, many would rather tell a lie. This is for the good of saving your colleagues job. The question is would this be a justified evil act One might argue that, indeed, this is a necessary evil. However, it should be understood here that these lies have bad consequences, even if not in the short-run, at the long-run, worse scenarios might occur (Carlisle, 2009). Therefore it is not justifiable to perform an evil in order to achieve good consequences.

In most cases, we usually have the end results first and then use whatever means to achieve them. Indeed, whether what we do will result in good or bad consequences is actually unknowable to us (Alexander  Moor, 2007). Therefore, we should strive as much as possible to use good ethical means for any course we take. The means and end must all be good for the act to be good in the short and long run (Carlisle, 2009).

A Critique of Aristotles Eudaimonia

In a world that has undergone upheaval after another, moral degradation, wars, calamity, crimes, and social injustice, people are struggling to understand the meaning of their existence. Why are we here What is my purpose What would make me happy When asked this query, people provide a myriad of answers  a brand new car, a house, a successful career, money, fame, and even world peace. For centuries, the nature and purpose of human existence have been intensely debated. It remains an open issue.

Among the most persuasive theories to have surfaced in response to this debate has been the concept of eudaimonia, introduced by the Greek philosopher Aristotle in his work Nicomachean Ethics (NE). Aristotles basic assumption is that human are teleological beings all striving toward an ultimate end or a final destination. This assumption, however, has been susceptible of different interpretations, something Aristotle himself recognised Everyone agrees that eudaimonia is the final good they disagree in their conceptions of eudaimonia. This paper builds on this statement and argues that Aristotles conception of eudaimonia is not mankinds ultimate teleological function. In analyzing Aristotles eudaimonia, two assumptions are made. First, that happiness is a condition or a quality of life that is achievable by all, regardless of sex, religion, or social status. Second, the achievement of happiness is not confined solely on the individual level, but on a greater social context.  With these assumptions in mind, Aristotles elitist and conservative definition of happiness is incompatible with dearly-held virtues such as social justice and civil rights and cannot be found to be an acceptable assertion of the highest end of human existence.

Aristotles Eudaimonia

The term eudaimonia is the combination of the words eu (well or good) and daimon (fortune in life) which together loosely means living a life well. The general one-word interpretation of eudaimonia is happiness. Other authors detail the definition of eudaimonia as the state of having a Eudaemon (guardian spirit) and as a result, having a lot of good fortune in life, being well-off and being at peace with themselves, or living and doing well.

How can eudaimonia be construed as it is applied in human affairs Aristotle suggests that Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. The manner and values in which we pursue the highest attainable end by action depends, according to Aristotle, on a number of factors. Eudaimonia is constituted by rational activity in accordance with excellence, virtues, non-sacrificial friendships and scientific knowledge.

Critique of Aristotles Eudaimonia

Aristotle believes that eudaimonia consists of living a life that is self-sufficient. To elaborate, he means that eudaimonia is what makes life something desirable and deficient in nothing. In order to achieve the highest potential of human existence, persons must be comfortable in their circumstances. A person who does well, or someone accomplished financially would qualify in his definition. So would a person who is healthy and never lacking in food or sustenance. Comfort is something that is vital to achieving eudaimonia. Aristotle values a life of pleasure above everything else. According to him, the best life is the most pleasurable life. People who achieve maximum pleasure in life are closer to achieving eudaimonia, but this does not necessarily mean that the singular aim of living is pleasure alone.

The highest end of human existence is thus to live without lack or want of things that make for a pleasurable life. Looking back in history, have heroes such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus Christ for instance, achieved eudaimonia Because eudaimonia rules out suffering in its definition, of living and doing well, living in the service of others or for the interest of many and sacrificing ones life in the process is contrary to pursuing the end of human existence. Honour and sacrifice then, could be not construed as viable aims toward achieving happiness, because it is not possible to be a eudaimon while experiencing the worst evils and misfortune. Calling such a man happy would be proper only for the sake of argument. Aristotles conception of eudaimonia places honour outside of the equation. As long as that person maintains a life that is self-sufficient and is living and doing well, though he may be open detested or despised by the community, he can still be considered a eudaimon. So long as that person engages in a life of activity and contemplation, he is presumably able to achieve the highest end of his existence.

In Aristotles conception of the highest end, what are considered infinitely valuable ends such as justice or freedom are not included. The highest end, in Aristotles view need not be acts that aim to pursue ends that are infinitely valuable. He does not make an attempted to measure this good. What he identifies as the good that would qualify for eudaimonia exclude those that are comprehensive and all-encompassing. As stated earlier, honours are not credited, only certain pleasures. This conception is extremely limiting. A life based on justice and good deeds is definitely happier than a life based on injustice and wickedness.

Aristotle seems to suggest that whatever endeavor human beings seek for themselves are geared toward eudaimonia, but he adds certain limitations as to who is capable of achieving happiness and who is not. For one, happiness is accessible by virtue of birth or the circumstances in which one is born into. He considers good fortune as a primary driver of achieving eudaimonia. Good fortune is defined as something we may wish for or pray for, but we cannot choose between seeking it or not doing so. Aristotle wishes to convey that the outcomes of human beings are beyond the realm of human control, and thus, happiness is naturally provided to some and not to others. Despite our modernity, there are many people still attribute life outcomes to metaphysical explanations. This crafts human beings as passive subjects in their own quest for meaning and happiness. If we follow this line of thinking, mans individual or collective capacity to shape his own destiny is taken for granted.

Aristotle also presents eudaimonia as an end that involves the constant application of moral reasoning. Reasoning separates humans from the beasts so that his happiness, then, is governed by the excellence in which he exercises this peculiar function. Aristotle says of the difference between human beings and animals Man is distinguished from other animals by his power of thought.  So the functions of a man- the effective performance of which will make him a good man- are those of his activities which involve thought and which therefore he does not share with other animals.  Unfortunately, in Aristotle s view, certain groups of people do not fall within the category of beings capable of exercising their moral reasoning. Slaves, for instance, are essentially no different from animals and are hence incapable of achieving eudaimonia. Aristotle even compares slaves to the animal-like fulfillment of bodily desires Animals obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Aristotle concludes that people born of lower socioeconomic backgrounds cannot achieve happiness not because of the injustice posed upon them by society, but because they cannot perform the peculiar function of the human being, which is to nourish both the body and the soul (reason).

In this sense, Aristotelian ethics reveals its elitist position. Excellence and happiness is reserved only to the mature male adult of the upper class and cannot be possible for those outside the Greek body politic - women, children, non-Greeks, slaves, or laborers. Aristotles elitist ethics have been the subject of criticism by many. David Bostock describes NE as radically innovative but immoral, or it is a recipe for unthinking moral conservatism. This non-egalitarian view of happiness is something that may have been acceptable during Aristotles time, but certainly not at present. The very act of slavery, which Aristotle supports, is in itself immoral precisely because it reduces human beings otherwise  capable of eudaimonia to the status of animals. The selective assignment of happiness to a few runs contrary to modern values of democracy. The highest good is that which is supposed to bring the greatest happiness to the greater number.

Another prominent critique of Aristotles eudaimonia is the strict intellectualism it espouses, and its treatment of contemplation as the exclusive good. Aristotle likens study as

...the activity of the gods that is superior in blessedness And so the human activity that it most akin to the gods will, more than any others, have the character of happiness Hence happiness extends just as far as study extends, and the more someone studies, the happier he is, not coincidentally but insofar as he studies, since study is valuable in itself. And so happiness will be some kind of study.

In this regard, for Aristotle, philosophers fall on top of the list of the persons who are most likely to achieve eudaimonia. Others argue that Aristotles emphasis on intellectualism is an advocacy for amorality.  Aristotles recommendation on the individual and singular pursuit of intellectualism betrays the functional roles that human beings need to perform for their collective survival. What would the world look like if all of us strive for eudaimonia by leading the life of a philosopher Production of goods and services that are required in any functioning society would be sacrificed. Couldnt a life devoted to excellence in whatever form of activity, labor, or endeavor constitute happiness as well
       
Aristotles concept of eudaimonia, as one characterised by living and faring well, despite its weaknesses, remains one of the most comprehensive guides to ascertaining the nature and purpose of human existence. While it recognises the virtues of human beings and allows their capacity to achieve happiness, it is elitist and selective as to who is capable of achieving that ultimate end for mankind. It is partial toward the rich and influential and against the disenfranchised such as the slaves, women, non-Greeks and children. Moreover, Aristotles overemphasis on intellectualism as the highest good is impractical as it is individualistic. I believe eudaimonia is not confined within such an exclusivist perspective. Happiness is something achievable by all and pertains to the highest good for the greater number, an objective that is difficult to attain because of the complexities of human society.

Is it acceptable that the highest end for human existence is a self-sufficient end Certainly, there are persons whose singular aim may be eudaimonia. Self-sufficiency may mean wealth, prominence, and glory for some but it may mean service, love, and sacrifice for others. The definition of eudaimonia, then, is highly subjective. Some people may desire for more things while some people desire other things more. In order to live well and fare well, some people might not deem it best to live entirely for their own comfort and pleasure, but for others, and in so doing, experience a sense of self-sufficiency. In placing criteria for happiness, Aristotles conception of eudaimonia falls short. In my opinion, the highest end of human existence is doing the best out of his circumstances to achieve whatever ends he values most.

State Laws and the Internet

Most states have not enacted laws regulating internet operations and its contents.   The laws governing the use of internet communication, transaction and distribution can generally be termed as cyber laws.  The term internet can be defined as a collection of interconnected electronic data network around the world.  It has been difficult for majority of states to have legal framework serving to regulate internet applications because of the less distinctiveness of cyberlaw as a branch of Law.  However, cyberlaw covers several aspects of privacy, intellectual property law, jurisdiction and freedom of expression. The complexity and the sensitivity of matters related to the internet have sparked a heated debate about the whole process of jurisdiction (Saco, 2002, p.16). 

Internet applications do not have any geographical and jurisdiction borders although the users in few states, if any, are subject to physical jurisdiction and the authority of the law independent of their existence on the internet. Usually, internet transactions may involve three types of jurisdictions the state or national laws applicable where the individual lives, the state laws of the server hosting the transaction and the state laws which apply to the business or individual in question.  Theoritically, this means that an internet user in the US carrying out a transaction with another internet user in German but using the same server located in Canada could be subject to the three state laws governing internet usage.

The states aspect of sovereignty is the jurisdiction system and this refers to the legislative, administrative and judicial competence.  These laws are often extended beyond borders when considering matters of the internet which do not recognize the territorial and sovereignty borders.  This is problematic when designing uniform laws governing internet usage and as such, state laws do not provide enactments for internet usage. The conflict between international and private laws is not unusual, making states to find it very hard to enact any statute governing internet applications (Jerremy, 2000, p.23).   

For instance, web site contents could be legal in one country but illegitimate in another country. The lack of uniformity in the code of jurisdiction makes it difficult for courts to make decisions and thus state laws in most cases do not apply to internet. 
Cyberlaws in addition have a problem when considering whether the internet is a physical space which can be subject to laws of jurisdiction.  Sometimes the interne can be thought of being a world of itself and therefore not subject to any jurisdiction laws.     

Proponents of a self regulated internet community feel that the governments should leave alone matters related to the internet for enhanced technological development.  The argument why state laws should not intrude into matters of the internet emanates from the free nature human beings to inhabit the mind and any technological invention derived from such thinking and such inhabitation should never be constrained by legal factors (Sims, 2002, p.13). 

Despite such reasoning mainly coming from cybersecession initiatives, internet users are always subject to the laws of the state within which he or she gets connected or networked. It has happened in many cases that individuals become responsible to answer court charges related to internet usage.   One such example is Jake Baker who faced criminal charges in court for irresponsible usage of the internet which may be called an e-misconduct. The case, United States v. Baker was brought against Jake Baker, the University of Michigan undergraduate which linked numerous incidents of snuff stories written by him while still a student at the University.  Jake Baker violated the 18 U.S.C. 875(c) by communicating through interstate threat to kidnap andor injure another individual (Hoffman, et al, 2004, p.27).  

Baker, in October 1994 began submitting sexually charged stories that depicted fantasies of torture, murder and rape to an internet group, alt.sex.stories.  Particularly, Baker on 9th January, 1995, submitted a story to the group giving details about the fantasies entailed in torture, murder and rape of one of his classmates (Hoffman, et al, 2004, p.30).  After Bakers story got brought to the attention of the authorities of the University of Michigan, he was arrested by the FBI and was charged with six counts of communicating via interstate or foreign trade threats to kidnap or injure another individual.  The FBI used the e-mails between Baker and another Canadian, Arthur Gonda to determine five of the counts to arrest Baker and the sixth count was determined by the story of his classmate on torture, murder and rape (Devine, 2000, p.35).  The court declaration of Bakers case saw no criminal act in Bakers actions and Judge Avern Cohn dismissed the case for lack of evidence since Baker would act due to fantasies.  Although the Government appealed the decision by the lower court, the 6ht US Court of Appeals on the 29th January, 1997 upheld this decision and Baker was set free to this date.

The prosecution of Baker was due to six counts of communicating a threat via interstate network and not the violation of obscenity.  The FBI was later involved in the investigation of Baker with permission from the authorities of the University of Michigan.  The FBI recommendation was that Baker be charged with the violation of the internet since it is a form of interstate commerce provided by the United States Code.
The decision by the government to charge Baker of writing pornographic stories was criticized by free speech advocates who claimed that the Government violated the First Amendment right to freedom of expression.  At the same time, some other people supported the Governments decision claiming that the stories by Baker were snuff and filth and that he was planning to attack them (Paul, 2001, p.28). 

The most important part of Bakers case was the transmission of his stories in a wide medium and that his pornographic content was watched by several internet advocates.  The state and even at the federal level could not have any law against Baker since the internet is a medium touching diverse spheres not restricted by definite borders.  The charge of Bakers case of communicating a threat over interstate lines set a precedent for freedom of speech on the internet.  Otherwise, the charge may not have been able to find Baker guilty were it not that baker published the so called snuff and filth stories and made an internet correspondence. The case of Baker shows that state laws do not fully provide for the regulation of internet usage. 

In another case, several users of the software, peer to peer (P2P) which enables internet file sharing were subject to civil law suit for infringement of copyright.  The jurisdiction of internet regulation often leads into a conflict especially when the lawsuits are international in nature.  State laws do not totally apply in these situations where the internet which is a medium without borders is involved.  Jurisdiction problems always arise due to the different state standards concerning the burden of proof in any civil lawsuit. For instance, it may seem difficult for an American celebrity to win a lawsuit against an online magazine claiming that he was insulted by the magazine for defamation (George, 1992, p.20).  This is however not the case in England where the standards for libelous speech is much lesser than in the US. Therefore, if the same celebrity has economic ties or any relationship to England, he or she can win the suit if the claim if filed in the British court system. 

Another aspect making state laws not to apply to internet is the net neutrality.  Net neutrality is a system proposed by the user access networks which are participating in the advocacy of putting no regulation on internet content, platforms, sites and all kinds of equipments enhancing the use of internet. This factor has affected the regulation of internet infrastructure. The lack of regulation of internet infrastructure has been regarded as the most important aspect of cyberlaw with direct implications on the jurisdiction system. Normally, the laws existing in one jurisdiction should have an effect in another jurisdiction when there is an effect on the telecommunication companies or host servers (Franda, 2006, p.32).  The irrelevance of state laws is seen in the charge against Comcast which is the largest US cable company by high speed internet users applying the software of file sharing. 

The FCC (Federal Communication Commission) on the 1st august, 2008 officially supported the complaint by the file sharing software users against Comcast.  The FCC declared that the company, Comcast, had illegitimately restricted users from using its service that was high speed from using the software of file sharing.  The ruling, according to Kevin J. Martin, the FCC chairman, was to set a precedent that the ISP (Internet Service Providers) and all communication companies do not deter their customers from using their networks unless a reasonable argument was tabled (George, 1992, p.58).  This case is controversial to the infringement laws which are always vulnerable to be broken by users of Peer to Peer or file sharing software.  Therefore, the FCC ruling clearly showed that state laws do not apply at all to the regulation and usage of the internet. 

A controversial part of irrelevance of state laws to matters relating to internet, arise from the Governments investigation process into cybercrimes.   Cybercriminals are ever getting trickier and the Government computer searches are getting extensively high. The reason attributed to this is because when cybercriminals discover novel techniques of conducting their activities, the governments have to find other novel possibilities to gather round computer evidence. An example is a case where a certain group of the US law enforcement agents using the P2P software to dig out evidence from the computers of the criminals (Herrington, 1992, p.45).  In order to extract information from the criminals, one needs special software and obviously an Internet connection at both sides (the criminal and the investigator).

The defendants of this Government activity have alleged infringement of their constitutional privileges and acted to hold back evidence collected from such investigations using the P2P.  The courts have however held that the Government searches are constitutional and that no infringement of any human rights as provided by the constitution. In particular, the courts, almost unanimously claim that they do not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution safeguards the individuals against ill mannered searches and attacks. The Amendment provides for people the right to be safe and sound in their houses, papers, themselves and effects against awkward searches and attacks (Sims, 2002, p.61). The Amendment hence requires prior to searching, a probable cause and a pledge of confirmation explaining the place to be searched and the persons or things to be apprehended when issuing a warrant order.

The case laws of the United States require that the accused claiming that the Fourth Amendment has been violated must be in a position to prove that there is a substantial anticipation of privacy in the place that was searched or the things that were apprehended. This has led to the development of a number of circuit court tests to find out whether a substantial anticipation of privacy is real in an individual case. For instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the tenth Circuit, has held that the accused claim of substantial anticipation of privacy will involve two inquires.   The first enquiry will examine if the defendant is able to show a prejudiced anticipation of privacy in the area that was searched.  The second enquiry looks at if the prejudiced anticipation of privacy is one that the society is geared up to recognize as substantial (Franda, 2006, p.59). This means that the court holds that ones anticipation of privacy from the government infringement is levelheaded in light of all surrounding state of affairs.

An example of this observation is the case that was filed as U.S. v. Brese, case No. CR-08-52-D.  This case shows clearly hoe the court interpreted the Fourth Amendment claims when peer-to-peer software was used by law enforcement agents to gather evidence to track criminals. The law enforcement agents, without permission, accessed Breses computer files using the P2P computer software.  The specific type of P2P software that was used was called LimeWire. The investigation of Brese by the law enforcement agents came due to the suspicion that Breses computer had pornographic files which was against the law (Devine, 2000, p.78).

The law enforcement agents, through some tool that LimeWire provides, searched for the files in the computer of Brese.  The agents successfully found the pornographic files and downloaded them to serve as evidence or rather a confirmation of their suspicion. The law enforcement agents employed a governmental subpoena to determine the identity of the allied person to the Internet Protocol (IP) address where the computer was situated. The next step was to obtain a warrant order for suspects (Breser) home where he was putting up with some other family members. When the time of trial came, Breser(defendant) decided to hold back the evidence that was obtained all the way through the P2P software claiming the government violation of the  Fourth Amendment (George, 1992, p.104).  

Bresers suppression of the evidence that was obtained by the law enforcement agents through the P2P software was highly opposed by the government. The government side claimed the file sharing function was never render inoperative and any person with an Internet connection could easily have the right of entry to the files in the computer of the defendant. Further, the government put in plain words that the P2P software allowed direct connection through the Internet between two computers.  This, the government claimed, led to the sharing of files between the two computers since they used compatible P2P software. In its defense, the government referred to two similar P2P software cases where the court declared that they do not violate the US Constitutions Fourth Amendment (Hoffman, et al, 2004, p.86).

These cases were United States v. Shafer (2007) and United States v. Perrine, (2008). The decision by the court concerning the case of Breser held that in spite of Bresers prejudiced anticipation of privacy in his computer and the files it contained, the anticipation was not practical since anyone with an Internet connection and was using LimeWire or any compatible software could have gotten the right of entry to the files of the defendant. The court ruling found therefore no violation of the defendants constitutional right in the side of the government because there was no practical anticipation of privacy in the sharing of the file over the internet since the internet goes beyond borders (Jerremy, 2000, p.43). 

The internet revolution has provided a lot of possibilities especially the ease of communication and transacting business. Information sharing problems can be called a thing of the past.  An individual in the US can share information with an individual in Germany or Canada.  These enhanced possibilities have merits and demerits.  Used properly, any technology can be beneficial to great extent. The need to enact laws regulating the use of the internet is essential in all states but this always meets so many stumbling blocks.  The main reason being attributed by the nature of the internet technology itself (Paul, 2001, p. 33).  It may not be compared to the trading of a good which is particularly produced in a certain country. Internet cuts across all geographic boundaries making every state to have different laws.  Generally, these state laws are never applicable when it comes to issues of internet.