Millions and millions of people are dying from starvation and malnutrition while we in America are going about our daily lives only thinking of our self interest. Economic Justice affects not only its victims but those who are not suffering as well. There are two questions that concern us regarding Economic Justice: 1) are we obligated to work towards ending poverty worldwide and 2) if we are in fact obligated, what is the extent of our duty? There are two virtues that of charity and justice. The virtue of charity, which is the view of Singer, says that virtue requires us to seek what is best for others. In other words though we may be in a comfortable state of living and having the best for ourselves, we should also seek that best for others. Van Wyk on the other hand upholds the virtue of justice, which has to do with what people owe each other and respecting other's rights. With Van Wyk's view there is more of a cause and definite reason why we should help one another and end poverty. I will discuss then support VanWyk's view that we are obligated to helping those in poverty.
Van Wyk believes that we can be obligated to help those that are poverty stricken through positive and negative duties. Negative duties are those duties not to harm others, i.e. leaving someone alone, not doing anything to help someone, yet you are not harming them directly. Positive duties are those to benefit others, i.e. helping someone out. His argument from positive duty says it is morally wrong to not to attempt to provide another with the basic necessities of life when we have the ability to do so. Van Wyk's argument from negative duty fits more specifically to the Eggonian case, which says we have an obligation to aid those in need if past harm has been inflicted. 1) If a person, government, etc., has harmed another then that person is obligated to take corrective action in response to the past harms inflicted. Premise one is basically saying that if you or a country are responsible for the harm of someone or something else, then you are definitely obligated in rectifying the damage that you caused. He uses the Kantian duty not to harm as support for this premise. 2) In the cases of many poor countries, their deprivation is due (to some extent) to the past actions of these countries that are affluent today. Affluent, meaning having wealth or an abundance of a material. Many poor countries are poor just because of other countries’ need for greed and inconsideration in becoming more than stable but extremely wealthy. He gives the example of America’s use of energy at twice the rate of Western Europeans must raise energy prices for the poor. This all leads to the conclusion that 3) Today’s affluent countries are obligated to take corrective action in response to past harms inflicted i.e., relieving poverty in poor nations. Essentially, if a prosperous country has hurt another country to get to their point of prosperity then they are accountable for restoring that country. Van Wyk goes on to say that even individuals who played no role whatsoever in causing poverty in poor nations are obligated to make preparations if they possess wealth that resulted from activities which brought about poverty in other nations. He draws support from the analogy that if A stole B’s money yesterday and gave it to C today, C obviously has a duty to return it even though C didn’t steal it.
This argument fits specifically to the Eggonian case since the Eggonians discovered that they could capture the frazzles and keep them locked up in factories where they could produce eggs year round. Prior to this discover, Furesia was the home of these frazzles and they would travel to Eggonia to mate and lay their eggs. But since the Eggonians stripped Furesia of having anything to do with the harvesting and selling of the frazzles(their only natural resource), it eventually killed their economy while boosting the Eggonian economy. This is a direct example of Van Wyk’s argument from negative duty. Because the Eggonians became affluent as a direct result of harming Furesia, they are obligated to take the country out of their poverty stricken state into a stable one.
An objector to Van Wyk might respond by saying in some cases it may be morally justifiable to risk people’s lives. Therefore, we are not necessarily obligated to make reparations for past harms inflicted. For example, a case where a pedestrian was injured because we were speeding to get an ill person to the hospital. In this objection, it is justifiable to harm others for the betterment of someone else, but is that fair?
Van Wyk’s response would be a person who is speeding for a good reason is still responsible for anyone that is injured as a result of his speeding. This is consistent with Kant’s view since other wise the injured person would be being used as a means to some other end.
Van Wyk admits an objection to his argument from negative duty. He admits that in going by the 'Argument from Negative Duty,' it is difficult to tell what the extent of our obligation is. If we are in agreement with this argument, then it is unclear as to where our obligation ends. I feel that in the case of the Eggonians and Furesians, the country should at least be restored to it's previous state. In any case where one has done direct harm on another, they should be obligated to repair the damages that they made. Therefore, for those of us who contribute something to famine reliefe through our taxes, etc., we have no idea if we are obligated to give any more than we already do.

Abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy, which may include the loss of life of a fetus. A fetus is that stage of development of the unborn entity, which begins at the point at which brain activity becomes detectable and lasts until birth, approximately eight weeks.
Viability is the point at which the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, the 24th week. In the case of Sue a single 23-year-old professional with an active sex life has found that she is 2 months pregnant while using a 99% effective contraceptive. She is considering whether or not having an abortion at this stage would be morally permissible.
Don Marquis believes abortion is wrong in most cases and would definitely argue that it is morally impermissible for Sue to have an abortion because it deprives one of a Future Like Ours (FLO). Marquis uses the term fetus in the non-medical sense of “a developing human being
from the time of conception to the time of birth” So many pro and anti abortionists feel that it is very important to consider whether or not the fetus is a person, and for that reason base their decision on that. As for Marquis, he is not interested in whether or not the fetus is a person. He strongly feels that killing is wrong, and wants to find out the reasons for it being wrong. He is focused on seeing whether or not that reason applies to the killing of a fetus.
On the other hand there is Thomson, she and Marquis somewhat agree on the issue of the fetus but not on the wrong or rightness on abortion. Thomson believes that the abortion issue cannot be decided strictly by determining whether or not the fetus is a moral person( i.e. has the right to life). Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that even if we grant that the fetus is a moral person, it is not always the case that abortion is morally impermissible. I will discuss then support Marquis’ view in opposition of abortion and Thomson's view in favor of abortion.
Marquis argues against abortion in his argument for why it is wrong. He states that 1) The Future Like Ours account for why killing is wrong. A future like ours is made valuable by the many experiences we face throughout our lives. No one’s future is guaranteed to be perfect, but the trials and joys that we face in our lives are what make our future valuable and complete. These experiences are either valuable in themselves or they are necessary means to some other valuable experiences. So even if what you may go through now isn’t what you expected it is still part of you they are part of a valuable future. Marquis draws support to his view by claiming that it corresponds with important intuitions. The experience that we face give us many important intuitions that form our outlook and decisions in situations. For example, it explains why we hold murder to be the worst crime, it matches our considered judgments about why death is a misfortune, it explains why we don’t find it wrong to end the life of a permanently unconscious person and it explains why we hold killing infants to be wrong. These intuitions are all a part of conclusions we draw throughout our future, without a future there is no chance to form these intuitions. Marquis says that killing us imposes on us the misfortune of a premature death. That misfortune underlies the wrongness. When we are able to have a valuable future we can many times realize what is right and wrong, and as a result we know that killing and a premature death is surely wrong. Premature death is a misfortune, in general, because it deprives an individual of a future value. To purposely prevent someone from even having a chance at life is a misfortune. Each person is entitled to a right to life An individual's future value will be valuable to that individual if that individual will come, or would come, to value it. Thus, killing someone is wrong when it deprives him/her of a future like ours.2) Aborting the fetus would deprive it of a FLO. By having an abortion under any circumstances would deprive it of a valuable future, which as a result of our intuitions we know is wrong. 3) Aborting a fetus is wrong.
Thomson is operating under the premise that an act is morally impermissible if it is either: a) unjust, or b) uncharitable. Justice is the virtue that has to do with respecting someone's rights. Charity is the virtue that attaches us to the goal of others. Thomson believes that the killing of a fetus is unjust only if the woman has in some strong sense given the fetus either explicit permission e.g. purposely becoming pregnant or implicit permission e.g. having unprotected sex. Thomson considers three possibilities of the right to life (RTL). 1) the RTL is the right to be given the bare minimum or needs for a continued life. This possibility feels that a person can get by on the basics of life, though that is true this wouldn’t be a very happy life with nothing more than bare minimums. 2) the RTL is the right not to be killed by anybody. Everyone has a right to be life without being murdered. 3) The RTL is the right not to be killed unjustly. Killing is not a just act, and no fetus deserves this sentence. She uses the people seed analogy to show that it’s the same as having protected sex.
The people-seed analogy goes like this: people seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. Like Sue, you don’t want children, so you fix up your window with the best mesh you can buy, but in Sue’s case she was using a 99% effective form of contraceptive. As can happen, however, and on very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and upon opening the window a seed drifts in and takes root. While the person realizes that there is some minute chance that a person seed might enter the house, it seems intuitively mistaken to say that it has a right to stay in the house once it takes root. This analogy is similar to Sue’s situation because using contraceptive is like having screens on the windows; having sex is like opening the windows; and though she did take the right steps to prevent having a baby which is like preventing a people seed from entering the house in both cases the protective measures that were taken were defected and lead to unwanted situations. Thomson feels that despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows and took precautions the person-plant, and the baby alike have no right to stay. Thus, Thomson believes that abortion is impermissible on considerations of justice only when the fetus is killed after the mother has given it either explicit or implicit permission to use her body. Which leads to the conclusion that even though Sue was having sex, she has not given it explicit or implicit permission to use her body, it is not impermissible for her to have an abortion.
An opponent might respond to Marquis' view by saying since Sue was using a contraceptive, by the FLO account, contraception and abstinence would be immoral because they would deprive a being of a FLO. Because contraception results in one less FLO, the FLO argument entails that contraception, indeed, abstention from sex when conception is possible,
is immoral. A possible objection to Thomson's argument by responding that the analogies on which her case rests are different in important ways from real-life situations. For instance, the people seed case is disanalogous to a real life pregnancy because people seeds floating
around in the air is extremely unrealistic. The analogy shows how easy it is for a people seed to get in someone’s house, but two people have to make a decision to have sex, keeping in mind that no matter how they protect themselves there is still a chance of having a baby. That is a very realistic view in today’s society, and something like a people seed floating around in the air like pollen is impossible.
Marquis might respond to his opponent by saying prior to contraception, there is no non-arbitrarily determinate individual that is being deprived of a FLO. For example, while we can agree that a fetus is deprived of a FLO when an abortion is performed, we aren't as sure as to
what individual is harmed when we practice contraception or abstention. There is no one being harmed when contraception is being used and definitely no one when some one abstains from sex. When someone is pregnant there is an obvious life at stake, but with contraception and abstention there is a chance that a life could be born if they choose to stop those practices. The wrong of killing is primarily a wrong to the individual who is killed; at the time of contraception there is no individual to be wronged. A response that Thomson may give to his objectors is that we can alter the cases to eliminate these differences and the result would still be the same. Surely, we do not have any such “special responsibility” for a person unless we have assumed it, explicitly or implicitly.
I agree more with Marquis view on the moral impermissibility of abortion because it is wrong, as he says, in most cases and definitely wrong in the case of Sue. I am against abortion in all cases except for rape. Sue knew the risks of having sex and even though she took
precautions she must have been aware that it wasn’t 100% effective. That 1%, however extremely slim, was still the chance that got her pregnant. Though Marquis isn’t concerned with the stage of the life, I am thinking that she was 2 months pregnant which means that it is a fetus and should have a right to life as Thomson would put it. Thomson does make a strong
argument with the people seed analogy but I still don’t agree that abortion is morally permissible. I prefer Marquis’ position because he, like myself, is against abortion in most cases because it deprives it of a Future Like Ours. Though we can never guarantee a perfect future everyone should still be entitled to one.







Abortion: Marquis vs. Thomson



Melissa Brown
March 31, 2003

Melissa Brown
Charlie Lowe
ENC1102
February 28, 2003
In what ways are Email and Instant Messaging taking over the telephone?
As a means of communication, people are putting the telephone down and tapping away on a keyboard. Online communication is an extremely important mode of communication via the web that seems to be taking the place of the telephone. Telephones and fax machines have taken a back seat to the computer and its capabilities. Electronic mail and Instant messaging are becoming more popular every day. Email and IM are more convenient and effective than the telephone which is why uses of both are important to ones business as well as personal life. But is one better than the other?
E-mail is sending a message to someone electronically. Email can be sent or received from anywhere to anywhere in the world, which has, to a certain extent, erased what we were using the telephone for years ago. Email lets you save addresses, send, receive and save messages and so much more. Instant messaging also allows for some of the same things, you can send and receive messages , save buddy names, design the IM to fit your preferences. Both of these tools allow you to edit the fonts and leave away messages or auto responses when someone sends you something.
Personally, email permits people to keep in touch with family and friends, near and far, that normally would cost too much using the telephone. Email has been adopted almost universally. Take for example, filling out an application, they not only ask you for you home address but also your email address. Adults and kids alike are using email, but the it isn’t the
same for IM. IM is also used in the homes to keep in touch but for the most part by teenagers. Amanda Lenhart reported that for most online teens, instant message has not replaced the telephone as the principle communication tools with their friends. But a fifth of online teens...say that IM is the main way they deal with friends. A prime example is students in the computer lab here at school. The first thing we do is check our email, but we also sign on to our IM to chat with any available friends. So both email and IM are replacements for the telephones when they can’t be used.
Email is less formal which makes it easier. As pointed out by the Internet Marketing Consultants (IMC), if you’re placing a phone call, you have to worry about the time of day, but with email you can send a message and the receiver can pick it up at a time that is convenient for them. Although “most electronic mail is used in an asynchronous fashion, where senders and recipients write and read independently of each other at different points in time.”(Palme 37). Although IM is also less formal its used in a synchronous fashion, which is identical to a telephone conversation in that the reply is instantaneous. When sending an IM, once you send a message, the receiver sends a response instantly. This is an advantage of IM that isn’t always guaranteed by email. Yes, someone might respond to your email right away, but the back and forth of sending/receiving email can consume a lot of time, in cases like those IM is much more effective.
IM is a great tool to use at home to talk to family and friends but is it appropriate and being used in businesses. IM is slowly making its way into businesses. According to the Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) article, "AOL Invites Businesses Onto Its 'Buddy List' " it seems that many Americans are using Instant Messaging in the workplace but not for work. Corporations fear that allowing Instant Messaging will allow confidential information to "get out". As a result, AOL has a committee dedicated to solving this concern. "America Online's new IM product keeps internal messages within the company instead of routing them through its own outside network". (WSJ) This new piece of software is called AIM Enterprise, which is an Instant Messenger specially designed for both small and large businesses. Due to the initial lack of security, businesses are extremely reluctant to use IM, but can’t information being threatened by IM be released through email?
As far as email in business, email is business. Basically email is a part of every business without question. Professionals at the University of Colorado see email as a very useful and “convenient tool …to communicate with their bosses” and each other. Email allows for things that the telephone does not, like sending software. The IMC view email, as a way to keep consumers informed about the market. Email also serves as a reminder, which can speed the process in which the work is done. In essence email is more effective than the telephone. Palme affirms this in his book Electronic Mail:
Only every fourth phone call reaches the intended person: there are three unsuccessful attempts for each successful call... The time cost for each successful phone call is 20 minutes, compared to 4.7 minutes for an electronic mail message. If the task can be completed with less than four messages, then electronic mail is certainly more efficient. (Palme 22).
Email is also much quicker than the telephone and has gained more use by businesses because of this. These benefits make email “more of a replacement for phoning than for postal mail.” (Palme 24). The "ability to use email for daily correspondence and as a point of initial contact with prospects is essential." (IMC) Isn’t IM quicker than the telephone but businesses continue to reject it.
Businesses are questioning if IM should stay. "At stake are a host of potential business uses for instant messaging that can reach beyond closed corporate walls--from customer service to instant purchasing and marketing." (Hu) As far as its connection with the telephone, "Instant messaging has become one of the most popular applications on the Internet and has been described as a communications system rivaling the telephone."(Hu) I think IM could be extremely useful if adopted by businesses. For example, if a boss needs to talk to his secretary he can just send her an IM, instead of having to pick up the telephone and dial a number to get her. It seems that if welcomed the service will definitely take the place of what the telephone was used for at one point. But even if accepted IM will rival the already successful system of Email.
In both the home and office IM allows you to complete multiple tasks. I can IM five or six people while typing a paper, and playing a game online. This really can’t be done with email. When writing an email, your focused on completing that message. Using IM is similar to talking on the phone while doing many other tasks. But then again email, is favored more in the workplace and home, it seems more professional than IM. It’s hard to say if one is better than the other because they both serve their purpose. Nevertheless one thing’s for sure, they are better than the telephone. Email and IM have come a long way and soon enough they will both be into practice at home and work, so then what’s next: discussion boards?

Works Cited
Angwin, Julia. “AOL Invites Businesses Onto Its ‘Buddy List’.” Wall Street Journal. November 04, 2002. http://www.intelligent.net/public/corporate/press_110402.htm. (Feb. 06, 2003)
Colorado State University. “Email Uses.” 1999. http://writing.colostate.edu/references/documents/email/list3.cfm. (Feb. 06,2003)
Hu, Jim. “Is IM ready to do Business?” ZD Net. June 28, 2002. http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2872853,00.html. (Feb. 06, 2003)
“Effective Uses of Email for Realtors.” Internet Marketing Consultants Newsletter. Oct. 23, 2001. http://www.imcd.com/news/issue3.html. (Feb. 06, 2003)
Lenhart, Amanda, Lee Rainie, and Oliver Lewis. “Teenage Life Online: The Rise of the Instant Message Generation and the Internet’s Impact on Friendships and Family Relationships.” June 20, 2001. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=36, (Feb. 09, 2003)
Palme, Jacob. Electronic Mail. Norwood: Artech House, 1995.


Self-Evaluation

• Your work as a blogger.
• Your participation in online conversations via the comment boards.
• Your work on the writing project.
• Your work on responding to group member drafts.
• The work you have done beyond the minimum requirements of this course.
• Your strengths in these areas.
• Your weaknesses in these areas.
• The most important thing(s) you've learned.
• What you like about this class so far.

Prior to this class I had never heard of blogging, but now it’s the center of my work. I feel I have grown as a blogger. I’m much more familiar with it and have all of the required blogging assignments and a little more. I participated in the comment boards when required. But I also respond to any blogs that I thnk are interesting. So of them are really funny. As far as commenting without being told to do it, I usually post comments on something not related to an article or something. Some of the weblog members post interesting topics and I love to share my opinion so that’s a great way for me to do it. I think I’ve worked really hard on this writing project. I know I tried my best in researching, writing, and responding. I think this research paper has really helped me to grow as a writer. I was really excited about the project because it was a topic I was able to choose and be interested in. I didn’t really feel like I was doing the normal boring research paper, which is why I enjoyed it, even though it was a lot of work. It’s hard for me to criticize when it comes to writing but I try to help when I can. Responding to my peers drafts wasn’t very hard since I had been reading their drafts from the beginning. I’ve tried to blog to my site more than just when we have an assignment. Also when researching for the paper, I’ve blogged more so it would be easier to write the paper. I think even in my assigned blog posts there were a lot more than 150 words. When you write and are focused on a word count you’ll never get there. It’s like they say “a watched pot never boils.” So I just write not even thinking about how many words we have to have and that also allows my writing to come out much better.

Melissa Brown
Charlie Lowe
January 10, 2003


After completing the first reading on blogging, George Siemen’s “The Art of Blogging”-parts 1&2, I must admit I was still in a state of confusion. I’ve never heard of blogging prior to a few days ago while in class, so I need all the help I can get. The two other articles are much more clearer on what I should be doing and expecting when dealing with blogging. If I had to define blogging, well at least from what I understand, I would say it’s another way of communication via the Internet. Blogging is like a continuous cycle of email. Instead of someone continuing to send an email and responding back and forth like that, they can just post whatever the message is and people can respond. Blogging also, from what I understand, is like an online diary. It’s just like keeping a written diary except that you publish it on the Internet and is open to feedback. The blog sites that I’ve explored seem to deal with one specific topic and the “bloggers” express their opinions through the site. Looking at the sites that we were asked to look at I am beginning to understand what blogging really entails and I really can’t wait to begin blogging for myself. In Meg Hourihan’s article, “What We're Doing When We Blog,” she best puts it when she says, “you use your blog to link to your friends and rivals and comment on what they're doing. Blog posts are short, informal, sometimes controversial, and sometimes deeply personal, no matter what topic they approach. They can be characterized by their conversational tone and unlike a more formal essay or speech, a blog post is often an opening to a discussion, rather than a full-fledged argument already arrived at.” After reading that, along with the rest of the article it gave me a better understanding of what to expect when blogging. I think blogging is a great thing because of its many benefits. I hope to become very fluent in blogging ( as if it were a language J) and can’t wait to start blogging.

In what ways is Email taking the place of the Telephone?
As a means of communication, people are putting the telephone down and tapping away on a keyboard. Not only can you find information on the Internet but you can send and receive it as well. Online communication is an extremely important mode of communication via the web that seems to be taking the place of the telephone. Telephones and fax machines have taken a back seat to the computer and its capabilities. Electronic mail and Instant messaging are becoming more popular every day. Email and IM are more convenient and effective than the telephone which is why uses of both are important to ones business as well as personal life. But is better than the other?
E-mail is sending a message to someone electronically. Email can be sent or received from anywhere to anywhere in the world, which has, to a certain extent, erased what we were using the telephone for years ago. The possibilities are endless with email, you can save addresses, send messages, now or later, receive messages, save messages and so much more. Instant messaging also allows for some of the same things, you can send and receive messages , save buddy names, design the IM to fit your preferences. Both of these tools allow you to edit the fonts and leave away messages or auto responses when someone sends you something.
Personally, email permits people to keep in touch with family and friends, near and far, that normally would cost too much using the telephone. Email has been adopted almost universally. Take for example, filling out an application or something, they not only ask you for you home address but also you email address. Adults and kids alike are using email, which means that it must be an important and successful form of communication. On the other hand, there is IM, which is also used in the homes to keep in touch but for the most part by teenagers. Amanda Lenhart reported that for most online teens, instant message has not replaced the telephone as the principle communication tools with their friends. But a fifth of online teens...say that IM is the main way they deal with friends. A prime example is students in the computer lab here at school. The first thing we do is check our email, but we also sign on to our IM to chat with any available friends. So both email and IM are replacements for the telephones when they can’t be used.

Email is less formal which makes it easier. As pointed out by the Internet Marketing Consultants (IMC), if you’re placing a phone call, you have to worry about the time of day, but with email you can send a message and the receiver can pick it up at a time that is convenient for them. Although “most electronic mail is used in an asynchronous fashion, where senders and recipients write and read independently of each other at different points in time.”(Palme 37).

In what ways is Email and Instant Messaging taking the place of the Telephone?

Putting the phone down and tapping away on a keyboard seems to be what many people are doing nowadays as a means of communication. The internet was a genius invention in it self, but then came more. Not only could you find information on the internet but you can send and receive it as well. Electronic mail and Instant messaging are becoming more popular every day. I remember when I first got "hip" to email. Since I was never into writing letters this allowed me to keep in touch without the stressful routine of getting stamps, addressing an envelope, making sure you put the right stamp on there( can't be too sure with the price of a stamp going up almost every day :-) ). E-mail has basically just made life a bit easier, which is always good for me.
Then there is Instant Messaging, you can talk to someone thousands of miles away or right next door all at the same time. I first experienced the instant messenger a few years ago. A friend of mine "emailed" (that email is so darn handy :-)) the software to me and told me to download it. I had no idea what it was but before long I was sure in love with it. This AOL Instant Messenger allowed me to talk to my friends, which was all I needed to hear around that age. I was already addicted to the telephone in my early teenage years, but then again who isn't. Finding another way to communicate with friends was great, and not to mention I wouldn't have to worry about someone calling for my mother or worry about her telling me to "get off the phone it's time for bed!" I always had the excuse, "I'm doing homework" when she would tell me to get off of the computer. But it wasn't a complete lie because I was doing homework, it just wasn't the only thing I was doing. It did take a while before I could keep up with a conversation online, let alone 3 or 4. But I've stepped up, nowadays I find myself IM-ing five or six people at the same time, typing a paper, and playing a game online. It's just so easy and convenient.
Nowadays it's as if telephones and fax machines have taken sort of a back seat to the computer and it's capabilities. Electronic mail and instant messaging have become the main carriers of communication through the web. No longer does one have to worry about long-distance charges or waiting until after nine o' clock on Sunday(when rates are cheaper) to get in touch with their Aunt Te'ja in Malaysia. They can just "hit" her up with an email or add her to their buddy list and await her arrival. Since technology is changing minute by minute, these forms of communication are not only vital in ones personal life but it has also taken its toll in the business world. This paper will examine these tools of communication in both of those areas.
Let me begin with E-mail. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Electronic Mail is defined as 1) a means or system for transmitting messages electronically (as between terminals linked by telephone lines or microwave relays), or 2) a message sent electronically. Email has become an important source of communication almost erasing what we once used the telephone for. From anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world, one can send and receive email from the comfort of their own home or office.
As far as for personal use people are always sending and receiving email. Email has become like an addiction, to not only myself but many other Internet users. As soon as I am online, I check my email. It's just so much of a habit that I'll check it more than once while online. It's so easy and fast that once you've tried it, you'll never go back.
When dealing with email there is so much less you have to worry about as far as formality. As pointed out by the Internet Marketing Consultants (IMC) in an issue of their newsletter, if you’re placing a phone call, you have to worry about the time of day. But that problem doesn’t arise when dealing with email, you can send a message and the receiver can pick it up at a time that is convenient for them. Therefore you don’t have to worry if you are catching someone at a bad time. Derek Lyle, an Electrical Engineer of the University of Colorado, explains how you can communicate through email, without someone being on the other end. In his explanation of email versus the telephone, he mentions how you can leave a message without having to wait on the answering machine. But he also says that at some point, you will have to pickup the phone to make contact.
Email is also replacing the telephone in nowadays people are more likely to send someone an email as opposed to picking up the phone. Email is just easier for everyone because it’s being done at their convenience. Although “most electronic mail is used in an asynchronous fashion, where senders and recipients write and read independently of each other at different points in time.”(Palme 37). One would think that this would be a downfall of email but it isn’t, this doesn’t reduce the use of email, but makes it that much more effective. Derek Lyle, an Electrical Engineer of the University of Colorado, explains how you can communicate through email, without someone being on the other end. In his explanation of email versus the telephone, he mentions how you can leave a message without having to wait on the answering machine. But he also says that at some point, you will have to pickup the phone to make contact.
Email is a way of keeping in touch with family members and friends both near and far. It seems that email is a priority source of communication, because if I can’t get in touch with someone after sending them a few emails, then I will call.
Email has also gone on to make breakthroughs in the world of business. After reading some of the responses of professionals at the University of Colorado they all see email as a very useful and “convenient tool …to communicate with their bosses” and of course each other. No longer does one have to write a memo and hand deliver it, they can just send an email. When someone misses a meeting, the question isn’t, didn’t you get the memo, nowadays it’s, didn’t you get the email?
Email allows for so much that the telephone does not. For example, these same engineers at the University of Colorado explain how they had to email software to someone. There is no way for that to get done by phone. So once again, email just makes things easier.
The Internet Marketing Consultants talk about the uses of email for businesses in an article titled Effective Uses of Email for Realtors. Though its focus is on realty these tips can be used in any business. Email, is a way to keep consumers informed with what’s going on in the market. A call would almost seem too bothersome. With an email they can pick it up at their convenience. Another way email is used in business, is as a reminder. When the phone was the only way to get in touch with someone, let's say a delivery service, you would have to wait to get in touch with someone at the office or whatever. Now you can save time by just dropping a little note in their inbox, which will also speed up the process in which the work is done.
Basically email is more effective than the telephone. Palme affirms this in his book Electronic Mail:
Only every fourth phone call reaches the intended person: there are three unsuccessful attempts for each successful call... The time cost for each successful phone call is 20 minutes, compared to 4.7 minutes for an electronic mail message. If the task can be completed with less than four messages, then electronic mail is certainly more efficient. (Palme 22)
This seems to be the main reason companies use email, because its so much more effective. Companies also use auto-generated messages to address certain issues. Email is also much quicker than the telephone, in most cases, and has gained more use by businesses because of this. Electronic mail having all these benefits is “in fact more of a replacement for phoning than for postal mail.” (Palme 24).
The "ability to use email for daily correspondence and as a point of initial contact with prospects is essential." (IMC) Email, is not just a personal benefit but helps to lighten ones work load, which is always great.
Instant messaging, also known as IM, is another form of communication that has taken the world by storm. There's AOL , MSN , YAHOO, and so much more that provide internet users with the opportunity to talk to friends instantly, hence the name "Instant Messenger". This is all I needed to hear before I started to use this new found device. Instant messaging allows people to talk synchronously, unlike the email system. This mode of communication is just like talking on the telephone except that your are typing to the receiver instead of talking.
Instant messaging is more than just a way of communicating; it makes "talking" on the internet so personal. It allows you to talk to people so far away, yet feel so close to them. Instant messaging doesn't stop there; you can also set up chat rooms to talk to people you know as well as those you don't. It's almost like a three way call, just with as many people as you'd like.
As far as Instant Messaging in the home, everybody seems to be doing it, especially teenagers. Amanda Lenhart reported that for most online teens, instant message has not replaced the telephone as the principle communication tools with their friends. But a fifth of online teens...say that IM is the main way they deal with friends. I can definitely attest to that because that is the main way I deal with my friends and even family. IM has become part of my life just as the telephone. But understandably it hasn’t completely replaced telephones because if that were so then I wouldn't use the phone at all, including the cell phone.
IM is great because it allows you to communicate while doing so many other things, and when phones aren't allowed. For example, what I've observed being in the school's computer lab, is that a majority of students are using some form of instant messenger while they work on the computer. See in this case cell phones aren't allowed but we still find ways to communicate.
IM is though "a main way" of dealing with friends. It seems like when you call someone on the phone, there must be a reason for doing so, but you can just send a "hello" through IM. It's much more informal than the telephone. There are some friends that I talk to everyday on IM, but I would never call them up just to talk to them everyday.
IM is a great tool to use at home to talk to family and friends but is it appropriate and being used in businesses. IM is also slowly but surely making its way into businesses. According to the Wall Street JournaI's (WSJ) article, "AOL Invites Businesses Onto Its 'Buddy List' " it seems that many Americans are using Instant Messaging in the workplace but not at all for work. Corporations fear that allowing Instant Messaging will allow confidential information to "get out". As a result, AOL has a committee dedicated to solving this concern. "America Online's new IM product keeps internal messages within the company instead of routing them through its own outside network".(WSJ) This new peice of software is called AIM Enterprise, which is an Instant Messenger specially designed both small and large businesses. But will this ease the mind of corporations. Until this new software came about corporations were extremely reluctant to use IM in the office.
When employees do use instant messenger at work, chances are they aren't using it to harm the company. I think no matter what companies do to try to ban Instant Messaging emplyees will always seem to use it, for one reason or another.
It seems that the importance of IM in the work place wasn't realized until the tragedy on September 11, 2001, when power lines and phone lines were down in certain places the internet mainly IM was the only way of communication. Nowadays businesses are questioning if IM should stay. "At stake are a host of potential business uses for instant messaging that can reach beyond closed corporate walls--from customer service to instant purchasing and marketing." (Hu) As far as its connection with the telephone, "Instant messaging has become one of the most popular applications on the Internet and has been described as a communications system rivaling the telephone."(Hu) I think IM could be extremely useful if adopted by businesses. For example, if a boss needs to talk to his secretary he can just send her an IM, instead of having to pick up the telephone and dial a number to get her. It seems that if welcomed the service will definitely take the place of what the telephone was used for at one point. Of course the telephone will not be given up indefintely but multiple communication can take place via Instant Messaging and will be a great benefit.












Businesses have been focused on prohibting the use of instant messenger at work.



IM is great because of the fact that it allows you to multitask.


http://bess.fcla.edu/~fcliac/cgi-bin/cgi2iac/FS?RI96513010
Miller, Ron
Title: Email the other content management: email began as simple communication method, but has evolved into a mission-critical business application.
Found In: EContent; Jan 2003, v.26, 1, 20(6)

Euthanasia is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way. There are two types of euthanasia: active, taking life-ending action towards an incurably ill patient; and passive, withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment from an incurably ill patient. J. Gay-Williams rejects active euthanasia and doesn’t see passive euthanasia as euthanasia at all.
Gay-Williams rejects active euthanasia on the grounds that it is morally wrong because it violates moral law, it goes against one’s self interest and the possible effects of euthanasia are reasons for rejecting it. I will argue for J. Gay-Williams’ view that euthanasia is contrary to one’s self-interest.
Gay-Williams’ argues that euthanasia is contrary to one’s self interest in his argument from self-interest. He states that 1) if death is final and irreversible, then it is not in a person’s interest to seek death based on uncertain and fallible reasons. 2) Death is final and irreversible. 3) It is not in a person’s interest to seek death based on uncertain and fallible reasons. 4) To practice euthanasia or allow euthanasia to be practiced on us is to seek death based on uncertain or fallible reasons. The reasons for which one would practice euthanasia/allow euthanasia to be practiced upon oneself are always uncertain or fallible because: a) doctors can give mistaken diagnosis/prognosis; b) a new effective method of treating one’s ailment might be found; and c) spontaneous remissions occur. All of this leads to the conclusion that 5) It is not in a person’s interest to practice euthanasia/allow euthanasia to be practiced on them.
I agree with Gay-Williams’ argument from self-interest and feel it is a strong argument. I do not agree with active euthanasia for any reason and feel it is always in one’s self interest to live, and euthanasia shouldn’t even be an option. If our goal in life is to live, then by practicing/allowing euthanasia we are going against this goal. With technology changing by the minute so much can be done after a prognosis is made. Gay-Williams’ makes mention that once we have the possibility of euthanasia we tend to give up. The very presence, as he says, of euthanasia may keep us from surviving when we might. Once there is a choice to give up on something, people tend to want to take the easy way out, but in this case there is not turning back. His argument talks about death being final, so if someone allows euthanasia any chance of recovery, even if slight, will no longer be an issue because they have chosen to make such a final decision, which is not in our best interest. I feel that death is not in anyone’s best interest even though we will be faced with it one day. Until that day comes we should fight to live, not just give up and decide on euthanasia.
An opponent might respond to this view by saying that death being final is against one’s self interest but this is not always true. As the chances of the doctor being correct increase, Gay-Williams’ point becomes harder to make. Let’s say five or six doctors come to the same diagnosis/prognosis and the method for treating this ailment has been tried on the patient without success and there is still no chance of recovery. That means that the chances of being cured are so slim that death would be in one’s self-interest. And also what are the chances of a spontaneous remission, in this case there haven’t been anyone who recovered from a illness such as this. I think that this objection makes sense but I still reject that euthanasia is in one’s self interest. This objection would work in some cases because for some patients there are no signs whatsoever of recovery, which euthanasia may appear to be in that person’s self-interest. To avoid the pain they may feel that euthanasia is in the best interest, but just everything in our best interest doesn’t come easy or always feels good.
Finally, since we can never be sure what the odds are, it is never reasonable to believe that death is in one’s self-interest.







“The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia”
The Argument Against Self-Interest






Melissa Brown
February 17, 2003

testing this counter
Welcome To My Site!!!
im gettin tired of this.
trying again!

 

hey how are ya? just testing.
checking again

Welcome!

[1/13/2003 12:11:37 PM | Melissa Brown]
Hello and welcome to my blog site. I'm a freshman here at FSU and this site is part of my ENC1102 class. I am a computer engineering major and am really looking forward to this class.
Let's see, a little about me. I am originally from Miami, but going a little further back my parents are from Jamaica. Well thats all for me