Commentary on Janelle's "Proposal of Death"

In Janelle’s “Proposal of Death”, she addresses the ethical dilemma of the practice, or lack thereof, of euthanasia in the United States. She holds firm to the idea that it’s immoral that we don’t allow it. In support of this notion, she proposed that “…the government should develop a special board that is geared towards the legalization and regulation of euthanasia, with focus groups working on different aspects of the regulations that will eventually be implemented into the use of euthanasia as a means of ‘final treatment’.” To me, this is a logical and concise proposal for the heated debate on euthanasia.

If a skeptic has an argument against this proposal, she backs her argument with enough evidence to possibly sway them. She uses the facts presented by how well the legalization of euthanasia has worked in the Netherlands. She states that they have several “important regulations that I believe would be essential to helping euthanasia’s legalization in the US.” She goes on to quote specific examples that would take care of any pertinent questions that would be brought up by a skeptic.

The opposition might ask that it may be “difficult to deal with those who want to implement euthanasia for selfish reasons, or pressurize venerable patients into dying (BBC Pro-Euthanasia Arguments).” In rebuttal, Janelle strongly states: “But if the proper regulations are made, these situations could be avoided.” I feel she could elaborate here to make her case a little stronger; such as what those regulations are in detail to counter this argument.

Janelle’s usage of the resemblance proposal with the case of the Netherlands works well overall in this essay. She could elaborate a bit more about the exact details of the regulations and such. And the main criticism I have would be to drop the part that introduces the subject of euthanasia again, because the ethical argument paper already did that. In addition, is she puts more emotion into the subject of Lillian Boyes, this could dramatically improve her chances of swaying a skeptic into believing this is an ethical right of the suffering patient. Painting a graphic picture of her death could prove very beneficial. This paper has a direct proposal that makes sense to me and with a little more detail added to it, will be an effective argument to legalize euthanasia. I have always agreed with the legalization of it here in the states and this proposal seems the fairest and most logical within the hands of our government.

           

Ethical Argument Reflection

The main difference I can see between the first and second draft of my ethical argument is the fact that I clearly stated my thesis on the ethical issue of obesity in the second revisal. I claim that it’s immoral to be so grotesquely overweight or obese and I feel that the government is not holding people responsible at the level that they ought to be. I tried to make it much clearer to the reader through my views of the moral problems with being so grossly overweight, and that we need to change this issue now in a drastic way.

In the first draft it seems as though I was using more facts and statistics than actual persuasion from my own beliefs. I feel as though I strengthened my argument and proposal by discussing a personal incident I had recently at Wal-mart. This allowed the reader to understand my view of the subject through descriptive imagery of why mandated behavioral therapy is a must to end the obesity epidemic in America. I clearly stated that it’s about the everyday choices we make rather than the actual overeating problem itself. It’s up to every person to manipulate their own life and make the right choices. The government can only do so much to control this, but it’s their responsibility too now to enforce stricter guidelines on eating healthier, exercising regularly and maintaining a normal weight. This proposal I came up with is a good idea in my opinion and could cost some serious money for the government. But in the end, it could save lives.

And finally, I structured the body of the essay better by using the advice my wise instructor gave me by showing specific “negative” consequences and what people can do to improve these immoral “learned habits.” I revised most of the first draft, but mainly left the conclusion alone because it seemed to follow the guidelines I needed to adhere to. I really felt like this last essay was easier to put together into its final draft than the other two we previously wrote. Maybe it’s because I’m very passionate about my health and other people’s too, or maybe I just don’t want to see any more obese children walking around. It breaks my heart to know that parents are choosing to let their kids eat that much.

Just do it!!!

1.       If we primarily find self-worth through “what we do”, as Wong suggests; then is it true that who we are “deep down” within our character, doesn’t really count?

2.      If you had a boss like Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross, would it inspire you to “close” the deal (work harder and succeed), or would he push you to give up because of the pressure?

3.      Is it better to be a “do-er” like the gentleman in the star-spangled-banner thong who delighted us with his classy performance (one of the most awesome things I’ve ever seen). Or is it better to sit back and enjoy the show of “life” and let others do it all? Do you think it’s acceptable if someone decides to do “nothing” with their lives?

 

David Wong really got me laughing and I became very aware that he has a sick sense of humor like me while reading this. It’s an interesting concept that he formulizes here, the whole “you are what you do” theory. His tactics are unique and enlightening, for we have lived in an “it’s what’s inside that count’s” society for as long as I can remember. And that never made sense to me because most people don’t truly show anyone who they really are in fear that they will be judged by others. So I’d like to focus on my third question because this was the notion that stood out to me the most; it’s much more inspiring and fulfilling to be a “do-er” as far as I’m concerned.

What that hillbilly-punker-innovator showed us in breathtaking fashion is that first off, he does not give a flying squirrel what people think of him! I think that takes immense courage (and possibly a little craziness too) to go out and sing a song about a subject I’m pretty sure no one’s ever touched upon. But secondly, instead of sitting around thinking about it and daydreaming about putting together a fantastic ensemble, he went out and DID IT! I have always admired innovators of any kind. I look up to people that aren’t afraid to be unique and do the things that no one else does. I realize that a lot of people would be offended by this (the penis thrusts were a bit much at times). But they don’t have to watch it if they don't want to, that's the beauty of having freedom here in the good 'ol USA. They’re probably those conformists types that don’t “do” much anyways and sit around daydreaming about living “outside the box” of societies rules. Those are the people that really scare me! Not the old dude in a backyard singing about sex in a skimpy outfit. 

This article inspired me to keep living an open-minded lifestyle and to embrace being “the do-er” in every aspect of my life as I feel like I live this way already. In the end it’s only what “we do” and not “who we are inside” that counts, but it’s sensible to have a healthy balance of both. Without one or the other, we’d be a bunch of lazy pricks wandering around wondering why nothing happened in our lives. But if someone wants to sit around and “do nothing”, that’s their choice. If they are a good person deep down, then that’s all that really matters to me.

Response to "Stepping Off Maslow's Escalator"

1.    What’s the outcome that Daniel Yankelovich is searching for when he suggests we revert back to a “…simpler, more primitive” sense of self?

2.    Are the hominid’s “super-egos” going to be the ultimate downfall of our society? Is it too late to turn back?

3.    At one point, Yankelovich discusses how one couple (Abby and Mark) needs to have the most “ands” in their lives to feel self-fulfilled; is this true for all of us? How many “ands” do you need to feel content?

I would like to discuss question number one. This chapter from Daniel Yankelovich’s book was extremely thought provoking and insightful. It was another one of our assignments I had to read twice to better grasp the message, but I think I understand where he was going with this one. Overall, Yankelovich is proposing that going back to a more humble sense of self will help save us from ourselves as a species. That means give up that false sense of entitlement and stop relying on “things” to make you feel fulfilled. He is suggesting the possibility of mainly living on the physiological and safety tier of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in a round-a-bout way to help reverse our super inflated egos. Basically, we should be going back to the basics of what we “need”, not having our “wants.” I may be wrong, but that is the final thought that came to me after reading this. Although the final paragraph surmised the myriad of ideas that were proposed by Yankelovich, it seems that he himself was a little unsure as to what may happen if we abandon all “desires” and focus mainly on our “needs.” Is it even possible?

I don’t think humans can go back to being humble creatures. Do we really have it in us as a species to put our egos aside and work together for a simpler life and find a true self-actualization of ourselves? In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, if one reaches self-actualization one can achieve morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, and acceptance of facts. So if we abandon some of the other levels in the pyramid, how can one achieve that ultimate state of existence? Realistically, this is probably not a reliable solution to man’s “me-first” way of living, but I always like to remain an optimist. With the amount of effort we put into beautifying and improving ourselves now, I don’t see us abandoning our egos to improve our world. Unfortunately, man is inherently selfish; not all, but most. It’s unrealistic to propose that we should all of sudden give up the “self-love” trend. As annoying as selfish, over-indulgent and egotistical people are, big is in! The richer you are and the more stuff you have means you’ve “made it.” So as soon as we accept the fact that most of us are all a bunch of greedy “stuff hounds”, I think we’ll actually start moving forward in a positive direction as a species. It’s easier to put up with the gotta-have-it-all-and-then-some types if you accept the fact that their “wants” are more important than anything else.

Commentary on Janelle Slater's, "Euthanasia: The Right to Die"

            I would say that Janelle has a good start for her ethical argument paper. Based on the thesis of her argument which states, “Euthanasia should be legalized in all countries, because it is not the choice of anyone else but a person’s own personal choice”; this gave the reader a clear view as to the direction of her argument. It is very evident to me that she feels it is unethical to not allow euthanasia to take place.

            As far as the subject matter that she presents to the reader, it appears to me that she has a good criteria selection that matches her thesis. The main point that she mentions that stood out amongst the others was that terminal illness is a slow and painful death and that a person should be allowed to choose if they wish to move on.  I enjoyed her take on the matter when she said, “Having your life slowly and painfully drain away from you is considered to be terribly excruciating.” This pathos driven appeal makes the reader feel empathy for her argument.

            The question as to whether a skeptic will accept her criteria can be answered with a maybe. I only say this because I feel she may need to add several more examples to back up her main thesis that not allowing euthanasia is unethical. This can be achieved possibly through finding some actual accounts of cancer patients and such that really wanted to take advantage of euthanasia and were not allowed to. She could use quotes from the patient or families that showed their pain and struggle with not being able to make a choice that they should have been able to make.

            I think another fact or anecdote that she could use would be to discuss how other countries are able to utilize the process of euthanasia, such as Belgium and the Netherlands. She could go over the pros and cons of the recent legalization of it. This could help her general weighting of the subject for a skeptical reader. It would show a person who absolutely believes it is unethical to use euthanasia to maybe see the benefits if it has worked well in these countries.

            Like I said before, Janelle has a good start. I think if she adds the couple of ideas that I have it would make someone who is skeptical accept her point of view a little better. There is the possibility that someone may counter-argue her argument if she doesn’t provide a bit more information to back her beliefs. I already feel that euthanasia should be legalized and it is truly someone’s right to take his or her own life. I fear that because I feel this way I may not have been the skeptic that she needed to read this, but I hope that my input can assist her with the final draft.

"Vivisection"

1.    What laws can be enforced to stop animal testing?

2.    If an animal doesn’t have a voice to defend itself against slaughter and “have no souls”, does that make it acceptable to maim and kill it then?

3.    What kind of message is the bible giving when it states: “We are ‘worth more than sparrows’”? Is it saying that man is truly better than other living things?

I don’t know one person that approves of vivisection. Maybe I hang out with a bunch of liberal, free-spirited, modern-hippie type people; but they despise it as much as I abhor it. One friend in particular (names won’t be mentioned out of respect), attends a local church religiously. We don’t have a lot in common with our values and beliefs as she is a Republican full-time mom who attends church on a regular basis. She preaches about God and all his glories a great deal, and even donates to local animal shelters and is a strict vegan! But if she is such a devout Christian, wouldn’t she know that when it bluntly says in the Bible, we are “worth more than sparrows”, that it’s basically saying animals are beneath us and we can do with them as we please? It seems kind of backwards to me and a little hypocritical to practice a faith that condones animal vivisection. That is why I’d like to discuss question number three.

If the Christian faith, and the people that worship it, are such devout followers of the Bible and its message; then wouldn’t they be apt to actively support animal testing? It only makes sense to me. And in my friend’s defense, I really think she missed the “worth more than sparrows” thing. She is an amazing Christian and a great person. But it still seems kind of funny to me that she is such an animal activist and devout Christian at the same time.

The main point of this piece of reading “Vivisection” by C.S. Lewis was to get the reader to understand that promoting or boycotting animal cruelty and testing is a choice. Whether one chooses that man is more important than another living creature is purely based on ones morals. I don’t judge my friend based on her decisions, I may not believe in the same religion as her or even eat vegetarian like she does! But it just seemed a tad odd that she is a strict vegan and hard-core Christian at the same time.

This quote from the reading kind of put things into perspective for me about my main question, “The only rational line for the Christian vivisectionist to take is to say that the superiority of man over beast is a real objective fact, guaranteed by Revelation, and that the propriety of sacrificing beast to man is a logical consequence.” Is it really logical for them to kill animals for our own good? I certainly don’t think so, but who am I to judge anyways. I eat meat and buy leather. I don’t sponsor animal rights programs or anything, but I do think vivisection is wrong. I’m a somewhat non-practicing Buddhist (I believe in what he was trying to say and the whole mind-body-connection-thing) and believe that there is life in all things. Maybe my friend should give Buddha a try. It might match her vegan lifestyle a little better.

Reflection on Essay #2

When I reflect on my essay “The Black Beast That Lies Within Us All,” the one main difference I notice between my first and final draft was the fact that I legitimately couldn’t differentiate between ethos, pathos and logos rhetoric examples. I’m not going to lie, but I’d been struggling with figuring out which one was which when going over Andrew Sullivan’s, “What’s So Bad About Hate?” I read this great piece of writing over again (three times), and it finally became clear to me that he mainly was using logos and ethos appeal to win the audience over. This helped me immensely in putting the pieces of my essay together. I feel as though when I added another paragraph explaining his logos appeal usage to my critique, it strengthened my thesis in which I stated that hate crime laws are not ultimately effective.

            I also recognized, after reading over Sullivan’s article again, that there was not as much pathos driven rhetoric as I thought beforehand. Although this stood out to me the most, as in his opening statement about Byrd’s violent death; it did not embody all the strength of his argument. So with this, I decided to not focus on this as much and to lean towards using his examples of ethos derived appeal more when discussing Sullivan’s piece.

            In closing, writing the first draft helped me to put together a (hopefully) grand rhetoric on “What’s So Bad About Hate?” I thoroughly enjoyed reading Sullivan’s work and learned a great deal about understanding ethos, pathos and logos better through my writing my critique. It was inspiring as a novice writer to finish the final draft after revising the first, and I can only hope I improved on what I needed to accomplish.