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.

Response to "Shooting an Elephant"

1.       It’s been long debated that George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is not an actual biography of this particular life experience, but instead a fiction story. What do you think after reading it?

2.      Has the slow demise of imperialism in Burma affected them in a positive or negative manner?

3.      Do you think that the man depicted in this story did what “he had to do?” Or was he a coward for letting the pressure of “not being laughed at” cloud his judgment and commit an unnecessary murder?

 

After reading Orwell’s, “Shooting and Elephant”, a couple of questions came to mind. I mainly reflected on how vicious and inhumane this “must” killing was and how I wanted to vomit after reading the highly descriptive way this magnificent creature died. However, I think he did the right thing. That is why I would like to discuss the importance of question number three.

This question of whether or not it was a just kill reminded me of a debate I had with my friend at work about a recent episode of our favorite show, “The Walking Dead.” In it, the young boy (main character Carl) is confronted by an enemy who had been firing shots at him earlier in a conflict. The enemy is a young boy himself and Carl shoots him in the head as he is attempting to surrender and hand over his weapon. The three witnesses that watched it all occur seemed shocked and horrified that this was what transpired. Carl is later confronted by his father who almost seems to question whether he did the right thing or not. Carl defends himself saying, “I did what I had to do dad.” I still think it was wrong and he went a little too far. My friend at work Joe said, “I would have killed him two seconds sooner. Kid was trying to kill me. He would have been a threat and I couldn’t trust him.” As vicious as this seemed to me at the time, when I think back on it now, I almost agree with Joe! Kill or be killed in a situation like a zombie apocalypse right?! Carl did do the right thing after all it seems. In any adrenaline filled, life or death situation; normal rationalization goes out the window. So in retrospect, it made me reevaluate my opinion of the character in Orwell’s story. Did he “do what he had to do?” I may have to say yes on this one.

As inhumane as the killing of an animal is (big or small), sometimes it is necessary. I feel sick every time I hear about it because I am such a huge animal lover. But I am also a realist, and sometimes there is the simple fact that you have to save a human life before an animal’s. And some animal rights advocates are going to really not like me for saying that last statement, but it’s just how I feel. When those Mountain Lions out in Trabuco Canyon were attacking bikers and hikers, they had to hunt and kill them to save future lives. I felt a twinge of sadness when they did catch and put them down, but I knew it was for a good reason. They were a threat to human life.

So in conclusion, if this story is indeed factual, Orwell did what he had to do. Not only had this huge elephant caused damage to this rural town already, it had the power to do it again. Remember that this was set in 1936 in a poor, imperialistic nation. They didn’t have animal control back then! As ugly as it seemed, he was under immense peer pressure to put down a “savage beast.” I think any one of us put under that kind of pressure would react in a way we never would have expected from ourselves.