Question:1 Is Yankelovich a communist?
Question 2: It seems as thought the text is a somewhat makeshift "manual" on human existence within societal boundaries? Is the author somehow describing how Maslow is characterizing a "model" human being thatofwhich we live by?
Question 3: The way Maslow describes the failure to move through deeper levels of internal development as resulting in guilt? Does this make living as a human more of a "chore" in regards to our inner psyche? In other words, does the mere existence of our "self" mandate a duty to put together the prenatally broken puzzle pieces together throughout our lifetime?
Response:
The way i see it, Yankelvich conveys two different types of ideas. These ideas more or less describe theories on the purpose of humanity's existence.....well at least the fullfillment; however i feel that that is a redundant correction of my own mistake. If we can assume that the purpose of life is to be happy and fullfilled then there requires no correction to the that being the purpose (at least the tangible one) of existence. So in analyzing and laying out the foundations and depths of Maslow's philosophies, Yankelvich, is essentially expressing his concerns about Maslow's self-actualization.
My questions and comments don't exactly meet the intellectuality of his abstractions mainly because I don't feel that I'm that capable of providing a relevant discussion based on this text- it's some pretty deep stuff. But either way, have some things to say.
What I think Yankelvich failed to mention is how (pulling away from the abstraction) this applies to societal class stratification. When speaking about things like this, class stratification is always a hot topic. Maslow's hierarchy implies such a topic. According to him, one can not achieve self actualization if one is preoccupied with the "lower-order" vitals required for survival. What caught my attention here is, how many times have we heard that the brightest and wisest people we know are ones that struggled the most. I know this isn't consistent with Maslow's self-actualization (wisdom and experience being different than inner discovery and fulfillment). Either way that's besides the point. Straying away from digressing, I'd like to point out that Maslow's hierarchy reiterates and enforces classism. To say that one must not be preoccupied with the struggles of survival in order to attain self-actualization implies the separation between the affluent and the unfortunate. Not to mention that "affluence" is a necessity to achieve this optimizing "self."Yankelvich says it himself. Maslow's idea presupposes the idea of progressing through economic stages in a "materlistic age."
So in all this....is Maslow indirectly implying that there be a model human being? A person that everyone should strive to be? How does uniqueness and invididualism fit into this theory. Well it's confusing when is say it like that so let me break it down.
We have a way that Maslow says we are supposed to strive to live by. By doing this, this deep internal inner self disovery, expression of self, autonomy, we can be a fully maximized version of a human being. I don't doubt that he would even add that this human being is capable of anything.
SO- if everyone were to do this, and do it successfully, what would we have? A huge society of narcissistic human beings? What happens when every person in the world solves their inner conflicts independently and internally. How isolated would we become. It's almost like the stronger the connection we make with ourselves, the weaker the connection we will make with others. And that's something I don't think anyone would want to happen.
On a side note, I do agree that we are "selfs" both within our body and protuding outward. I mean this in the sense that, assuming all humans are pieces of a collective consciousness, we are all a piece of that puzzle.
A good analogy for this is: Let's assume (if there is a god) that god took all the matter in the world and let it break into a million pieces. All these pieces are part of the this big ball of matter that once was whole. But somehow, each piece because a separate and individual entity of its own. If a cell from your body was put into a petri dish would you point at it and say that that is you? Probably not, you would say it's a part of me. So with that being said, we are all (according to the supposed theory) part of a collective consciousness.
The reason i bring this up is because Maslow's theory implies superiority. Those who reach self-actualization are better than those who don't. Especially when he says we feel "guilty" for not doing it. So i must argue against that with my aforementioned analogy.
The way Yankelvich describes Maslow's "perfect human being" sounds like a different species. Can't we all unblock our emotions to people other than therapists? Can't we all think introspectively? Can't we all be spontaneous, autonomous, natural and creative and yet be confused, broken, and incomplete individuals?
So i want to end on that note with this question.
Does Maslow think that dropping out from the larger society to attain a higher position of existence whereby not caring separates the composition of their consciousness from the rest of us?
Friday, April 26, 2013
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Commentary on Milena's Ethical Argument
Okay so, I'm pretty sure i have some very valuable criticisms and suggestions for this paper.
You have such good arguments present in the essay. My concern is, these arguments are not consistent with one another. What i mean is, there are ethical criteria that support different theses. So the first issue at hand is which thesis you want to argue.
The way your paper is set up is like this :
Intro:
- Really good introduction of topic
-gives good currency to the importance of your ethical concern
-demonstrates the controversy
* the potential problem here, however, is that when i finish reading the introduction paragraph I am under the impression that you are trying to convince me that waterboarding is torture. So, as far as i know from the beginning, that is your thesis. Ex. "there is no doubt that the majority of the population would agree that tying someone up....sounds a lot like torture" So now the reader feels that this is where you're going.
but it isn't where you go....
So the next paragraph does this:
-Presents ethical criterion revolving around the "uselessness of enhanced interrogation"- in fact that is your topic sentence so the reader can only assume you are about to argue why this is true.
* the problem here is that arguing this criterion doesn't support your thesis that waterboarding is torture. Look at is this way. You want to convince someone that it's torture so you try to convince them by telling them it doesn't work. You kind of see how it doesn't really apply to your thesis?
I want to make a note though based on the rest of your paper that i strongly suggest your adjust your thesis rather than your ethical criterion because your arguments are wayyyyy solid :)
the next few paragraphs sort of repeat this idea that waterboarding isn't proving to be as effective as the military would hope. So some of these may either be redundant or may require a different direction or point to be made.
Your second ethical criterion is a bit obscure but i feel it is extremely powerful. You state that waterboarding is putting medical professionals into ethical dilemmas. This is great because now you have two solid ethical criteria: 1. waterboarding is a useless tactic, and 2. it compromise the moral integrity of the united states (which you do touch on)
With that being said my suggestion is: Change your thesis to something like : Many argue that waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques may or may not fall under the category of torture, but my take on the matter is that these special methods of interrogation present ethical dilemmas that don't even fall within the context of arguments having to do with torture. In fact, waterboarding has been known to fall short when it comes to the accuracy of information acquired and on top of that, the U.S. moral integrity is compromised when dealing with foreign policy type issues that involve interrogation methods.
See this thesis would be good for your arguments because then you have this situation:
Thesis: waterboarding doesn't work; and it makes the us (the country) look bad
ethical criterion#1: it's wrong to inflict pain on someone when we won't even get the information we need
ethical criterion#2: the u.s. stands on convictions of being a role model to the rest of the world and waterboarding is in conflict with this.
BOOM you got yourself an ethical argument.
some more small points: there are some statements that need some backing like "information gathered by the use of waterboarding or any other sort of torture is often useless" find a quote somewhere in some scholarly text that fortifies this knowledge otherwise it sounds like a bold claim that you're making or you can "hedge" the statement and say something like " information gathered by the use of waterboarding or any other sort of torture may not be the accurate information we're looking for every single time"
ALSO : keep the rebuttal. it's so perfect because your counterargument will segue so smoothly into your next ethical criterion
otherwise..... nice job with this,.... your ideas are really solid... go with them. change your thesis and use your body paragraphs to argue them..... :))))
You have such good arguments present in the essay. My concern is, these arguments are not consistent with one another. What i mean is, there are ethical criteria that support different theses. So the first issue at hand is which thesis you want to argue.
The way your paper is set up is like this :
Intro:
- Really good introduction of topic
-gives good currency to the importance of your ethical concern
-demonstrates the controversy
* the potential problem here, however, is that when i finish reading the introduction paragraph I am under the impression that you are trying to convince me that waterboarding is torture. So, as far as i know from the beginning, that is your thesis. Ex. "there is no doubt that the majority of the population would agree that tying someone up....sounds a lot like torture" So now the reader feels that this is where you're going.
but it isn't where you go....
So the next paragraph does this:
-Presents ethical criterion revolving around the "uselessness of enhanced interrogation"- in fact that is your topic sentence so the reader can only assume you are about to argue why this is true.
* the problem here is that arguing this criterion doesn't support your thesis that waterboarding is torture. Look at is this way. You want to convince someone that it's torture so you try to convince them by telling them it doesn't work. You kind of see how it doesn't really apply to your thesis?
I want to make a note though based on the rest of your paper that i strongly suggest your adjust your thesis rather than your ethical criterion because your arguments are wayyyyy solid :)
the next few paragraphs sort of repeat this idea that waterboarding isn't proving to be as effective as the military would hope. So some of these may either be redundant or may require a different direction or point to be made.
Your second ethical criterion is a bit obscure but i feel it is extremely powerful. You state that waterboarding is putting medical professionals into ethical dilemmas. This is great because now you have two solid ethical criteria: 1. waterboarding is a useless tactic, and 2. it compromise the moral integrity of the united states (which you do touch on)
With that being said my suggestion is: Change your thesis to something like : Many argue that waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques may or may not fall under the category of torture, but my take on the matter is that these special methods of interrogation present ethical dilemmas that don't even fall within the context of arguments having to do with torture. In fact, waterboarding has been known to fall short when it comes to the accuracy of information acquired and on top of that, the U.S. moral integrity is compromised when dealing with foreign policy type issues that involve interrogation methods.
See this thesis would be good for your arguments because then you have this situation:
Thesis: waterboarding doesn't work; and it makes the us (the country) look bad
ethical criterion#1: it's wrong to inflict pain on someone when we won't even get the information we need
ethical criterion#2: the u.s. stands on convictions of being a role model to the rest of the world and waterboarding is in conflict with this.
BOOM you got yourself an ethical argument.
some more small points: there are some statements that need some backing like "information gathered by the use of waterboarding or any other sort of torture is often useless" find a quote somewhere in some scholarly text that fortifies this knowledge otherwise it sounds like a bold claim that you're making or you can "hedge" the statement and say something like " information gathered by the use of waterboarding or any other sort of torture may not be the accurate information we're looking for every single time"
ALSO : keep the rebuttal. it's so perfect because your counterargument will segue so smoothly into your next ethical criterion
otherwise..... nice job with this,.... your ideas are really solid... go with them. change your thesis and use your body paragraphs to argue them..... :))))
Monday, April 22, 2013
Response to Vivisection
Quite a bit to say about this.....
Question 1: Why does the author have to come to the conclusion that the argument must centralize around the concept of pain?
Question 2: Lewis points out that we don't know if animals have souls or not, based on the Christian defender of vivisection. True, we don't know. But even if we did know, would the Christian defenders still have grounds to defend? Is this there main basis of defense? Or would it change?
Question 3: Lewis says in the text that pain "always requires justification." Whether the reader likes it or not, this is an appeal to ethos that requires the audience to agree. There is no intrinsic law of the universe that states that we must justify the infliction of pain. Although we all would agree, the philosophy remains a subjective one. In what ways could we describe an existence where pain doesn't require justification BECAUSE it ISN'T evil (besides "hell"- where even in that case the pain is justified).
Question 4: Lewis argues against the Christian defenders by saying that soulessness will actually make the infliction of pain harder to justify. He states that, based on this argument, the animals can not deserve the pain. Why is this? An animal doesn't deserve pain based solely on the reason that it doesn't know what it is? And would an animal that doesn't know what pain or evil is appreciate moral profit or compensatory happiness based on the fact that these are societal constructs that only apply to humans?
Question 5: Lewis states" the propriety of sacrificing beast to man is a logical consequence. This platform implies some sort of pious submission to a higher being wherein the moral responsibilities of humans is eradicated. If it is a logical consequence....then why should it be an issue of ethics to begin with?
Response to either of all of those questions:
I loved this article. It touches on so many multifaceted dilemmas that we humans must encounter when deciding things on behalf of not only the nation but on humanity itself.
The author is extremely intelligent. This isn't an essay that defends an issue. This isn't an essay that supports an issue either. Rather, Lewis is compartmetalizing and breaking down any and all arguments against or for vivisection (by which he does so suasively withouth any regard to the subject matter of vivisection at all). In fact, we can see Lewis as the mediator. He evaluates the issue at hand, recognizes the elements of "the classical argument" that we discussed in class (resolving a solution with appeal to reason). Lewis aids the defenders and supporters without taking a side, for the most part. The logic in his reasoning somewhat places him on one side more or less. But let me be more specific....
One thing i would like to point out is that he concludes that there is no argument whatsoever against vivisection that does not have to do with sentiment. I. myself, can not think of any argument against it that doesn't evoke an emotional ground for debate. This is crucial to this paper because there is truth to this discovery. The only people who don't want it to happen are the ones who are emotionally more or less traumatized by it's existence. Animal lovers- if you will (not to say that participators and supporters of vivisection are not animal lovers).
Back to the specifics. Lewis concludes that we can not defend vivisection on Christian standards because we can not know which beings have "souls"- actually, let's use the word "conciousness" so as to not cross-entangle the religious affiliations. I'm not speaking of whether or not the issue of vivisection is being defended or supported. My argument here lies within the premise. Lewis regards conciousness among animals as not provable. Okay, that's no problem. But if it were? I feel as though he should have humored the idea to either strengthen or weaken the Christian defenders. In my opinion, if all animals in the world were concious of themselves, they would be promoted to the standard of "humanity"- so to speak. If they know they're feeling pain then the argument is not justified. Sounds like a simple solution to a seemingly perplexing philosophical conjecture. BUT, check this philosophy out. If animals not having concsiousness is a "mere opinion," then who is to say the fact that they feel and experience pain doesn't fall under the same category. If a rat doesn't know it's alive and isn't aware of its existence, then how is it aware of pain. Let me explain how this makes sense
Is not existence (according to Descartes' Meditations) the most basic form of truth? Isn't every single fact, belief, and opinion that we can construct throughout our entire lives (pain included-biological or not) founded upon the truth and belief that we exist? So that being said, if the first thing we can truly accept as a fact of the universe in all objectivity is that we exist, then everything that we learn afterward is founded upon that platform. So let's do the math.. consciousness=awareness of existence;
awareness of existence =every other believe founded upon this. So here is that same equation for animals: conciousness= awareness of existence. No awareness of existence, no awareness of pain."Logically" speaking, if an animal doesn't know it exists, it can't feel pain. Not to say that we do know in fact that animals can feel pain. But are they experiencing it? There is a big difference between response to stimuli and actual experience.
Funny thing is i disagree with this logic i just so adamantly argued. I do truly believe that animals feel pain. But isn't it crazy that based on Lewis debunking of the "soulesness" argument, we can logically find a fallacy in the fallacy that he finds? Maybe he never read Descartes. Or maybe i'm just extremely wrong
Last thing i want to say. Lewis says "the propriety of sacrificing beast to man is a logical consequence." To me this means that because it is a "logical" subsequent event that occurs within the nature of our existence we have no moral ties to it. Kind of like predestination. if we are predestined to go to heaven or hell, are we morally obligated to act a certain way (I know the bible has some asinine ways of compensating for that facetious jargon, but just focusing on the statement itself)? If it is a logical occurrence that we practive vivisection because we are superior (the definition here meaning ethically bankrupt from killing and harming non-human beings-no sarcasm intended) then why worry about the ethics. If the bible said we Americans are superior to the other sovereign nations, im sure as hell we wouldn't feel the slightest bit of ethical dissonance in implementing our entire culture unto the rest of the world. This statement from Lewis is just something that I feel that he should have addressed. He does, in fact, imply a sort of "obligation to not be a vivisector." But that would mean doing exactly what religion tells us to do, which is kind of like not keeping a 20 dollar bill you find on the ground. It just doesn't happen.
I do apologize for my attacks on religion though i would like to stress that the majority of my blog revolved around the philosophical and ethical elements of the article.
and if any one is interested or cares: I fully support the testing of animals for the furthering of research. No argument would change my mind. Humans have an innate obligation to get as close to the truth as possible. If it were the other way around, i would gladly volunteer myself to be tested (painful or not) to further the education of all humanity...
Question 1: Why does the author have to come to the conclusion that the argument must centralize around the concept of pain?
Question 2: Lewis points out that we don't know if animals have souls or not, based on the Christian defender of vivisection. True, we don't know. But even if we did know, would the Christian defenders still have grounds to defend? Is this there main basis of defense? Or would it change?
Question 3: Lewis says in the text that pain "always requires justification." Whether the reader likes it or not, this is an appeal to ethos that requires the audience to agree. There is no intrinsic law of the universe that states that we must justify the infliction of pain. Although we all would agree, the philosophy remains a subjective one. In what ways could we describe an existence where pain doesn't require justification BECAUSE it ISN'T evil (besides "hell"- where even in that case the pain is justified).
Question 4: Lewis argues against the Christian defenders by saying that soulessness will actually make the infliction of pain harder to justify. He states that, based on this argument, the animals can not deserve the pain. Why is this? An animal doesn't deserve pain based solely on the reason that it doesn't know what it is? And would an animal that doesn't know what pain or evil is appreciate moral profit or compensatory happiness based on the fact that these are societal constructs that only apply to humans?
Question 5: Lewis states" the propriety of sacrificing beast to man is a logical consequence. This platform implies some sort of pious submission to a higher being wherein the moral responsibilities of humans is eradicated. If it is a logical consequence....then why should it be an issue of ethics to begin with?
Response to either of all of those questions:
I loved this article. It touches on so many multifaceted dilemmas that we humans must encounter when deciding things on behalf of not only the nation but on humanity itself.
The author is extremely intelligent. This isn't an essay that defends an issue. This isn't an essay that supports an issue either. Rather, Lewis is compartmetalizing and breaking down any and all arguments against or for vivisection (by which he does so suasively withouth any regard to the subject matter of vivisection at all). In fact, we can see Lewis as the mediator. He evaluates the issue at hand, recognizes the elements of "the classical argument" that we discussed in class (resolving a solution with appeal to reason). Lewis aids the defenders and supporters without taking a side, for the most part. The logic in his reasoning somewhat places him on one side more or less. But let me be more specific....
One thing i would like to point out is that he concludes that there is no argument whatsoever against vivisection that does not have to do with sentiment. I. myself, can not think of any argument against it that doesn't evoke an emotional ground for debate. This is crucial to this paper because there is truth to this discovery. The only people who don't want it to happen are the ones who are emotionally more or less traumatized by it's existence. Animal lovers- if you will (not to say that participators and supporters of vivisection are not animal lovers).
Back to the specifics. Lewis concludes that we can not defend vivisection on Christian standards because we can not know which beings have "souls"- actually, let's use the word "conciousness" so as to not cross-entangle the religious affiliations. I'm not speaking of whether or not the issue of vivisection is being defended or supported. My argument here lies within the premise. Lewis regards conciousness among animals as not provable. Okay, that's no problem. But if it were? I feel as though he should have humored the idea to either strengthen or weaken the Christian defenders. In my opinion, if all animals in the world were concious of themselves, they would be promoted to the standard of "humanity"- so to speak. If they know they're feeling pain then the argument is not justified. Sounds like a simple solution to a seemingly perplexing philosophical conjecture. BUT, check this philosophy out. If animals not having concsiousness is a "mere opinion," then who is to say the fact that they feel and experience pain doesn't fall under the same category. If a rat doesn't know it's alive and isn't aware of its existence, then how is it aware of pain. Let me explain how this makes sense
Is not existence (according to Descartes' Meditations) the most basic form of truth? Isn't every single fact, belief, and opinion that we can construct throughout our entire lives (pain included-biological or not) founded upon the truth and belief that we exist? So that being said, if the first thing we can truly accept as a fact of the universe in all objectivity is that we exist, then everything that we learn afterward is founded upon that platform. So let's do the math.. consciousness=awareness of existence;
awareness of existence =every other believe founded upon this. So here is that same equation for animals: conciousness
Funny thing is i disagree with this logic i just so adamantly argued. I do truly believe that animals feel pain. But isn't it crazy that based on Lewis debunking of the "soulesness" argument, we can logically find a fallacy in the fallacy that he finds? Maybe he never read Descartes. Or maybe i'm just extremely wrong
Last thing i want to say. Lewis says "the propriety of sacrificing beast to man is a logical consequence." To me this means that because it is a "logical" subsequent event that occurs within the nature of our existence we have no moral ties to it. Kind of like predestination. if we are predestined to go to heaven or hell, are we morally obligated to act a certain way (I know the bible has some asinine ways of compensating for that facetious jargon, but just focusing on the statement itself)? If it is a logical occurrence that we practive vivisection because we are superior (the definition here meaning ethically bankrupt from killing and harming non-human beings-no sarcasm intended) then why worry about the ethics. If the bible said we Americans are superior to the other sovereign nations, im sure as hell we wouldn't feel the slightest bit of ethical dissonance in implementing our entire culture unto the rest of the world. This statement from Lewis is just something that I feel that he should have addressed. He does, in fact, imply a sort of "obligation to not be a vivisector." But that would mean doing exactly what religion tells us to do, which is kind of like not keeping a 20 dollar bill you find on the ground. It just doesn't happen.
I do apologize for my attacks on religion though i would like to stress that the majority of my blog revolved around the philosophical and ethical elements of the article.
and if any one is interested or cares: I fully support the testing of animals for the furthering of research. No argument would change my mind. Humans have an innate obligation to get as close to the truth as possible. If it were the other way around, i would gladly volunteer myself to be tested (painful or not) to further the education of all humanity...
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Ethical Argument
Chris Gomez
Professor Brown
English 1B
14 April 2013
From a Foundational Standpoint
The U.S. government and military are
infamous for the particular ways that they deal with and respond to crises
involving foreign policy and terrorism. The interesting part has to do with how
we interpret the decisions that these entities make. When talking abot
terrorism, it’s no surprise the subject of interrogation may become a sore spot
for everyone. It isn’t a sore spot because of how it looks or the gruesome
violence that it entails when imagined in the mind, but rather because the foundations
of interrogation techniques have always been found in large grey areas with the
judiciary system. Point being that interrogation techniques against terrorism
pose a concern with ethics and these ethics are seen and constructed from a
various assortment of perspectives. To be more specific, certain ethical
dilemmas arise from waterboarding. Waterboarding falls under the category of
“enhanced interrogation.” Knowing that the United States legal system outlaws
all forms of torture, waterboarding inevitably surfaces within this argument.
The future of how we view waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation
techniques and the premises by which we act on these views are crucial in
identifying this country as one that has ethical convictions that are enforced
with integrity. My argument on this subject is that based on preconceived
ethical criteria that is either philosophically intrinsic within us or
otherwise officially identified reveal some issues with the military’s enhanced
interrogation.
Professions within the field of medicine
pose an interesting philosophical aspect in regards to ethics. Unlike other
professions, “the profession of medicine has certain values built into it”
(Downie 135-137). If your profession is being a police officer in the United
States, you have an obligation to uphold and enforce the laws and regulations
within the jurisdiction you preside in without any discretion that involves
your own personal morals. You simply uphold your legislation on a legal basis.
On the other hand, a physician’s obligations differ. There are inherent codes
present in this field that characterize a physician’s obligations as revolving
around and stemming from “doing no harm”. Physicians must regard themselves as
healers. Likewise, doctors within the field
of psychology uphold similar standards. The American Psychological Association
provides a list of designated groups of the population, those of which permit
or deny the intervening of psychologists within interrogation proceedings;
“detainees” being a group that is protected from psychiatric intervention
(Downie 135-137).
With those codes of ethics that are
either inherent in the profession or otherwise legally sanctioned, we can see
legitimacy for concern when the Department of Justice releases documents that
describe how psychologists are “justifying the use of waterboarding and other
techniques” (Pope, and Gutheil 1178-1180). On top of that, the American Civil
Liberties Union revealed documents in 2008 confirming that psychologists
“supported illegal interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan” (Pope, and Gutheil
1178-1180). Before the analysis here can be established, it must be noted that
the Department of Justice requires that psychiatrists and physicians be present
in interrogation proceedings for detainees, including “enhanced interrogation”
such as waterboarding so as to mentally and physically assess all aspects of
those interrogated. More simply stated, doctors are being placed in situations
where their duties enable the U.S. government to perform activities that are in
direct opposition to the doctors’ inherent code of ethics. By aiding the
government in enhanced interrogation, even if that means tending to any
physical damages acquired during the interrogation, doctors are in direct
opposition to ethics that are engrained in the foundations of their profession.
Furthermore, these interrogative tactics require duties that are “sometimes the
job of the psychiatrist” (Downie 135-137). Assessing detainees upon whom
enhanced interrogation is applied requires psychiatric evaluation. Even though
detainees are specifically stated as a designated group protected from
psychological intervention within interrogative processes, the basic
requirements in enhanced interrogation involve psychiatric intervention. This
ethical discrepancy could not be more contradictory. On one side, we have
physicians and psychiatrists who stand by a code that prohibits them from
participating in interrogation consistent to waterboarding techniques. On the
other, the legal system not only permits, but also requires these two
professions to be involved. We can now see how waterboarding and enhanced
interrogation poses a contradiction to the ethical criteria that doctors
possess.
Waterboarding also poses some concerns
when analyzing how it interferes with the ethics of our legal system. This can
be shown without even referring to the idea of waterboarding as a form of
torture. The main issue here is that regardless of whether or not waterboarding
is torture or that waterboarding is considered unethical in any context, the
investigations that came from the waterboarding occurrence with the three
Al-Qaeda detainees involve some pretty contradictory circumstances that place
the U.S. government in a different ethical concern.
The subsequent formal hearings and
judicial proceedings that took place in response to the incident suggest a
question of integrity within the U.S. government. The ethical discrepancy in
this context need not be elaborated upon. Any and all interrogation techniques
are required to receive the Department of Justice’s “okay” before the military
can carry on with them. With that understood, not only must we assume that
waterboarding was evaluated by the D.O.J. before it was executed, but the
D.O.J. itself stated in 2005 that criminal investigations could not be
undergone on the issue that took place in 2002 because in it’s evaluation of
the enhanced interrogation technique of waterboarding, it “made a determination
as to its lawfulness” ("American Journal of International Law"
359-361, 177-179). I have to mention as well that this was in response to
Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s statement that he views waterboarding as
torture “if applied to himself” ("American Journal of International
Law" 359-361). So to put this into a simpler perspective: at some point,
the U.S. military needed to extract information from a select group of Al-Qaeda
members, they asked the D.O.J. if it was okay that they "waterboard"
them, the D.O.J. said it was okay, a few years later the attorney general says
that waterboarding is torture, the D.O.J. justifies their previous “torturing”
by saying that they said it was okay at the time so we didn’t really do
anything bad. Rather than focusing on the ethics of torture, this particular
analysis suggests that the ethical “self-exoneration” of the judicial system is
at an elementary level. This does two things. Firstly it shows that the U.S.
government simply defended itself, yet it was in a way that demonstrated authoritative
dominance in suppressing ethical concerns. Secondly, it poses the question: is
this how the judicial system of our government will respond to anything that
poses a changing and evolving ethical dilemma? Waterboarding conflicts with
this ethical criterion because it is issues like this push the U.S. government
to contradict its own propositions.
It helps to note that some of these
arguments presented don’t necessarily harmonize with every alternative view of
enhanced interrogation. In fact, when discussing medical doctors involvement in
these interrogations, some might feel that it isn’t unethical. If a doctor
doesn’t know that he is “healing” the injuries of a convicted terrorist, as is
the case in many interrogative proceedings, he isn’t performing against his
code of ethics. As far as the doctor knows, he or she is performing within
their standard. The problem with this argument is that it only tells us where
to place the blame. It may not be the doctor’s fault, but does this mean that
ignorance of the situation is placing the doctor’s actions outside of the
boundaries of the their ethical code? Regardless of whether or not a doctor is
aware of the context in which they performing their duties, they are still
performing them unethically. Placing the blame on the military instead of the
doctor, which would be the case in this hypothetical scenario, does not change
the fact that the doctor is performing outside their oath. The ethical dilemma
still stands. Not to mention that military psychologists “were enlisted to help
develop more aggressive interrogation methods…against terrorism suspects” (Pope,
and Gutheil 1178-1180). Not only are doctors working in the wrong even when it
seems right, certain professionals are hired for reasons that directly pose an
ethical concern.
Among the many problems that arise when
evaluating issues regarding torture, this presentation takes on a different
approach. Rather than deeming waterboarding as subject that needs to be defined
in relation to some arbitrary universal definition for torture, I present some
alternative ethical conflicts that don’t even require the breakdown of the
elements of the waterboarding for an in-depth analysis on its supposed
inhumanity. Moreover, we can see how the mere existence of waterboarding has
placed professionals such as doctors of medicine, psychiatry and psychology in
an ethical dilemma. Waterboarding doesn’t need to be inhumane for it to be
unethical because doctors are inherently prohibited in participating in such
acts. Unfortunately, the U.S. government demonstrates somewhat of a disregard
for this ethical construct by employing doctors to not only assist, but also to
help design and improve interrogation methods. In response to these acts, the
U.S. judiciary system has an interesting way of defending its convictions when
laws and ethics contradict one another. Being aware of this, is there something
else to be said of waterboarding? The fact that we don’t even need to describe
what waterboarding is specifically in order to argue its immorality says
something in itself; especially when we analyze how the military and government
react to it. Waterboarding may or may not be an ethically valid form of
interrogation, but it sure makes doctors and even the entire U.S. look bad from
a foundational standpoint.
Bibliography
Pope, Kenneth, and Thomas Gutheil.
"The interrogation of detainees: how doctors' and psychologists' ethical
policies differ." BMJ: British Medical Journal 338.7704 (2009):
1178-1180. JSTOR. Database. 14 Apr 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/25671588 >.
Downie, R.S. "The Ethics of Medical
Involvement in Torture." Journal of Medical Ethics 19.3 (1993):
135-137. JSTOR. Database. 14 Apr 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/27717300>.
"Senior U.S. Officials Acknowledge
Waterboarding of Three Suspected Terrorists; Administration Defends Practice
." American Journal of International Law 102.2 (2008): 359-361. JSTOR.
Database. 14 Apr 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034554 >.
"Secret Justice Department Memos Said
To Sanction "Severe" Interrogation Tactics." American Journal
of International Law 102.1 (2008): 177-179. JSTOR. Database. 14 Apr
2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40007788>.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Rhetorical Critique Reflection
The first draft for my rhetorical critique was actually pretty adequate as far as establishing a valid argument in response to Sontag's article. The draft presented some good arguments that had solid and direct ties to arguing appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos. Professor Brown's comments mainly focused on some discrepancies that involved clarity in word choice and elaborations with some points of reference. There was also an issue that involved misinterpreting Sontag's text. Nonetheless, these mistakes didn't hinder my direction in critiquing the text.
My majority of my final draft consisted of the main points and organization from my first draft and I focused primarily on adjusting some sentence structure and content to allow it to be read more comprehensively. Overall there wasn't too much to change, at least in my opinion, other these minor details. I feel that my intial attempt to critique the text I choose was a competent enough presentation that only required minor changes and, overall, I proposed a solid argument against Sontag's rhetoric.
My majority of my final draft consisted of the main points and organization from my first draft and I focused primarily on adjusting some sentence structure and content to allow it to be read more comprehensively. Overall there wasn't too much to change, at least in my opinion, other these minor details. I feel that my intial attempt to critique the text I choose was a competent enough presentation that only required minor changes and, overall, I proposed a solid argument against Sontag's rhetoric.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Response to "Shooting an Elephant"
1. The narrator describes himself as someone who fundamentally opposes the imperialism in Burma. How does this affect his ultimate decision in shooting the elephant? Would he still have made the decision had he not been in opposition to Burma's acquisition?
2. Why was it so important for the officer to legally justify himself in the end of the text? What sort of ethical dilemma is this?
3. For someone who made a decision that was based on the pressure of the masses (as well as justifying himself in the end), he was pretty descriptive and honest with how the elephant had such a tortuous death. Why is that?
Response to question 2:
It's a pretty tough situation for this british soldier to be in. The man was strongly opposed to the colonization of Burma and he explained his dissonant state of mind when understanding that he couldn't do anything about because of his position. The weird part is that I'm not sure that has anything to do with his decision to kill the elephant. He doesn't say that he particularly loves the Burmese at all, rather, he explains how he resents them for their behavior toward him. This suggests that he opposes the colonization as a principle of ethics rather than having a soft spot for the Burmese people. But how does this apply to his moment of weakness when shooting the elephant.
I'll try to put it into perspective: A man is a soldier for the british army stationed in Burma so as to maintain their presence and annexation of the country. The man hate the idea of british colonialism and is torn between this hate and his hate for the Burmese. BUT, his he implies (not specifies) that his hate for the Burmese is attributed to the fact that they make his job difficult. So, summing that portion up: British officer who's job it is to maintain colonization of the country, Burmese don't like it so they oppose and fight back, the officer doesn't like them because he can't do the job that he hates doing. Pretty strange. This makes me think that the loyalty to the British army is a strong one. Either that or, on a much deeper level, he doesn't like the Burmese because they aren't understanding enough that he doesn't have a choice. So there might so deep resentment toward them for not giving him a break. I still think that that's as selfish thought though. If anything, the officer should be more understanding of their inability to understand that the person pointing a gun at them doesn't want to point it at them. Because their people still die at the hands of the British.
Anyway, in applying this to the incident with the elephant: We have an officer who hates his job but hates Burmese because they don't let him do his job. He doesn't want to kill this elephant because he doesn't know how and because it's a valuable commodity within Burma. When he sees the elephant it looks calm with no threat or danger. He notices there are a lot of people watching. Now this is the part that i dont understand. Why would a guy who hates his job and Burmese people in a contradictory way, make a decision that helps him avoid looking like a fool in front of the people he doesn't like? If he didn't like this people, why bother worrying about looking bad in front of them? Is it because he doesn't want to throw on the authoritative demeanor in front of them because that would glorify his position as a british soldier (a position he hates)? Surely the chain of command within the british army wouldn't care if an elephant died or lived. This suggests that his opposition to this colonization is much stronger than his hate for the Burmese people. If he were acting on his hate for the people watching him, he would have let the alleged dangerous elephant rampage the rest of the town. But that would come in conflict with his assigned duty to maintain peace. Yet the elephant didn't seem dangerous. Not killing the elephant would make him look like an incompetent british soldier. So perhaps, his killing it was to not look like a bad British soldier (something he hates being). So his action justifies not letting the Burmese think that he is afraid to perform, that he is a competent imperialist officer and that he is in charge. Perhaps then, his actions suggest that his hate for the Burmese override his hate for colonizing them. Such a strange ethical dilemma that I don't fully understand.
Or maybe this decision to the kill the elephant is entirely unrelated to how he feels about the Burmese or the british army. Maybe this is just an incident of peer pressure.
2. Why was it so important for the officer to legally justify himself in the end of the text? What sort of ethical dilemma is this?
3. For someone who made a decision that was based on the pressure of the masses (as well as justifying himself in the end), he was pretty descriptive and honest with how the elephant had such a tortuous death. Why is that?
Response to question 2:
It's a pretty tough situation for this british soldier to be in. The man was strongly opposed to the colonization of Burma and he explained his dissonant state of mind when understanding that he couldn't do anything about because of his position. The weird part is that I'm not sure that has anything to do with his decision to kill the elephant. He doesn't say that he particularly loves the Burmese at all, rather, he explains how he resents them for their behavior toward him. This suggests that he opposes the colonization as a principle of ethics rather than having a soft spot for the Burmese people. But how does this apply to his moment of weakness when shooting the elephant.
I'll try to put it into perspective: A man is a soldier for the british army stationed in Burma so as to maintain their presence and annexation of the country. The man hate the idea of british colonialism and is torn between this hate and his hate for the Burmese. BUT, his he implies (not specifies) that his hate for the Burmese is attributed to the fact that they make his job difficult. So, summing that portion up: British officer who's job it is to maintain colonization of the country, Burmese don't like it so they oppose and fight back, the officer doesn't like them because he can't do the job that he hates doing. Pretty strange. This makes me think that the loyalty to the British army is a strong one. Either that or, on a much deeper level, he doesn't like the Burmese because they aren't understanding enough that he doesn't have a choice. So there might so deep resentment toward them for not giving him a break. I still think that that's as selfish thought though. If anything, the officer should be more understanding of their inability to understand that the person pointing a gun at them doesn't want to point it at them. Because their people still die at the hands of the British.
Anyway, in applying this to the incident with the elephant: We have an officer who hates his job but hates Burmese because they don't let him do his job. He doesn't want to kill this elephant because he doesn't know how and because it's a valuable commodity within Burma. When he sees the elephant it looks calm with no threat or danger. He notices there are a lot of people watching. Now this is the part that i dont understand. Why would a guy who hates his job and Burmese people in a contradictory way, make a decision that helps him avoid looking like a fool in front of the people he doesn't like? If he didn't like this people, why bother worrying about looking bad in front of them? Is it because he doesn't want to throw on the authoritative demeanor in front of them because that would glorify his position as a british soldier (a position he hates)? Surely the chain of command within the british army wouldn't care if an elephant died or lived. This suggests that his opposition to this colonization is much stronger than his hate for the Burmese people. If he were acting on his hate for the people watching him, he would have let the alleged dangerous elephant rampage the rest of the town. But that would come in conflict with his assigned duty to maintain peace. Yet the elephant didn't seem dangerous. Not killing the elephant would make him look like an incompetent british soldier. So perhaps, his killing it was to not look like a bad British soldier (something he hates being). So his action justifies not letting the Burmese think that he is afraid to perform, that he is a competent imperialist officer and that he is in charge. Perhaps then, his actions suggest that his hate for the Burmese override his hate for colonizing them. Such a strange ethical dilemma that I don't fully understand.
Or maybe this decision to the kill the elephant is entirely unrelated to how he feels about the Burmese or the british army. Maybe this is just an incident of peer pressure.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Response to "A small place"
1. This article uses a unique rhetorical strategy. How does this particular technique better for the intended message than others?
2. Why is it that the reader doesn't exactly feel offended by the accusations and insinuations made toward them?
3. The article makes some points that are seemingly central to the fundamental idea, however, there are many twists and turns of arguments. Why is this?
Response to question 3:
This reading was interesting, mainly because of it's seemingly confusing changes in tone and content. I think the author does a good job of appealing to ethos precisely because of how they help to establish a very detailed visual of desired perspective while at the same time establishing a particular atmosphere and emotion that changes gradually enough to where the reader doesn't have to make too big of leaps to connect with the author.
The funny thing is that the author is sort of incorporating some sarcasm but they do it in a way that makes the reader sort of de-personalize or make some sort of distinction between the themselves and a "tourist." The skill is that they don't make any direct accusations toward the reader at first. The author begins with phrases like "if you go to antigua," and "you may be the sort of tourist." So naturally, the reader feels as though this is some sort of hypothetical conjecture that they can surmise as a whim they can let play along with a little curiosity. This is effective because it interests the reader enough to participate in this engagement and continue the read. The funny part is the text concludes with the author placing the blame of the issue on the reader themselves, yet the reader actually makes it all the way to the end. Maybe they aren't necessarily agreeing with everything being stated, but at least "hypothetically" considering it.
Basically my point is that the author's rhetorical strategy is effective.
As far as the content of the article, it's interesting. At some point, I realized that the author was actually really good at appealing to ethos. They aren't one-sided (at least their logic doesn't deem so) because they establish an attitude of fairness and understanding to the misfortune of their country.
But.... they still make it clear that the repercussions of everything they describe is still oozing bitterness. You can tell. It's a good read and it's very convincing.
2. Why is it that the reader doesn't exactly feel offended by the accusations and insinuations made toward them?
3. The article makes some points that are seemingly central to the fundamental idea, however, there are many twists and turns of arguments. Why is this?
Response to question 3:
This reading was interesting, mainly because of it's seemingly confusing changes in tone and content. I think the author does a good job of appealing to ethos precisely because of how they help to establish a very detailed visual of desired perspective while at the same time establishing a particular atmosphere and emotion that changes gradually enough to where the reader doesn't have to make too big of leaps to connect with the author.
The funny thing is that the author is sort of incorporating some sarcasm but they do it in a way that makes the reader sort of de-personalize or make some sort of distinction between the themselves and a "tourist." The skill is that they don't make any direct accusations toward the reader at first. The author begins with phrases like "if you go to antigua," and "you may be the sort of tourist." So naturally, the reader feels as though this is some sort of hypothetical conjecture that they can surmise as a whim they can let play along with a little curiosity. This is effective because it interests the reader enough to participate in this engagement and continue the read. The funny part is the text concludes with the author placing the blame of the issue on the reader themselves, yet the reader actually makes it all the way to the end. Maybe they aren't necessarily agreeing with everything being stated, but at least "hypothetically" considering it.
Basically my point is that the author's rhetorical strategy is effective.
As far as the content of the article, it's interesting. At some point, I realized that the author was actually really good at appealing to ethos. They aren't one-sided (at least their logic doesn't deem so) because they establish an attitude of fairness and understanding to the misfortune of their country.
But.... they still make it clear that the repercussions of everything they describe is still oozing bitterness. You can tell. It's a good read and it's very convincing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)