In response to C.S. Lewis's Vivisection I have these 3 questions:
1. Is Vivisection ever morally right?
2. Should we test on animals?
3. What are some other alternatives to Vivisection?
I will answer question one and two:
In the article Lewis goes back and forth between different views on Vivisection and every one of them seems to have its arguments for and against but they all still seem to come to the conclusion that Vivisection is not right, I personally have a two sided stance on the matter, I'm sure there are some people who agree with me. I think that animal testing is not morally right. Animals cannot speak for themselves, and I do believe that every animal has a conscious mind no matter how small. I believe that they do feel, they feel pain, joy, and fear.
Now with that said I will address question two. I think that if the animal is being tested on to help the human race for the better that animal testing is ok. Animal testing has proven very helpful in the field of science and medicine without it we would not have a lot of the medical and scientific advances we do today. I do not wish there to be cruelty in the pursuit of finding these advances but I know that that cannot be true. Cruelty mostelikely comes with the territory of Vivisection. I hate to think of the cruelty that is done to these animals in the pursuits of finding advances but I ultimately feel that it is for "greater good".
Friday, April 19, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
Shooting an Elephant
In responce to George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" I ask:
1. Why do people feel the need to impress others?
2. Why did the author refer to the 'natives' as 'yellow faces'?
3. Why did the author care if he was being laughed at by the 'natives"?
I am going to answer the first question.
In Orwell's article he talks about not wanting to do anything to get laughed at by the 'natives' and ends up shooting an elephant because he wants to impress the crowd that had formed around him, but why do people do things like that to impress others? Orwell is an English soldier living in Burma, at that time he was considered the "superior race" so why did he feel the need to impress them?He admitted to hating the 'natives' and the job that he was doing there so why did he shoot the elephant?
In Bhuddhism elephants represent mental strenght. I think its ironic that Orwell shot the elephant to impress and entertain the natives. In doing so he shows his mental weakness, he wouldent do the right thing because he couldn't bare to be laughed at by the natives. Someone with mental strenght would have done the right thing solely based on the fact that it was right.
I like to think of myself as someone who doesnt care what people think of me, but I constantly find myself seeking the approval of others. My theory on this is that people as a whole are affraid to be alone. I think we all have this strange delusion that if we dont constantly impress and gain approval that we might end up alone, So we unconciously (or conciously) impress others with the hope of finding approval from someone so we dont have to be alone.
1. Why do people feel the need to impress others?
2. Why did the author refer to the 'natives' as 'yellow faces'?
3. Why did the author care if he was being laughed at by the 'natives"?
I am going to answer the first question.
In Orwell's article he talks about not wanting to do anything to get laughed at by the 'natives' and ends up shooting an elephant because he wants to impress the crowd that had formed around him, but why do people do things like that to impress others? Orwell is an English soldier living in Burma, at that time he was considered the "superior race" so why did he feel the need to impress them?He admitted to hating the 'natives' and the job that he was doing there so why did he shoot the elephant?
In Bhuddhism elephants represent mental strenght. I think its ironic that Orwell shot the elephant to impress and entertain the natives. In doing so he shows his mental weakness, he wouldent do the right thing because he couldn't bare to be laughed at by the natives. Someone with mental strenght would have done the right thing solely based on the fact that it was right.
I like to think of myself as someone who doesnt care what people think of me, but I constantly find myself seeking the approval of others. My theory on this is that people as a whole are affraid to be alone. I think we all have this strange delusion that if we dont constantly impress and gain approval that we might end up alone, So we unconciously (or conciously) impress others with the hope of finding approval from someone so we dont have to be alone.
Monday, April 1, 2013
A Small Place
In response to Jamaica Kincade's "A Small Place" I ask:
1. Why did the author tell two differnt stories?
2. Are the English really to blame for everything?
3. What was the significance to telling the story about the tourist?
I will answer all three questions:
1. In Jamaica Kincade's "A Small Place" the author tells two sotries.The first is one from the point of veiw of a tourist, the other was from her point of view (an Antiguan). The author tells the two stories to show the two sides of Antigua. The first story portraying a beutiful place to go on vacation and get away from the mundaine world that you (the tourist) lives. The second story telling how the "beautiful" place the tourist is visiting came to be, how the Enlish came and made everything theirs. Kincade really wants the reader to see the different point of view the two people have of the same place. The tourist sees a great place to go on vacation with interesting native people. The native people see the reminance of what England left and how it reminds them of how much they disliked the Enlish.
2. The English in that time were taking land by storm. Just as Kincade says the English wanted to feel better about themselves so they took land from others. But the English really were just people of the time. At this time all the wealthy nations were trying to expand, they were taking land from people they thought were less than them because they felt entitled to it, the common thought was if the natives dont know what can be done with this land then they shouldent have it. Expansion was first and foremost in the wealthy nations minds, the more land and people they had to control the more powerful they were. In the case of Antigua, the English saw the land as more wealth and more people to control, they were the "superior" people so therfore they deserved the land, so they took it and made their own. But what the author doesnt mention is that they were just people of the time, tinking the same as all the other wealthy nations, doing what other nations were doing to other unclaimed land.
3.The authors point in telling the story about the tourist is to make the ironic connection that the tourist who come Antigua and thought of it as a magical place so full of beauty are the "same" English people as in the second story, people coming in to the native land thinking and doing what they want and how they want. They do everything their way, not thinking to try things in the custommary manner of the native people, and when they see the people native to Antigua they think to themselves "its so interesting and weird how they conduct themselvs and how they live their lives" when in reality the Antiguans are saying the same about the foreigners. Its true of all cultures though, as Kincade says we are all natives of our own land and we are all tourists of someone elses whenever we leave.
1. Why did the author tell two differnt stories?
2. Are the English really to blame for everything?
3. What was the significance to telling the story about the tourist?
I will answer all three questions:
1. In Jamaica Kincade's "A Small Place" the author tells two sotries.The first is one from the point of veiw of a tourist, the other was from her point of view (an Antiguan). The author tells the two stories to show the two sides of Antigua. The first story portraying a beutiful place to go on vacation and get away from the mundaine world that you (the tourist) lives. The second story telling how the "beautiful" place the tourist is visiting came to be, how the Enlish came and made everything theirs. Kincade really wants the reader to see the different point of view the two people have of the same place. The tourist sees a great place to go on vacation with interesting native people. The native people see the reminance of what England left and how it reminds them of how much they disliked the Enlish.
2. The English in that time were taking land by storm. Just as Kincade says the English wanted to feel better about themselves so they took land from others. But the English really were just people of the time. At this time all the wealthy nations were trying to expand, they were taking land from people they thought were less than them because they felt entitled to it, the common thought was if the natives dont know what can be done with this land then they shouldent have it. Expansion was first and foremost in the wealthy nations minds, the more land and people they had to control the more powerful they were. In the case of Antigua, the English saw the land as more wealth and more people to control, they were the "superior" people so therfore they deserved the land, so they took it and made their own. But what the author doesnt mention is that they were just people of the time, tinking the same as all the other wealthy nations, doing what other nations were doing to other unclaimed land.
3.The authors point in telling the story about the tourist is to make the ironic connection that the tourist who come Antigua and thought of it as a magical place so full of beauty are the "same" English people as in the second story, people coming in to the native land thinking and doing what they want and how they want. They do everything their way, not thinking to try things in the custommary manner of the native people, and when they see the people native to Antigua they think to themselves "its so interesting and weird how they conduct themselvs and how they live their lives" when in reality the Antiguans are saying the same about the foreigners. Its true of all cultures though, as Kincade says we are all natives of our own land and we are all tourists of someone elses whenever we leave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)