When people usually ask where do you stand on the death penalty, abortion, etc. I usually reply in turn that I haven't really thought about it. When reading and discussing all of these texts in class i started to establish my ethical views on worldly issues. My favorite texts to read were: Harrison Bergeron, Cold Equations, Fetching Raymond. In each of these stories the main characters face their own dilemma where they must make a decision of what is right and what is wrong.
" Am I a good person? Deep down, do I even really want to be a good person, or do I only want to seem like a good person so that people (including myself) will approve of me? Is there a difference? How do I ever actually know whether I'm bullshitting myself, morally speaking?" - David Foster Wallace
I think deep down we know in our gut what is right and what is wrong. The hard part is sticking to it. Well, I hoped you enjoyed reading my views on these various ethical issues.
Lord Acton once said that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The key word there is "tends", there are some that use their "power" for good. In the case of Lord of the Rings a central theme of the story is the influence power has over Men, Elves, Wizards, Dwarfs, and Hobbits. This power is personified in a single entity, the Ruling Ring, the Master Ring, the One Ring, the Ring of Power. The Ring, as a metaphor or symbol for power, is the driving force behind every single action in the Lord of the Rings, whether the characters are denying it, accepting it, or fighting it. The acquisition of absolute power by man leads to corruption.
"With great power comes great responsibility"
-Spider Man
As people in positions of power they have the ethical obligation to do right by their people and not take advantage of them. Nonetheless, "Power is complex, and affects all those who occupy hierarchic roles" (Blaug 29). Logically we know that power should be wielded wisely, that it should be used for the good of the people and for the strength of the community, but most of all it should be guided by a strong code of ethics. Aragorn and Faramir are examples heroic archetypal leaders; fair and just leaders with power to lead their people down the right path. However, there are endless methods of manipulation to accomplish lordship over others, "naked force, use of all faiths, loyalties, and interest, and the probability that a great many people will usually act as anyone having the power position wishes" (Berle 60). If you have compassionate rulers then on the other side of the coin you must have cruel ones.
"Corruption by power occurs so frequently we are barely surprised by it. Mad kings, psychotic dictator, insane warlords, unhinged corporate executive and politicians who never understood what they did wrong, all attest to our collective inability to manage elevated power" (Blaug 1).
Alexander, Tiberius, Caesar, Robespierre, Mugabe, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Thatcher, Lee Kuan, and so on, all these tyrannical leaders abused their power over the people below them.
If we were to add fictional characters to the list surly Saruman and Sauron would be among them. They used intimidation and fear to get their followers to try and overrun Middle Earth. Corrupt rulers do these unjust acts to get ahead and further themselves and fulfill their own selfish needs; the men who are easily corrupted by power tend to be the ones who have greedy and selfish hearts. Abraham Lincoln, an honest president, once said: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
To show how power affects people differently I decided to use three descendants from the House of Húrin, Boromir, Faramir, and their father Denethor."And the memory of Boromir, of the dreadful change that the lure of the Ring had worked in him, was very present to his mind, when he looked at Faramir and listened to his voice: unlike the were, and yet also much akin" (The Two Towers 672). Boromir actions came from good intentions the ring corrupted him into thinking the best way to save his city and his people was with the power of the One Ring."But such is Faramir. Less reckless and eager than Boromir, but not less resolute" (The Return of the King 766). Faramir had the opportunity to take the ring as did Boromir however; Faramir recognized that the One Ring, that held that much power could not be wielded for honest purposes. Now in the case of Denethor, after feeling Sarun's power and strength through a Palantíri and after the death of his son Boromir he was driven further and further into madness until he succumbed to it, taking his own life. All three of these men had good intentions and would have used the Ring of Power with the intent to do good for Gondor and its people, should it have been permitted and wise thing to do so.
Gollum shows the physical and mental effects of the Ring and its power. However misguided he may be the Ring of Power would not have been destroyed if it were not for Gollum and the corruption the Ring had on him.
Power, temptation, success, love of land and people, these are some of the driving forces behind the characters in the Lord of the Rings. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," Galadriel and Gandalf desire the Ring because they believe they could use it to protect Middle Earth, but that isn't realistically possible because the Ring contains the will of Sauron. There have been countless rulers in history whose main objective was to expand their empire and their control over others. Saroun is the same, through Saruman and his army he wishes to expand his power beyond Mordor. Lord Acton "recognized that nations and civilizations fell into decline - not so much because they were powerless but because of their inability to use their power wisely" (Cousins 23). Which in itself is a motive for future rulers who wish to prevent their nation's fall. Saruman's main motive was his thirst for knowledge which led to his undoing.
"Once he (Saruman) was as great as his fame made him. His knowledge was deep, his thought was subtle, and his hands marvelously skilled; and he had power over the minds of others. The wise he could persuade, and the smaller folk he could daunt. That power he certainly still keeps" (The Two Towers 567).
Another thing to take into account is a person's strength of will and heart, the Ring primarily takes control and dominance over people with weak hearts that lack a moral compass. The need for power isn't as strong in Hobbits like it is in men. Frodo faces the temptation of the Ring of Power every day that he carries it on his journey to Mount Doom. Though he doesn't give in completely till he reaches the volcano the power the ring holds still affects his actions. You could say in a way he takes advantage of Gollum using him to further his own needs even if he has good intentions and Gollum isn't the best of characters. Even the most pure hearted character in the story, Samwise Gamgee, wonders what it would be like to possess the Ring.
Though it doesn't seem to play a role in Middle Earth at least not that Tolkien seems to focus on, economic power seems to be behind everything in our world today. However, "the rich man has little power merely because he is rich. He does nevertheless; in certain fields have avenues to power not readily available to poor men" (Berle 216). I find that in the real world in place of the One Ring there is money which people always want more of.
Even when the Ring is destroyed there will still be corrupt power in the world getting rid of it won't make the world a perfect place which could also be said for the world today. In the case of Lord of the Rings, some used power for selfish purposes, others wished to use it for good, and some knew that its power could not be wielded for the good of Middle Earth. In conclusion, it is true that not all are corrupted by power, but I believe that all can be tempted by it, even the ones most pure of heart. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; Tolkien used corruption to test his characters, to show what lies deep down in their hearts. Corruption shows who we can trust and who we elect to follow, whether that is a true leader like Aragorn or a tyrant like Sauron.
Berle, Adolf A. "Power: A Desire and A Social Necessity." Power. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969. Print.
Blaug, Ricardo. How Power Corrupts: Cognition and Democracy in Organisations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.
Cousins, Norman. The Pathology of Power. New York: Norton, 1987. Print.
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings. New York: Mariner/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012. Print. ____________________________________________________________________
Fun fact while writing this paper I listened to the complete Lord of the Rings Score by Howard Shore, feel free to check it out below.
To analyze The Hangover I decided to make a list of every thing that could be viewed as unethical and the amount of ethical issues in this film is abundant the final tally was around 66 give or take a few roofies and counting explicit,offensive language throughout the movie as one.
Conning students into paying for their trip to Vegas
Explicit, offensive language
Making fun of Alan
Alan "I don't care if we kill someone"
Alan is not supposed to be within two hundred feet of school or Chuckie cheese
A teacher calling his students nerds pretending they don't exist
Lying to girlfriend of three years saying he's going to Napa Valley instead of Vegas
"Paging doctor faggot"
Little girl flicking off Alan
Making light of drinking and driving
Phil " I fucking hate my life" referring to wife and kid. You start dying a little bit everyday after getting married
Alan telling Doug he was alright when he could have crashed into truck as a joke risking everyone's life
Rude to elderly "I will hit an old man in public"
Girlfriend fucked a bartender
Counting cards
Making light of 9/11
Taking advantage of Stu making him pay for a villa
Calling friends girlfriend a complete butch
Same girlfriend beat boyfriends twice "she's strong willed"
Couple having sex in elevator
Going upstairs to roof of hotel is not allowed
Alan cutting himself
Looking for strippers and cocaine
Trashed hotel
Stealing tiger
Baby in closet
Don't call authorities about missing baby
Cursing in front of baby
pretending to make the baby jerk off
"I've found a baby before"
Driving/stealing cop car
Impersonating cops
Throwing hotel property (mattress) out the window
Hitting baby with car door and only worrying about the glasses said baby was wearing
Driving on sidewalk
Doctor allowing guests in an examination room during patients nude examination
Leaving baby in the car
Married stranger
Asain guys attacking the "wolf pack" and hitting a cop car
Shot Eddie
Lying to Traci
Cops blackmailing "wolf pack" to do taser demonstration
Parking car in the middle of Las Vegas bolivard "couldn't find a meter"
Fat Jesus
Can't taser people because you think it's funny that's police brutality
Naked Asian man in the trunk
Alan drugged the group, he thought it was ecstasy it was roofies
Their friend is still missing and they still don't call the authorities
Mike Tyson punching Alan for no reason
Use "Tend to do dumb shit when were fucked up" as an excuse
Drugging tiger (animal cruelty)
Stopping car on highway
Trespassing on someone else's property
Peeing in someone's pool
Humping tiger
Car purposefully crashes into them
Stole money from Cho
Making fun of fat Alan
Kidnapping Cho
Money for Doug deal
Racist to "black Doug"
Moved white Doug to the roof as a prank
80,000 worth of chips
Acting like nothing happened with their families
Trashing father in laws car
The Photographic evidence
I felt kinda of stuck up, conservative, and hypocritical pointing out everything that was technically or ethically "wrong" with the film when in fact I was laughing the whole time. Even though we know that these are not encouraged we also know that as a whole human race we can't all be perfect drones and do everything to what is considered ethically right. The "wolf pack" has a lot of issues (see list above) that are not easy to pass of on a whim as being alright to do. And it's hard to believe they could really be a person like Alan in the world but there probably is and though he's pretty hilarious in the movie I don't think society would be laughing if we all acted like Alan.
The main ethical issue that can be seen throughout the movie is cussing. To cuss or not to cuss that is the question. Cussing is generally frowned upon, but the fact remains it's generally a very common thing in our world.When is it appropriate to cuss if ever? and Is someone a bad person if they drop the F bomb? I think it depends on context, I don't think it's right to cuss if you're verbally harassing someone, cursing in church or in a K-12 classroom, and so on. Me personally I can cuss like a sailor should the need arise and I really don't mind it unless it's a particular curse word that is derogatory towards me. I think it's fine among certain people that you know personally are comfortable with it, but you wouldn't go up to a elder or even your'e professor and just start dropping a curse word every other word. The first amendment also plays a role but i'm just going to say that, yeah you have the right to say whatever you want but not everybody wants to hear it. Depending on your setting and its context cursing isn't a big deal it's just a word, but there is a time and place for it.
My group discussed the video above and we discussed various questions such as:
-Is being naturally gifted unfair to those who are not?
It could be said that people who are born naturally gifted don't have to work as hard as someone who isn't to attain the same goal.
-Does the background we come from really matter?
You could potentially gain more social connections and more opportunities when coming from a privileged background so in that sense background matters.
-What could we do to have more equality in society today?
To answer this question we first created a genetic lottery of sorts to determine how far you would get in life depending on your race, gender, economic stature and whether you had brains beauty or strength. For example: if you were a disabled, Asian, women from a poor lower class background would you get as far in life as a smart, white, male from a rich upper class background? The fact that the white male would probably get farther ahead in life shows how unequal society is.
I believe there should be equal opportunity for everyone. We should try and see the world through lenses that negate race, gender,sexuality, etc. so people are judged strictly off of their merit and what they have achieved in life. Overall I really enjoyed the discussion in class along with hearing everyone's opinions. It wasn't so bad as far as oral presentations go. What's a Fair Start Power Point
Above is a short film based on the story Harrison Bergeron written by Kurt Voonegut, which explores the idea of an egalitarian society.
"The Year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal . They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else."
Maybe if everyone started with a clean slate and on the same level and then went on in life trying to reach their goals based strictly on their own merit, then I think it would be as fair as society could get. It's a nice ideal the possibility of an egalitarian society but not a realistic one. Vonnegut points out the flaws of an equal society in Harrison Bergeron, how total equality comes at the cost of individual freedom. An equal society would include everyone receiving the same amount of everything. For instance the same pay for maybe not the same amount of work. Now is that fair? Someone gets paid the same amount as you when you put forth more effort, shouldn't you get paid more? I don't think it's possible for everyone to be equal without hindering the exceptional and if we were all on the same level then our species would not advance.
In Shooting an Elephant byGeorge Orwell, the main focus of the story is a police officers' motive behind killing an elephant in must. Musth or must:"The frenzied state of certain male animals, especially elephants or camels, that is associated with the rutting season." The English police officer who is disrespected by the oppressed Burmese people seems to gain some of their respect after taking the first shot at the elephant. When the only thing the officer hears is the "devilish roar of glee that went up from the crowd". You can tell the police man is not proud of himself when he keeps shooting the elephant trying to kill it faster,trying to put it out of it's misery, but no matter how many shots he poured "into his heart and down his throat" the elephant just wouldn't let go. The English officer feels guilt for killing the elephant not simply because he had to kill an animal that didn't know what it was doing but because he killed the elephant so he himself wouldn't look bad in front of the Burmese people.
"I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool"
Though he feel guilt behind his motive for killing the elephant that doesn't change the fact that,"A mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog, if its owner fails to control it"
In both of the movie clips below there are examples of dogs that have been infected and must be put down because they are not in their right minds and they have become dangerous to others.
Where as in the clips above the dogs were put down before they could hurt someone the elephant in this story has already killed in it's need to mate. Which is a fact the Officer focuses on, legally he was in the right to kill the elephant because it had killed someone and could kill others. However, I do think if the officer cared less about what the Burmese people think he could have possibly prevented the elephant from killing the "coolie" in the first place by gaining control of the situation. Even though the Burmese may disrespect him he still has the authority and he should have some control over the people. Maybe he could have found a way to tranquilize or subdue the elephant if the officer wasn't weighed down by the opinions of the Burmese people.
We tend to fear what we can't control. The police officer said he "did not want to shoot the elephant...It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him." but the elephant had killed someone already and he had do right by the people, to in a way, earn their respect. Alot of people say they don't care what people think about them or their actions but I think no matter what they say they all care deep down and that influences their actions. Someone does or doesn't do something because they feel pressured into doing right by, not themselves, but the people watching in the crowd; like the officer who in the end falls to the peer pressure placed upon him and kills the "great beast".
Partake in a once in a lifetime journey or help a man in need and forgo the opportunity? What would you do? This is the moral dilemma that the author Bowen H. McCoy is faced with in The Parable of Sadhu, when he takes a trip to the Himalayas. On their journey through the Himalayas a group of people from all over the world come across a mostly naked man; A Sadhu, a religious or holy man, who "probably visited the shrines at Muklinath and was on his way home" and is now suffering from hypothermia. Ethical issues arise when various people try and help the Sadhu but they only help him as much as it is convenient for them. "No one person was willing to assume ultimate responsibility for the Sadhu. Each was willing to do his bit just so long as it was not too inconvenient. When it got to be a bother, everyone just passed the buck to someone else and took off." They don't go out of their way to help him down the mountain because their journey is more important to them. As is the money they probably invested in this trip, basically they act out of their own self interest. So these people may try and help the Sadhu as little as they can to come off as humane but they don't do enough to ensure his safety. It is shocking to see that all these people from different countries, cultures, and walks of life, none of them goes out of their way and helps this man get home. And at the end of the story the well being of the Sadhu and whether he got home safely or even if he is alive is still in question.
"How do you feel about contributing to the death of a fellow man?"
Don't we as humans have an implied obligation to help out our "fellow man" when in need. Don't we like to think that if we were in the shoes of the Sadhu that someone would go out of their way to ensure our safety to possibly get us home to our families. Would we still have that obligation if it were a dead person. Would you continue on your once on a lifetime journey through the Himalayas and just walk pass a dead body without a second thought. The author's friend Stephen seems to be the only one who cares about the Sadhu, but in the end he doesn't help the Sadhu either. "Where is the limit of our responsibility in a situation like this?"
There are unanswered questions that remain unanswered in the story like "Why (the Sadhu) had chosen this desperately high route instead of the safe, heavily traveled caravan route through the Kali Gandaki gorge. Or why he was shoe less and almost naked, or how long he had been lying in the pass" and what happened to the Sadhu? But the author clearly still has guilt over what he did or rather what he didn't do to help the Sadhu? Which means he knows he did the wrong thing. However if faced with the situation again he would probably do the right thing but it's probably a little to late.
If the opportunity presented itself where Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein or any other cruel tyrant lives were placed in your hands would you end their lives? What if killing one cruel leader could save millions of innocent lives would you take that human life? Would you travel back in time to kill Hitler?
A similar situation is presented in Just lather, That's all when an executioner walks into a rebels barber shop and asks for a shave seemingly, unwittingly putting his life in the hands of the barber; Who could potentially save the lives of his rebels friends by killing this man. However, as he is shaving the executioner an internal debate on whether to kill or not to kill strikes turmoil in the barber's head. "I'm a revolutionary not a murderer. And how easy it would be to kill him. And he deserves it. Does he? No! What the devil! No one deserves to have someone else make the sacrifice of becoming a murderer. What do you gain by it? Nothing. Other come along and still others, and the first ones kill the second ones and they the next ones and it goes on like this until everything is a sea of blood." But this executioner could be said, in the eye of the rebels, to deserve to be executed himself. The barber describes Captain Torres as "A man of imagination, because who else wold have thought of hanging the naked rebels and then holding target practice on certain parts of their bodies?" Obviously Torres doesn't appreciate the sanctity of human life even if the rebels are detrimental to his cause do they deserve to used as target practice? And if Captain Torres doesn't care about taking a life why should the barber hesitate to take his?
For example in the T.V. show House Season 6 Episode 4 "The Tyrant" a brutal dictator, Dibala, who plans to kill of the ethnic minority in his country is treated by the team. Through faked blood tests and a providing a wrongful diagnoses Dr.Chase kills Dibala and potentially saves thousands of people from a mass genocide. But did he do the right thing? Dr. Chase in later episodes feels enormous guilt which is understandable a doctors golden rule is to "do no harm" and we can't see into the future to see if Dibala would have gone through his plan to kill thousands and if Dr. Chase saved those lives by taking one. In Just Lather, That's All the barber makes a different call. He further goes on to debate how he would kill the executioner and how both sides would then view him. "I'm sure that one solid stroke, one deep incision, would prevent any pain. He wouldn't suffer. But what would I do with the body? Where would I hide it? I would have to flee leaving all I have behind, and take refuge far away, far, far away. But they would follow until they found me. "Captain Torres' murderer. He slit his throat while he was shaving him a cowards" And then on the other side. "The avenger of us all. A name to remember. (And here they would mention my name.) He was the town barber. No one knew he was defending our cause." In Star Wars the rebels are the good guys, they are Luke, Leia, Han, and the executioner is Darth Vader. I don't know what cause the barber or Captain Torres stand for but if they feel strongly enough about it, their actions could have good reasoning behind them. The Galactic Empire's reason for civil war is to restore the Sith to power, and the rebels is to restore the Jedi to power. It's good vs. evil, but both sides are fighting for what they believe it but who's right and who's wrong?
I think if he could get away with killing Captain Torres without any repercussions and his life would just continue like nothing ever happened then the barber would have killed the executioner. However, that is not realistic. And what would killing him really accomplish? Someone else would just kill the captured rebels except now the barber would be dead along with them. And I don't think the barber is willing to sacrifice himself for his cause if it isn't worth it.
The narrator of The Cold Equations is put in a situation where he must jettison a stowaway to save the lives of seven other people. You would assume that the stowaway was a brutal man, possibly even a criminal, who knew what he was doing when he hid himself on the Emergency Dispatch Ship which is what the pilot assumes as well. But the stowaway turns out to be an innocent girl who didn't know what she was doing she just wanted to see her brother. Now you would think this would be no deal this girl would just be in trouble possibly fined for sneaking aboard the ship however, the Interstellar Regulations state that: "Any stowaway discovered in an EDS shall be jettisoned immediately following discovery." This is regardless of the who the stowaway is or the circumstances surrounding their actions because every EDS only has a limited amount of fuel to go from point A to point B, fuel that would be used up faster because of the extra weight of the stowaway causing the ship to crash and therefore killing the pilot and the people he was meant to save with the medicine aboard the ship.
Is it right to kill this young girl just because of her nativity and for just wanting to see her brother? To think that this girls life will end just because "the ship doesn't have enough fuel?" If it was any other corrupt person trying to take advantage of the EDS the pilot himself said that he would take the mans life "with an objective lack of emotion". However the circumstances can not be changed the law is the law and it is there for a reason. No matter how cruel this logic may seem it has merit, What would you do if you were put in a situation similar to the EDS pilot.
It's not as if the people behind creating the law or the people who have to follow it are inhumane it's just a simple logic. Why would you sacrifice seven people when you could just end one persons life instead?
" You understand now, don't you? No one would ever let it be like this if it could be changed."
"I'm sorry - I can do nothing. This cruiser must maintain its schedule: the life of not one person but the lives of many depend on it. I know how you feel but I'm powerless to help you."
"It's different here; it's not like back on Earth," he said. "it isn't that no one cares; it's that no one can do anything to help."
"I didn't do anything to die for... I didn't do anything."
"I love you. I love you. I love you." Three words and eight letters that hold so much meaning and emotion. Italy is a short, bittersweet story about a couple during the best and worst parts of their marriage. The story starts with the wife questioning her husband "Why don't you tell me you love me more?" he counters the question by asking whether she means: Why doesn't he love her more? or Why he doesn't say I love you more? Later after suffering two miscarriages, the couple has an lovely vacation in Italy that makes them forget about any of their troubles. Once they return home and back to reality they learn the wife has ovarian cancer. She goes through with a trial treatment which she later fails but, despite the obvious pain it causes her, she continues to go through with the treatment to potentially help others with ovarian cancer.
One thing that stood out to me in the story was the husband's demeanor and the way he thinks. He's a man of logic, he thinks analytically and in numbers. He's thinks more like Spock than Kirk, which I find fascinating, but means that emotions don't come easy. It's quite common for men to have troubles expressing their emotions because it is seen as unmasculine and saying I love you opens yourself up to a bigger commitment one that you might not want. However, I don't think it's just a man thing I think it's just rare in women. I myself have trouble expressing my emotions. In fact when a emotional conversation is going on and I need to state my "feelings" the one thing I want to do most is run away from the conversation. Note: The feelings in quotation marks is me "expressing" my abject disgust at the word I can't even type the word without internally cringing. The husband may have trouble saying I love you, because he still feels the way he did when he first said I love you to his wife and doesn't think it's logical to repeat it if his feelings haven't changed. This reluctance to show emotion could also be due to a troubled background where affection wasn't dolled out easily. Trouble communicating emotion doesn't equal a lack of emotion. People who can't freely state their emotions without a care, often do better in showing them, whether through body language or through material things. Sometimes it's just easier to show I love you rather than say those three words.
A stand out point in this story is the courage and immense humanity the wife had to go through those trials and all that pain to help other people. It was something I don't know if I would do in my last moments on earth. I think if it was me I would have been selfish and done whatever I could to make the most of my last days so I wouldn't die with any regrets. Even though this story has a sad ending it shows the audience reading it that the husband deeply regretted not having enough courage or enough time to tell his wife how much he truly and genuinely he loved her. And this story is like an apology to his dead wife and I'm sure the wife knew that he loved her but I also think she would have liked to hear it as well.
"We are only given today and never promised tomorrow.So make sure you tell the people who are special in your life that you love them" - Unknown
The death penalty is always the subject of great debate where the same questions arise from state to state. Is it right to kill humans no matter there crime? Is the method of which they are executed inhumane? The biggest question is always who and what crimes committed deserve the death penalty? In preparation for this blog post I did some research on the death penalty this is what i found out: Only 32 states still use capital punishment, in 20 of those 30 states execution is done by lethal injection. The other 12 states use various other methods some of which are rather medieval but in most of these states the way of execution is the inmates choice.
Florida, South Carolina and Virginia allow inmates to choose between lethal injection and electrocution.
If there's nobody to administer a lethal injection in New Hampshire, prisoners can be hanged.
Death row inmates in Washington can ask for the gallows, too.
Oklahoma allows electrocution should lethal injection ever become unconstitutional. Utah has a similar clause, but favors a firing squad instead of the chair.
In Fetching Raymond, the title character Raymond who hails from a "white trash" family that has had more than one run in with the law, is put on death row for a decade after killing a dirty cop. There are a number of unethical things that Raymond does leading up to his execution, the main thing being Raymond taking advantage of his brothers and his mother by repeatedly asking for money to pay for his "lawyers" which we find out later he fired. He even goes so far as threatening suicide, repeatedly, because he has this sense of entitlement and he knows how to make his family feel guilty and uses that to his advantage. Unlike Raymond and his other brother Butch, Leon seems to be the only one that has put his life of crime behind him and has become the responsible one with a steady job. However, as they are waiting for Raymond's execution Leon keeps looking at his watch like he can't wait for this to be over so Leon can get out of there. Does this mean he thinks his brother deserves what he's getting?Does Leon even care? The story ends with Leon just going back to work as if nothing happened. Through the reading a question arises in Raymond's case of whether or not he killed the cop in self defense. A cop who has had a vendetta against Raymond and his brothers even vowing to kill Raymond. This same cop who has been involved in a drug syndicate. In the course of the trial Raymond never owns up to acting in self defense saying he wasn't there and he didn't do it. In the end though Raymond asks for forgiveness which kind of confirms that he did kill the cop whether in self defense or in cold blooded murder the audience is meant to make their own inferences. But was it ethical for Raymond to have such a heavy sentence when there was so much evidence to cloud his trial and conviction?
When searching for other content to support this blog post I thought of Led Zeppelin's Gallows Pole which goes perfectly with Fetching Raymond especially with the lyrics: "What did you bring me my brother, to keep me from the Gallows pole?" which shockingly sounds like a direct echo from what Raymond said himself.
So what crimes are deserving of capital punishment? I believe in the death penalty when there is undoubted proof that the crime, that deserves a death sentence, was committed by the person they sentence. I don't want innocent people to die by being wrongly sentenced. However, I understand that our justice system is flawed and that a lot of criminals fall through the cracks. In the link below there is a scene form one of my favorite movies, the Boondock Saints. The opening monologue in the clip gives examples of our flawed justice system along with a certain view on how justice should be dealt with, in their opinion. Disclosure: This clip contains strong violence and explicit language and if you watch till the end, no animals were hurt in the making of this movie. The Boondock Saints - Cat Scene
"I'm a supporter of gay rights. And not a closet supporter either. From the time I was a kid, I have never been able to understand attacks upon the gay community. There are so many qualities that make up a human being... by the time I get through with all the things that I really admire about people, what they do with their private parts is probably so low on the list that it is irrelevant." - Paul Newman
"Coming out" and owning who you are has become more and more common because people have started to accept the gay community. However, there are still the "Jesus hates fags" groups who march around with picket signs protesting against the LGBT community. In the Case of Tiny Smiling Daddya young girl, Kitty, comes out to her father, Stew, and he doesn't take it very well. "You're a lesbian? Fine," he said. "You mean nothing to me. You walk out that door, it doesn't matter. And if you come back in, I'm going to spit in your face. I don't care if I'm on my deathbed, I'll still have the energy to spit in your face."
Despite how cruel and harsh this is for a father to say to his daughter it is, unfortunately, not an uncommon reaction among parents. Growing Up LGBT in America: View Statistics
Kitty publishes an article in Self magazine that talks about her sexuality and her relationship with her father unbeknownst to her father. Now i'm not saying that the daughter needed to ask permission to publish the article she did however, ethically, need to tell her father that she was publishing it so the father didn't find out from someone other than her. I can understand her reluctance to tell her father when he is not accepting of her life style. I don't know the father's background or why he is so homophobic, it could be his own dysfunctional relationship with his father which he talks about in the story. You kind of feel sorry for Stew because his own ego blinds him from seeing why and how he's lost his daughter.
I myself am straight however I have a number of friends that are not. I also have a cousin who is bi and my grandmother a Christian woman who loves all 15 of her grandchildren didn't react that badly. My grandmother was much like how Kitty described her father, "my father may love me but he doesn't love the way I
live". But unlike Stew my grandmother would never "spit in your face". There are different levels of acceptance and non acceptance and deep down we all want to be accepted for who we are no matter what facade we put up. I would like to hope that maybe in the next generation being gay or transgender or what ever you chose to identify as won't be such a big deal. And I hate to quote Lady Gaga's Born this Way but the simple lyrics about accepting yourself is what made it a gay anthem.
No matter gay, straight or bi Lesbian, transgender life I'm on the right track, baby I was born to survive No matter black, white or beige Chola or orient made I'm on the right track, baby I was born to be brave
In the Interpreter of Maladies the dynamics of the Das family are explored through their tour guide, Mr. Kapasi as they visit India. The main focus is on Mrs. Das or Mina who after minimal interaction with her children, The little girl stuck out a hand. "Mine too. Mommy, do mine too." "Leave me alone," Mrs. Das said, blowing on her nail and turning her body slightly. "You’re making me mess up.", comes off as a an uncaring mother. Throughout the story Mr. and Mrs. Das seem to be more like siblings to their children rather than parents having the children refer to them by their first names. "Mr. Kapasi found it strange that Mr. Das should refer to his wife by her first name when speaking to the little girl."Later in the story while talking maybe even flirting with their tour guide, Mrs. Das tells Mr. Kapasi that her son, Bobby, isn't her husbands that he is a product of an affair she had with a friend of her husbands. Though Flirting with a married women is unethical it becomes a moot point because after Mrs. Das confession, Mr. Kapasi's crush on her and his respect for her begins to fade.
He thinks I’m still in love with him. Well, don’t you have anything to say?" "About what?" "About what I've just told you. About my secret, and about how terrible it makes me feel. I feel terrible looking at my children, and at Raj, always terrible. I have terrible urges, Mr. Kapasi, to throw things away. One day I had the urge to throw everything I own out the window, the television, the children, everything. Don’t you think it’s unhealthy?"
If Mrs. Das knows she no longer loves her husband then the ethical thing to do would be to tell him that along with the fact that Bobby isn't his son. However I don't think she ever will because it would disrupt her life more than she wants. I also think she cares at least a little about her children because she knows her son will be hurt the most by the truth coming out. I unfortunately can relate to this situation, my cousin's "father" isn't his biological father. While my Aunt was briefly separated from her long time partner she slept with another man and became pregnant with my cousin. Now I think my Uncle knows but I don't know if my cousin is aware or even the man my she slept with knows. I haven't told him myself because it is not my place to tell him but there is still some guilt I hold in not telling him. I think if my cousin ever did find out he would be that surprised but it would also make sense because when you compare him to his siblings he stands out as not looking like them. The situation reminds me of Ross and Rachel's "break" in the T.V Show Friends, but instead of Ross sleeping with someone else its the other way around and my Aunt ended up pregnant.
When Mrs. Das asks for an interpretation of her marriage, expecting to be coddled Mr. Kapasi is in turn blunt and honest with her: " Is it really pain you feel, Mrs. Das, or is it guilt?". The issue of guilt is a central theme in the story. I believe that Mrs. Das's guilt is personified through the monkeys in the story. They symbolize the guilt of her affair that she always has in the back of her mind, always lurking. And as a result of her airing out her affair to the interpreter, a complete stranger, the object of her guilt, Bobby, is attacked by the monkeys.
Even though she sometimes gets the urge to "throw away her children" there are worse mothers than Mrs. Das: 13 of the World’s Worst Mothers
Now seeing as I was unable to attend class and partake in the discussion of Susan Minot's Lust I thought I should discuss it in my first blog post. Now Lust focuses on the psychological consequences of a young women having meaningless sex, this woman who is portrayed as what today some people might call a slut. Merriam Webster defines a slut as " a woman who has many sexual partners", not a person or even a man just a women.
Our society's differentiating views on men and women shows the way we hold men and women to different (often double) standards. For men the more woman you sleep with the more "respect" or "props" you get from your "bros" whereas if a woman were to have "too many" sexual partners she would be judged for it by both men and women. I think my fellow ethics classmate, Marek discusses it very similarly and probably better than me in his blog post: Lust or Love. The pressure society puts behind sex can be one of the reasons the narrator comes off being rather detached and casual when she is recalling or rather listing her fornication's with all of these men. There is a certain lack of intimacy that she portrays and even when having meaningless sex with someone there is still some pleasurable gratification involved. However the narrator, she seems to separate body and mind especially when she describes herself as just "a body waiting on the rug". Which further pushes another society view where sex doesn't always equal love. "They turn casually to look at you, distracted, and get a mild distracted surprise, you're gone. Their blank look tells you that the girl they were fucking is not there anymore. You seem to have disappeared." I think by ending the story with those lines Susan Minot gives the audience a look into the confused narrator's mind. In my opinion sex means something different for everybody at different points in their life. We don't all want relationships all the time sometimes we just need the release that comes with a one night stand. However, there are also benefits to being in a relationship, as I call it all the gooey chick flick moments. In the end I think the narrator wanted more than just sex, she wanted the attention and love the comes with being in a relationship.
If you would like to comment and share your thoughts on the story that would be fantastical, no trolls please. : ) Lust by Susan Minot
.jpg)
.jpg)
dcsdvsdv.jpg)
