Prompt: Guilty as Charged, But?
Even if Roswell Gilbert was acting out of love and obligation to his wife by killing her, I still think that he was wrong in his actions. Taking another persons life is a terrible and horrendous act to commit. Alternatively I think Gilbert should have sought serious medical help for his wife. Even if she begged him to kill her, I still think that it was wrong; it’s not Gilberts place to take someone’s life even if they are asking for it.
Alzheimer’s is a horrible disease and I witnessed with one of my grandmothers several years ago. It’s terribly sad to witness someone’s mind basically disintegrate. Possibly the worst thing about the disease is that the person affected with it has now idea about the difficulties of daily life. In this situation there is no telling what was going through Gilbert’s wife’s mind.
I think that the majority of society would be shocked and appalled by Gilbert’s actions. I think there are many other options that could have been explored before giving in and killing his own wife. The state of Oregon is the only state in the nation where physicians-assisted suicide is legal. This tells me that the other 49 states in the nation feel like aiding in someone’s death is wrong and immoral.
This is a very complex issue because most people have not been in the position that Gilbert’s wife was in, on her death bed. While I say that his actions were wrong and immoral, I have never been in so much pain that I wished I was dead. I think in this kind of situation you can not fully understand it unless you have spent time in the other person’s shoes.
I don’t think that our laws are sufficient enough to address such a complex issue and I do not know if they will ever be. Whenever morals are mixed with the law the issue at hand often becomes very gray. The people in law believe that they are right while the people on the morality side believe that they are right. I think that there is a whole array of issues including this one where the two sides often times see things very differently.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
Globalization: Not a Quest for Empire
Prompt: Why are We at War
After reading Normal Mailer’s book “Why Are We at War”, the point that I ponder the most is Mailer’s repeated statements about George Bush’s quest for empire. While Mailer goes on to make many good points that I agree with throughout the book, I don’t see how someone could justify the current war in Iraq as America’s quest for a global empire. I disagree with Mailer in regard to America’s so-called quest for a global empire
Our nation’s initial plan for war was to discover and remove weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East. After the weapons of mass destruction were not found, I agree with Mailer that Bush needed to point the finger elsewhere and apparently the most logical place to turn was Iraq. Even after turning to focus the war on Iraq, I believe Bush had good intentions, but the war we are currently fighting is like no other war we have ever been apart of. Bush stated that “Our current war with terror does not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” This is a noble idea, but an idea that I do not think is possible. Terrorist groups will always exist and we can never eliminate all of them. That is why this war is unlike any other, there is no clear cut measure of victory.
With this being said I find it difficult to consider our current war as a quest for global empire. How is attempting to eliminate terrorist groups a quest for a global empire? Why would Bush desire to establish a global empire when he has a limited term as president? If America is trying to take over the world why would we start in the Middle East? Why would Bush attempt such conquest when the next president will most likely have a very different opinion and way of doing things than him?
I believe that Mailer is confusing globalization in general with America’s attempt to take over the world. Other countries are influencing American society just as we our influencing theirs. Just because we have a greater influence does not mean we are trying to rule the world.
After reading Normal Mailer’s book “Why Are We at War”, the point that I ponder the most is Mailer’s repeated statements about George Bush’s quest for empire. While Mailer goes on to make many good points that I agree with throughout the book, I don’t see how someone could justify the current war in Iraq as America’s quest for a global empire. I disagree with Mailer in regard to America’s so-called quest for a global empire
Our nation’s initial plan for war was to discover and remove weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East. After the weapons of mass destruction were not found, I agree with Mailer that Bush needed to point the finger elsewhere and apparently the most logical place to turn was Iraq. Even after turning to focus the war on Iraq, I believe Bush had good intentions, but the war we are currently fighting is like no other war we have ever been apart of. Bush stated that “Our current war with terror does not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” This is a noble idea, but an idea that I do not think is possible. Terrorist groups will always exist and we can never eliminate all of them. That is why this war is unlike any other, there is no clear cut measure of victory.
With this being said I find it difficult to consider our current war as a quest for global empire. How is attempting to eliminate terrorist groups a quest for a global empire? Why would Bush desire to establish a global empire when he has a limited term as president? If America is trying to take over the world why would we start in the Middle East? Why would Bush attempt such conquest when the next president will most likely have a very different opinion and way of doing things than him?
I believe that Mailer is confusing globalization in general with America’s attempt to take over the world. Other countries are influencing American society just as we our influencing theirs. Just because we have a greater influence does not mean we are trying to rule the world.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Rating Ethics
Prompt: The Alligator River Story
I would give Ivan a one because I respect him more than the other characters in this story. Ivan makes the most mature decision by avoiding the troubled situation all together. He isn’t rude or unjust to anyone he simply states that he wants nothing to do with the situation.
Next I would give Gregory a two. Although he loves Abigail and wishes to be with her he does not approve of what she did to get to him. Perhaps Gregory over reacted by permanently casting Abigail aside, but one could see where he is coming from. I would guess that Gregory wanted to be with Abigail just as bad as she wanted to be with him, but he would have taken different steps to make it happen.
I would give Slug a three. He is not a model citizen by any means, but in his mistake he doesn’t compromise his integrity like Abigail and Sinbad. I think Slug beat Gregory because he saw the pain that Abigail was enduring. Even if Slug was just looking out for Abigail and trying to protect her, that is no reason to brutally beat another individual. I think Slug was unjustified in his actions because he wasn’t directly involved in the situation to begin with.
I would give Abigail a four because she makes one of the biggest mistakes in my opinion. She compromises her integrity and her body by going along with Sinbad’s request. In my opinion Abigail is no different than a prostitute on a street corner. Abigail’s only excuse could be that she acted that way because of her love for Gregory; however I do not believe that love for Gregory justifies her actions.
I would rate Sinbad a five because he is the most unethical of the characters in the story. He uses his power (in this case a boat) to take advantage of a young girl. In my opinion Sinbad cannot be trusted. If Sinbad approved of what he did to Abigail, there is no telling what he would do to others wishing to cross the river. Sinbad uses the power that he has to manipulate others and take advantage of them.
Overall I think ethics plays a huge role in daily life. The manner in which people conduct themselves in difficult situations says a lot about their character. I believe that people should act morally and make responsible decisions all of the time, not just when it’s convenient or beneficial to them.
I would give Ivan a one because I respect him more than the other characters in this story. Ivan makes the most mature decision by avoiding the troubled situation all together. He isn’t rude or unjust to anyone he simply states that he wants nothing to do with the situation.
Next I would give Gregory a two. Although he loves Abigail and wishes to be with her he does not approve of what she did to get to him. Perhaps Gregory over reacted by permanently casting Abigail aside, but one could see where he is coming from. I would guess that Gregory wanted to be with Abigail just as bad as she wanted to be with him, but he would have taken different steps to make it happen.
I would give Slug a three. He is not a model citizen by any means, but in his mistake he doesn’t compromise his integrity like Abigail and Sinbad. I think Slug beat Gregory because he saw the pain that Abigail was enduring. Even if Slug was just looking out for Abigail and trying to protect her, that is no reason to brutally beat another individual. I think Slug was unjustified in his actions because he wasn’t directly involved in the situation to begin with.
I would give Abigail a four because she makes one of the biggest mistakes in my opinion. She compromises her integrity and her body by going along with Sinbad’s request. In my opinion Abigail is no different than a prostitute on a street corner. Abigail’s only excuse could be that she acted that way because of her love for Gregory; however I do not believe that love for Gregory justifies her actions.
I would rate Sinbad a five because he is the most unethical of the characters in the story. He uses his power (in this case a boat) to take advantage of a young girl. In my opinion Sinbad cannot be trusted. If Sinbad approved of what he did to Abigail, there is no telling what he would do to others wishing to cross the river. Sinbad uses the power that he has to manipulate others and take advantage of them.
Overall I think ethics plays a huge role in daily life. The manner in which people conduct themselves in difficult situations says a lot about their character. I believe that people should act morally and make responsible decisions all of the time, not just when it’s convenient or beneficial to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)