Commentary #3

Commentary #4

The author’s thesis is that benefits to humans do not outweigh the violation of moral principles in practicing vivisection. I had to read the thesis statement a few times to get it because it seems to be worded a bit awkwardly. This may be something that needs to be fine-tuned for more clarity because the beginning of the intro is a quote from the bible stating that humans are superior to animals. The second paragraph supports the thesis through the assertion that humans are not superior to animals, thus making vivisection immoral. The first criterion the author uses to support his thesis is that, according to the theory of Darwinism, humans and animals are equal. This is supported with from scientific research. The only argument I can foresee is that Christianity rests on the belief that humans are descendants of Adam and Eve, not evolved apes. The evidence gives strength to his reason that animals should be treated equally because they are biologically related to us, and if human experimentation is wrong therefore vivisection is wrong as well.

The second reason the author gives to support his reason is based on U.S. legislation to protect animals from exploitation that causes pain. He cites a clause that dictates that “pain must be kept to a minimum” and gives examples of some experiments that are clearly painful to animals. The refutation notes a slippery slope where humans could become the subject of vivisection if things go too far and that the greater good should apply to all species. There are not any quotes or evidence to support his refutation, so he might find something to make it a bit more concrete. The conclusion is well written and restates the refutation of hierarchy with humans at the top of the chain.

The author’s criteria/ match arguments support his thesis well. I think he may want to touch on evidence that supports the claim that the animals experience significant pain and suffering while undergoing vivisection. As far as the opposing religious views he may want to note that and refute it by citing other values within Christianity (etc.) that would support the claim that vivisection is wrong… maybe do unto others or thou shall not kill? This might be where a skeptic refuses to accept his argument.

Is it a pain to make this kind of gain?

·         Does the infliction of pain become less cruel if it is done for a cause that is essential to survival?

·         Can advances in science occur without taking the occasional risk?

·         Is cruelty to animals a fair exchange for the alleviation of human suffering?

Is cruelty to animals a fair exchange for the alleviation of human suffering? I would sacrifice a house cat in a heartbeat if it led to the discovery of the cure for cancer or AIDS. I guess that heartbeat comes from the ones that are not beating anymore due to either epidemic. Maybe I am heartless and insensitive. Perhaps I think that risks should occasionally be taken to break beyond boundaries and reach a greater good. I am not really sure. Mostly I think it depends on the situation. I think that in the case of vivisection, while I admit that alternative, less painful methods should be used when available and applicable, a necessity arises in some cases. While I don’t think that these methods should be used on animals that are at risk of endangerment, I can see breeding and using lab rats as a practice that is not totally morally wrong. Where would advances in science be if research was constantly being stopped because someone disagreed with it? I wonder what other ways there are to learn about anatomy without studying… well… the anatomy of things not visible under normal circumstances.

I guess can see the other side of the argument which states that it is cruelty towards other living beings, but that is a part of nature. Are we going to make the lion stop eating its prey because emotional distress and physical pain is experienced by the hunted? It is true that the line has to be drawn somewhere in the middle to determine what makes it okay and what makes it cruelty towards another living thing. This one, however, puts me on the fence as to whether it is ethical behavior. On one hand there is exploitation of the existence of another living creature, on the other, this exploitation could very well be essential to the survival of another.

Peer Pressure?

• ·         Do high expectations of behavior create certain behavior?
• ·         Is it ethical to conform to the majority opinion regardless of personal view?
• ·         Do imperialistic regimes reach a “no turning back” point in which they cannot show weakness in fear of severe consequences?

The power of peer pressure can be amazing and appalling. It can lead a person to behave in a way that would normally be unthinkable, but pressure and an audience or group of people, as well as their behavior and expectations, can lead to action that is totally out of character. The balance of power can be set up so that, regardless of unethical mistakes made by a regime, certain patterns must be adhered to in order to avoid chaos. Do imperialistic regimes reach a “no turning back” point in which they cannot show weakness in fear of severe consequences? Orwell experienced this when faced with the ethical dilemma of shooting an elephant that, at least for the time being, seemed to have overcome its rampage. In already placing himself in a position of ridicule from natives resistant to colonization, as a sub-divisional police officer among a population that harbored little to no respect for him or the country he came from, he comes to the conclusion that he must follow the cues of the masses, anxiously awaiting the death of this animal.   

Had he decided not to shoot the elephant he would have no doubt been the object of societal mockery to an extent that his position of power (a police officer) would not have held any value whatsoever. Until this point Orwell had been able to just do his job and keep his opinions to himself with aspirations of an end to this endeavor, but when expectation called for action his part, he had no choice to obey. His position of authority would have been compromised because they would have seen his weakness and used that as a way to gain the upper hand. A revolution could have possibly ensued because flaws were detected in the ruling regime. If an oppressed group sees an opportunity to reverse roles you better bet your life that they are going to jump at the chance to end an empire.

Commentary #2

The title of the essay gives strength to the overall topic of the essay which is that personal experience is what made Hitchens so convincing. The overall direction of my partner’s essay is off to a great start. She clearly states her position on the success of the article, but is a little vague when it comes to the specific strategies, stating that the author used “many different techniques”. I think that her thesis needs to be more specific in order to persuade her reader by citing how the success of the article was gained.

Her first paragraph has a strong topic sentence with a good transition from the introduction. She makes it clear that she is discussing ethos with use of personal experience giving strength to the author’s argument. The quote she used, however, looks like it would appeal more to pathos.  The next paragraph brings up the use of ethos in using the strategy of fairness to opposing views, but seems to lack a topic sentence, quote and support for assertion. She can definitely build on this point and make it a strong paragraph. In switching to the subject of the appeal of pathos, the writer needs to incorporate more transition in her topic sentence. She makes it clear, however which appeal and technique (language) she is discussing. A Quote or paraphrase is needed before the critique of the method. In the sixth paragraph the writer gives another example of appeal to pathos. This paragraph has a nice transition, but I think she needs to be more specific on the strategy used in her topic sentence. The rest of the paragraph is good, providing a quote and critique of the author’s use of narrative tone. The next paragraph seems a little out of place because it goes back to the appeal to ethos with noting alternate views as well as touching on pathos and language. In her eighth paragraph, I believe the writer gave an example of the pathos appeal, but may have been trying to touch on the subject of logos through a testimony from Malcom Nance. A transitional topic sentence seems to be missing and her point on the quote used discusses pathos. I believe she needs to revisit the paragraph as well as give mention to logos in her essay.

Finally the conclusion again states the writer’s position on the success of the article. She makes note of one way the author appealed to his audience, but I think she can definitely build on this and make the paragraph a little longer and less vague about the technique used to adhere to all of the appeals required. Once she makes this a stronger recap to the essay she should have a better conclusion.

Colinial Takeover

• ·        Are standards lowered when rule makers do not have to endure the setting they create?
• ·        Is colonization and creating civilization in countries deemed “uncivilized” a mask for exploiting resources and people in weaker communities?
• ·        How effective is help if it is forced upon someone who was not seeking it and what is the end result?

Throughout history first world countries that possess all the power, money, and Godly behavior in the world have somehow managed to spread corruption through the mistakes made against humanity. Things are taken without permission and changed despite the lack of need for the alternate lifestyle being imposed upon a group of people. This leads me to focus on the question: Is colonization and creating civilization in countries deemed “uncivilized” a mask for exploiting resources and people in weaker communities? Rich and powerful white men have repeatedly reaped the benefits from people and places that were not originally a part of their world to begin with. Slavery is a huge trade that has not totally gone away despite the current stigma it has gained. Regardless of the fact that most slavery has been abolished, what was left of the remnants? According to the author the corruption that was created in Antigua can never be undone. The grudge will never go away. The world of these people was turned completely upside town, exploited for whatever its colonials deemed pertinent and resourceful, and tossed aside like a box of leftover pizza, destined to rot and fester.

The thing that is festering is contempt, which only fuels lawless behavior and exploitation of each other. When rebellious nature begins, sometimes this rebelliousness is reflected towards all areas of authority, regardless of warrant. Colonized people rarely ask to be saved by someone else’s God or molded into a lifestyle that is completely alienating to their culture of origin. Kinkaid talks about the fact that tourists who visit her tiny island don’t bother thinking about the struggle of the land or its inhabitants because they too are exploiting it. All it is is a form of entertainment and escape from a mundane life others would be quite satisfied with. I think that as I looked through the author’s eyes I can understand her feelings towards foreign visitors, who show up to get what they want and leave their mess behind.

Rolling Over

• ·         What is compromised when double standards are recognized?
• ·         Why should rules still be followed by others when the rule makers break their own rules?
• ·         Where is the boundary between war documentation and exploitation of the dead and can the standards be globally accepted and/or practiced?

I’ve seen the picture the author describes in the first paragraph from February 1968. I’ve never known the exact time, place or name of the people depicted, but that photograph is forever imprinted in my mind. On one side I am able to realize that pictures like these have helped write history books, recorded what happened in a way in which a thousand words would hardly suffice, and preserved memories never to be forgotten. However I also wonder where the boundary between war documentation and exploitation of the dead lies and if the standards be globally accepted and/or practiced? Personally I don’t care to ever be put on display when I’m gone, but there are pictures floating around of my life. I imagine myself the wife, mother, or daughter of the prisoner from the picture who is about to be shot and shudder to think of the horrific pain I would feel at knowing of this photograph’s existence. Typically when we lay our dead to rest we strive to preserve the honor of their memory. However is this picture serving honor to this man’s friends and family who will be forever scarred?

Next I think about the fact that television brought a new aspect to the Vietnam War because it brought the war into the homes of most Americans and made it so much more real than a newspaper or photograph would have. In a photojournalistic point of view the game needed to be stepped up a notch. This leads me to wonder if the moral standards of respect for the dead and/or dying lowered in order to gain better ratings. I also wonder if this issue is part of progressive acceptance to what is and is not exploitation or inappropriate. Times change and frankly many things that were once viewed as taboo are now more socially accepted. I just wonder at what cost to integrity. Personally I would roll over in my grave had I known that a picture of my death, not my life, really made the difference.

Counter Culture

• ·         What happens when an entire culture is threatened by another?
• ·         Does the attempted control of nationwide panic make it okay to lie or sugar coat reality?
• ·         Why is it vital that not everyone agrees with each other in a democracy?

I recently took a class that focused on various cultures and a topic that often came up were the feelings of one culture towards another, or towards a person who is a stranger to a unified group of people. It is often human nature to feel fear or hostility towards a stranger or towards someone who is different from personal norms. How many of us fear the unknown? A person’s culture is held in the highest regards because it signifies of the foundation of their existence. Culture is language, heritage, family, religion, and traditions that bind a group of people together. We all want to feel like we belong somewhere and are a part of a group where we feel acceptance from others like us. After all human beings search for their own personal identity at least once in their lives. When we find the group of people whom we identify with, we hold onto it and harbor protective feeling towards it.

So what happens when an entire culture is threatened by another? Well the feeling of being threatened is not a direct threat towards a specific person per se, but it is the possible compromise to the wholeness or sanctity of the culture itself. When we encounter a stranger we generally feel a bit perplexed, but this confusion can dissipate with acceptance and the ability to adapt to change. However when the culture itself risks either dilution through melding with another culture or dissolution through exposure to different ideas and ways of life, harsh feelings may arise. If I look at what Susan Sontag says about September eleventh being an “attack on modernity” with all of this in mind then yes, as horrific as the incident was, it was only a matter of time before action resulted from an apparent group of cultural fanatics.