Stepping off Maslow's Escalator

1. What makes people feel unsafe?

2. What can people do that will satisfy their lives?

3. Can happiness come from normal days?

In Maslow’s The Hierarchy of Needs there are seven needs of human beings which include biological & psychological, safety, belongingness & love, esteem, cognitive, aesthetic and self-actualization needs.  These are all important to humans and if even one of these are lacking then people might feel unhappy or unsafe.  That doesn’t mean all of these needs are equal to one another, however, because there exists a hierarchy according to Maslow.

At the top of this rests the need of self-actualization which means people will feel safe depending on how they regard their situation.  People usually feel they are in trouble by the threat of starvation or anything that’s dangerous to them.  However people who still have enough assets and property without any threat from other physical or psychological things could not satisfy their life completely because they might have a lack of other need(s).

For example there are many people in developing countries who, despite suffering from starvation, are able to fulfill other needs better than those in wealthy countries based upon the fact that they can better appreciate the smaller things in life better.

Ever since I was young I always thought about myself and what it means to be successful. Some people choose to define success in terms of being rich and having a high social class status.  While I may agree that this could be true to a certain degree as I would enjoy having better properties such as a car or a house and to do very well in school in order to become successful in business, however, I still do not believe my life and the measure of success is entirely dependant upon wealth.  I don’t think that my life is not successful merely due to the fact that I don’t have a lot of money.  I enjoy life so that I don’t feel unsafe about my current status and constantly worry about the future.  For right now I am trying to be satisfied with what I have instead of desiring better and more property as it’ll become a vicious, never ending cycle.  Our main purpose in life as human beings is to be happy, however, people lost their satisfaction of life by working too hard to try to attain it and ultimately lose sight of their original goal. 

Ethical Argument Peer Review

Essay #3: Ethical Argument Peer Review

Essay Written By: Shelby Marsh

Essay Title: “The Unresolved Debate: Gay Marriage Legal or Not?”

1.      Thesis: Because the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, it is immoral for us to legalize gay marriage because it will affect our future and open up options for things like polygamy and incest. Overall, when an institution is made flexible the institution is weakened.

a.      Criteria: “Procreation is very vital to our society because we need to keep the planet populated. It is very evident that same sex marriages would not be used for procreation because it is impossible for a man and man or woman and woman to procreate.”

“[…] allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification.”

Match: “We all know the story of Adam and Eve, and God created two separate genders for a reason.”

(New Living Translation, Genesis 2:24)

b.      Criteria: “Gay marriage being legalized would devalue the very concept of marriage because marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman and any other variation simply makes marriage seem cheap and meaningless.”

“If gay marriage is legalized all over the United States, it could cause people to lose their reverence for marriage itself and even fewer people will get married.”

Match: “Statistics show that marriage benefits society.”

“Men benefit from marriage because single men have almost six times the probability of being incarcerated as married men and married men tend to be more

involved in the community and service organizations.”

“Women benefit from marriage because wives are 30 percent more likely to have better health than single women of the same age.”

c.       Criteria: “If gay marriage were legalized, it would mean that children are legally deprived from birth of a mother or a father.”

“To take a child away from having a male and female role model is wrong and would affect that child for the rest of their lives.”

Match: “A 2012 study by the University of Texas found that children raised by at least one gay or lesbian parent had more problems later in life than children raised by heterosexual couples, including poorer mental and physical health, poorer relationships and lower income.”

d.      Criteria: CONCLUSION (No more criteria-match paragraph)

Match:

2.      Do all of the author’s criteria/match arguments provide compelling support for his/her thesis? An argument in the body of the paper may look reasonable in isolation-but is it actually relevant to the author’s thesis?

-          I think the author has all the necessary basic ideas behind the main point of this essay. But the problem that I found that was present in all paragraphs (to some aspect at the least) is that the evidences do not really connect to the thesis. The biggest unrelated evidence occurs in the third paragraph. All the evidences present in this paragraph seems to act as an answer to the question “Is getting married better or staying single better?” Rather than to propose an ethical argument of straight marriage versus gay marriage.

3.      Will a skeptical accept this writer’s criteria? Identify any areas where the writer needs to argue for his or her criteria explicitly.

-          As mentioned above, I think the writer should spend the most time editing and revising the third paragraph, because as of now it does not sound too convincing that gay marriage should not be legal. Overall, the connection between the thesis and the evidences are present, but it can be made much stronger then right now.

4.      Will a skeptical accept the general weighting of this writer’s criteria? For example, a writer who weighs the principle of social welfare more heavily than the principle of keeping within the federal budget may have difficulty persuading an economically conservative reader. Here, the writer would need to defend the weighting of his/her criteria in terms would appeal to this audience.

-          Although I do think the criteria for B sounds aggressive (through the usage of the words “cheap” and “meaningless”), I definitely think criteria A and criteria C is very strong and convincing.

5.      Will a skeptic accept the writer’s criteria but reject his or her match argument(s)? Might readers challenge the writer by showing he/she has cherry picked examples or evidence? Will they provide counterexamples or counterevidence? Identify matches that the reader can reasonably challenge.

-          The evidences shown in this essay suggest that the author might have “cherry picked” some evidences. For example, because it is a fact that this country was built upon Christianity and the teachings of the Bible, using Bible as supporting evidence is a very good start. But stating that gay couple’s children are inferior in every aspect to straight couple’s children seems a little cherry picked evidences to me; it is likely that there is at least one child of gay couple that is succeeding than other usual children of straight couple. Once again to emphasize, the third paragraph’s evidences do not connect the argument to the thesis, so those should be revised. 

Vivisection

1. Should we let people die or save another human being's life by vivisection?

2. What is the major reason of people who advocate anti-vivisectionists?

3. Has vivisection been stopped for unethical reasons?

In the essay by C.S. Lewis entitled, "Vivisection", he disagreed with people who regard animals not as human beings due to their alleged lack of a soul and especially with those who utilized that reasoning to justify the abuse, experimentation or exploitation of animals. Treat other living things, especially animals, to a standard that's no less or higher than that of human beings is what was being preached. But, it should be noted, that Lewis was simply not against the abuse of animals just for the sake of it. The essence of his message was that, at the end of the day, everyone, including animals, has a soul and authority of freedom. Animals are free to do as they please much like human beings and if we were to abuse these animals in any way then that would only serve as a precedent leading up to doing the same to our fellow man, or human beings, as an extremist view.

While I was reading Lewis' article I was reminded of a sensitive, personal issue to me. I own two cats and treat them as my family. The same sentiments can be shared by many other people who are also pet owners of animals. However whether or not the human owner and animal pet are close does not necessarily matter. Animals simply need to be treated and with care under our watch, so to speak, but not with total equality to us.

Essay#2 Ethical Argument

Beomseok Kim

Professor Brown

English 1B

04 April, 2013

Is Waterboarding Benefitting the People or Violating their Rights?

             Anybody who sets foot inside the United States of America is guaranteed several rights represented in our Bill of Rights. Because America is considered as a “free country” with a “chance for a better future” for its citizens, people around the world commonly associate America with freedom and rights. Likewise, Americans live everyday expecting to be treated fairly and equally. And because of this expectation, American citizens also treat other people with respect; or at least we expect our citizens to treat others with respect. But the real question is, do we? Do every single Americans treat others with respect and treat them with their appropriate rights? Of course, the limitations and the definition of “freedom” and “rights” becomes thin in situations regarding criminals. But does that give America the right to torture others under the branch of “intensive interrogation?”

             Simply put, the process known as “waterboarding” is a torturing method. It is nothing more or nothing less; just a torturing method. Although American government officials may define waterboarding as “interrogation method,” all it really is a person horribly torturing another person to achieve a set goal (which is this case would be obtaining information). Yes, although they maybe criminals, but they are still humans. As it is obvious that one random person cannot decide to murder somebody as a means of punishment, the same concept applies here. Although criminals may impose a means of threat (depending on the seriousness of the crime), they are still humans and should be treated like one. The real problem in this case is human rights- what people can inflict on someone and what they cannot do. Waterboarding is unethical in every aspect; the method itself is inhumane, and ultimately affects the victims physically, emotionally, psychologically. Not only that, it is abusive enough for “President Barrack Obama to ban waterboaring after he took office in 2009.”

             The author and journalist Christopher Hitchens vividly sends the how dangerous waterboarding can be to its victims through his article called “Believe Me, It’s Torture” in the Vanity Fair magazine October 2011 issue. Christopher Hitchens, who volunteers to experience what waterboarding is really like, vividly explains to he’s readers the true seriousness of this process. He begins by stating an agreement that he had to sign, which says “Waterboarding is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional, psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.” The current situation of Hitchens at this point is that he is volunteering to experience this- everything can be stopped at his will. But despite that, Hitchens had to sign to this agreement saying he can be injured despite the precautions. This would naturally make people think how horrible it would have been for the actual people who had to face this torture method: as far as they know, waterboarding was continuous and everlasting.

             In the peer-reviewed book called The Iraq Papers by John Ehrenberg, J. Patrice McSherry, Jose Ramon Sanchez, Caroleen Marji Sayej, it gives a very accurate definition of waterboarding: “ […]  is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration – usually the person goes into hysterics on the board.”

Also, the book goes onto adding that “When [waterboarding is] done right, it is controlled death.” Can you imagine such things being forced upon people? Despite them being criminals, they still are someone’s son or daughter, someone’s husband, someone’s father, and someone’s friend. Yes, suffering the consequences is crucial for criminals. But do they deserve to be deprived of the natural rights given to them as humans? Upon faced with this question, anybody would agree that waterboarding raises ethical problems that should have an effect on all of us as humans.

             Despite the seriousness of this act and how horrible it is, according to the Los Angeles Times newspaper article titled “Candidate to lead CIA Clandestine Service Stirs Controversy” by Ken Dilanian, “The Justice Department has twice declined to prosecute anyone for the so-called enhanced interrogations, which involved waterboarding, sleep deprivation, slapping and extreme temperatures.” We can see here that waterboarding is equally treated with sleep deprivation, slapping, and extreme temperatures and are labeled as “enhanced interrogations.” At this point, just the word “enhanced” seems to imply “cruel” in the phrase “enhanced interrogations” that the American government agencies label these processes as.

Considering that waterboarding is an interrogation process and thus are being used for criminals only, some people may claim that this has nothing to do with ethical issues. Not only that, some may even say that as criminals, they have lost every right people get as humans from the moment that they commit a crime. But if we consider ourselves in their position, things would look different. Although the victims of waterboarding will all be criminals, that does not mean that they are not humans. If we place ourselves in that position, what we want would be different.

Waterboaring is a tortouring method; there is no doubt about that. But the ethical problem comes to surface when we take a look at the impact of what waterboarding can do on its victims-Scarring them physically, emotionally, and psychologically. Despite the fact that people would have different perspectives about waterboarding (human rights versus punishing criminals), but it is just too obvious that waterboarding is a harsh torturing technique. The evidence of that would be the fact that “President Obama banned waterboarding and other abusive technique after he took office in 2009” (LA Times). The importance of human rights is more important- the president of this country has shown that.

"Shooting an Elephant"

1. What made a police officer to hesitate shooting an elephant?

2. What he felt towards crowds when they pushed him to shoot an elephant?

3. What was author’s purpose of detailed depiction of shooting an elephant and his dying?

“Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell details imperialism and its complexity by recanting the story of a police officer who was faced against an aggressive elephant gone wild in the city of Burma.

The essay emphasizes how the people of Burma simply expected the officer to shoot it down without question as if he was obligated to do so.  Conversely speaking the officer thought differently which was made all the more apparent as he ultimately saw the elephant succumb to a slow and painful death after he did, in fact, decide to shoot it down.

In my opinion if an officer shoots an elephant without any hesitation whatsoever then people will think how ruthless he is in terms of regard for nearby citizens who could have been hit by stray bullets. In the context of Burma then those residents may have treated the police officer, an authority figure, as part of the British army, a more advanced authority figure, who invaded their territory and killed many people for their own benefits.

It should be noted, however, that this story of imperialism was written by Orwell, a staunch anti-imperialist writer, and based on his past, personal experiences in Burma before. It can be asserted that he may have had similar experiences or imagined something similar to the police officer’s predicament while staying there. Therefore shooting an elephant in this story should not be taken literally but more along the lines of a general, tough decision that could be dictated by other forces or nearby people which could have an effect on the nation’s position and overall image.

In the end a police officer shooting an elephant is an illustration of the negativity behind imperialism and made apparent by George Orwell who has strong anti-imperialistic views with empathy towards the Burmese.

Reflection: Rhetorical Critique

From the rough draft to the final draft, there are some changes that I would like to note. First and most importantly, I added more of the “logos” evidences of my argument to support my idea further, because I believed I lacked in the logos section from the pathos, ethos, and logos requirement for our essay. After I added more evidences, I reorganized the evidences and my ideas that I had written down, in a manner that I believed is logical and supports my idea even more. Besides that, I heavily relied my essay fixation on the professor’s comments that I received from my rough draft of the essay. I took out some words that throws my point off in the essay, and tried to replace them with the proper words to the best of my ability. I also tried to identify exactly where my evidences are with proper quotation, and even tried to shorten them with precision to make my point, because long quotes just take a big spot on the paper when it is unnecessary (can be shortened). I also played further with my thesis to make it more detailed. When all the really important parts of the essay (as noted above) are completed, I turned to the minor details: the grammar and the mechanics. I fixed capitalization, grammar, and punctuations so that I would fit in the manner of a final draft of an essay.

A Small Place

1. Are people in poor countries unhappy to their life?

2. What is the standard of satisfaction of people?

3. Is her opinion common to others who live in Antigua?

 

In Jamaica Kincaid’s book she narrates to readers as if they were tourists Antigua which is an island whose economy is dependant on tourism.  Her detailed and specific examples make readers imagine the places and atmosphere as she indicates.  She criticizes several things about Antigua in her book such as the money making scheme of the government, damaged libraries and so forth.

However I had some doubt while I was reading her book which was, “Do the current Antigua residents share the same sentiments as Kincaid?”  After all she is a person who immigrated to the United States from Antigua.  Therefore she is not a current resident of that island and has the luxury of knowing what it’s like to live in the US, a superpower country that’s vastly different from an island.  With that in mind she compares lifestyles of people between the ordinary Antiguans and those who can afford to travel to other countries.  She asserts that since they have difficulties in their daily lives that it must be due to their lifestyle in Antigua.  This, essentially, suggests that if they were to be living in the US that their lives would be better compared to the one afforded to them by Antigua.  However there is no definitive way to determine if poor people, such as the ones in Antigua, are truly happy or not based on the country or island that they are living in.  For all we know the poor people in Antigua are actually happy and grateful with what they have as they do not have the luxury of knowing what it’s like to live affluently in a country such as the US.  This is unfair on Kincaid’s part as she does have an unfair advantage of being able to experience both.

While some disadvantages of insufficient welfare might be true as Kincaid refers in her book, however, that’s still inherent in any country including the superpower that is the United States.  There are still poor people even in the US similar to Antigua so both are not vastly different from one another in that sense.  Even with that being said Kincaid expresses disdain towards the tourists, who feed the economy in Antigua, and how they visit based on the marketing of the island as a tropical destination.  Conversely speaking Kincaid also speaks negatively on the Antiguans for falsely portraying their own island as one without any problems when in reality they are from perfection with a poorly structured government as only one of major problems in regards to the island.

All in all Jamaica Kincaid has plenty to say but most of her thoughts and points are nothing but criticism that could be questioned by many people, in my opinion.  Due to personal biases such as living in both Antigua and the United States and then assuming the poor people in Antigua are unhappy simply based on the fact that they’re considered poor to Americans’ standards, I found it hard to take majority of her comments without a grain of salt.