Shooting First

This article really was a moral test. The first few paragraphs describe Watzman's friend shooting an already injured assailant, but it's justified by the fact that the assailant had use of his hands and could throw a grenade if necessary. These types of situations are always the trial of right and wrong. Another example is the mother stealing food so she could feed her children. This piece emphasizes and defines the existence of the proverbial grey area when it comes to ethics. Watzman does demonstrate him point well, though. He emphasizes that the best defense is generally an offense, and uses the case of his friend to support it.

Rescue

Protection is something that is always necessary, no matter where you are. One country or leader should not have to take the position and keep everyone in line, as that creates bureaucracy and dictators; but as a general rule, countries should try to govern themselves appropriately. It's common ethics and morals to keep yourself in check. True, if a country or its leader doesn't fulfill its obligation to morals and ethics, then action should be taken. For example, the Darfur situation is appalling. People should not need to live in fear every waking and sleeping moment of their existence. Thus, someone should step-up. Recently, the US did not have any issues infiltrating and "liberating" a country in the middle east because of the oil benefits. It really speaks about the policing country and thus proves the bureaucracy idea that when one has too much power it absolutely corrupts. The US should step-up and take action solely because it's the right thing to do.

Crazy Love

This article is pretty much the story of my life. I can easily relate to this piece. It's very difficult to take that plunge and trust other people in that manner. As Pinker had mentioned humans are rational people. It's this ration and logic that makes our choices difficult. It's not so much an automatic thing, but there is a spark and I think it's how that park is used that determines how the relationship turns out. It's called the proverbial plunge because it takes a lot of courage to get over that fear, but in the end, it's worth it.

Sadistic Lambs....

In his talk about the act of mankind waging war on another as a moral issue, William Bennet discusses the reasons why war is justified. He notes that the bible preaches pacifism in its purest form, however, there are times when force is necessary. The discussion of St. Thomas Aquinas, in particular, notes the author’s intentions and motivations underlying this paper. It is obvious that the author is opposed to unjust and unfair war, whether it follows the doctrine of Jus ad Bellum.  Later in the essay, however, there is one point that sticks out in my mind more than anything. He says “To the best of my knowledge, the Lion has yet to lay down with his lamb.” He notes that even in nature war and predators are necessary and exist in its simplest form: survival. He actually preaches the art of war when necessary. I completely and wholly agree with his statement. There are inexcusable instances in which war must be waged. For example, the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. The sheer brutality, premeditation, and intentions are more than just causes for war.

As an overall note, war is not the answer. There are certain circumstances in which it must be waged. Ignorance to this fact is far worse than war. However, as an overall note, makind is the only species to wage war on itself. This phenomenon is mind-boggling to me.  Ending on the note of the lion and the lamb, there is a need to notice that the lion and the lamb have a difference in their relationship that the author does not understand. They fight for survival, where one eats and the other is sacrificed for survival. The war caused by humans is for others to view the world in their light. The Christian crusades were carried out to convert nonbelievers to Christianity, and those who refused to convert were killed. The attack on September 11 was to emphasize that the Americans are different in their religious views and the view of others in the world as inferiors and we stick our noses where they need not belong being stuck. Mankind does not kill for survival, they kill for power and reverence.

Intro to an Inconvenient Truth

The title itself first jumps out at me. An Inconvenient Truth. Most truths are inconvenient, as the old cliche dictates "The truth hurts." Especially in realtion to such a  pressing topic like global warming. You would think that the polar icecaps melting and causing an epic flood is a little more than an inconvenience. Gore says in the beginning of the essay that this is a moral issue, however, there never really is a direct statement regarding the moral issue itself. He implies such implications as ignorance, especially regarding the Katrina situation, however his approach of trying to unite the world is a futile effort, especially knowing the amount of opposition to his claims of global warming (George Bush anyone? anyone?). The final piece of this essay that caught my attention was the quote of Omar Khayyan, "The moving finger writes andhaving writ moves on." This is a very true statement, specially in regards to politics. Most politicians try not to focus on past mistakes, unless its to only benefit themselves. As an overall whole, politicians focus on sweeping past mistakes under the rug.

Your Gamete, Myself

The principle behind this reading is really an intriguing one. A few things jumped out at me the first time reading this through. For example, the hypocrisy of the mother, Marie, when she claims to be all about openness from day 1 not wanting to suffer the public knowledge, "right there in black and white for everyone to see. They'd ll know we'd used an egg donor." A second part that jumped out at me was the drastic number of increased egg donors used in IVF. The stranger part is the selection process. Yes, there are genetic links with intelligence and other factors, however, a lot of the cognitive development comes from the environment in which the child is raised. Mind you, I would want someone with a full set of normal chromosomes being a donor candidate, but aside from that, the cognitive development is dependent on the parenting and the nurturing environment in which the chid is raised.

While this form of IVF has its advantages, including direct birth into the family, I would think that there is still a "separation" for lack of a better term. Yes, these parents are the only parents the child has ever known, however there is something that I have with my dad that I don't have with my step dad. My stepdad has been the father figure in my life since birth, but my dad has always had something with me that no one else has, and I think a lot of that has the biological connection we share. I know I'm contradicting my previous statement, but these are different circumstance: my "donor" father has always been in my life, while these other children never know their donors.

Una Mezcla

As I was reading these pieces, one thing in particular jumped out at me: the commonality of these pieces. Each piece focuses on the distinct separation of the different races of the American people. The only weak spot in the common thread that ties these readings together is that there is a focus on separation, not of unity. King's speech I Have a Dream focuses on making the separation less drastic in the sense that all people, particularly the black Americans, receive equal rights. Dyer's focus on the subject he refers to as "Whiteness" only emphasizes the distinctions that the American people make in regards to any American who identifies as any other race than white. Daly's article on genetic make-up especially notes the distinction people make in between being "48% European and 52% African" is unnecessary. The American people need not focus on the fences that separate them, but the neighborhood in which they all live and share together. Our culture has such a strong emphasis on individuality. I generally don't identify myself as a "caucasion," I identify myself as an American. It is true that I call myself a "honkey" or a "cracker" occasionally but it's more to get a laugh from my friends. Each person is very different, yes, but the emphasis on these differences among everyone are too prominant, in the fact that we all share the same country, the same hopes, and the same experiences. In conclusion, it's not the parts of the person that define an individual; it is the individual that defines him/herself.