Language: a determinant?

In class we briefly discussed language as a determinant in the nature verses nurture topic. I believe that many languages are all encompassing and directly relate back to the culture. It is evident that all languages are based upon different symbols and that some ideas and sayings do not translate from language to language. Language also determines who we communicate with, and thus if we are not familiar with different languages we will not communicate with those people. By not being able to communicate with different people we might be missing out on certain ideas and thoughts. Perhaps we are not aware of different thoughts of ideas until we see or hear of them. Therefore, by not communicating with other languages we can inhibit our ability to flourish and thus language can be considered a direct determinant of our human nature.

Continuation of thoughts on torture.

It is clear that torture is frowned upon and is completely immoral. It is undeniable that it is morally wrong to cause and induce constant pain to someone. Some people even consider torture to be worse than killing because the tortured person is suffering and under pain for a long period of time. But there are always exceptions to everything. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they is an article about torture, and they suggest the “ticking bomb” situation. It is evident that in this situation one must evaluate which side is the lesser of two evils. Is it morally right to allow thousands of people to die because you cannot get the terrorist to tell you where the bomb is? Or is it morally right to torture the terrorist to receive information on where the bomb is located so that you can save thousands of lives? The answer is blatantly obvious; we must allow torture in this situation to help save the thousands of innocent lives. Although torture is not morally right, in this distinct situation it is the moral decision that will inhibit the multiple terrorists from taking many innocent lives.

Can there really be a middle ground?

My feelings about torture are most consistent with Clarence’s point of view. I believe that torture can be used constructively in certain circumstances. I partially agree with Erica when she says that torture will not diffidently force someone to talk. She also argues that the person in captive may not even have any information to provide. Although this might be true, I believe that in certain situations, this is a risk we must be willing to take. We are living in a world today that is becoming more and more intimidating and we must emplace better tactics that will help us. I believe that allowing torture in situations such as the ticking bomb scenario will greatly help us. I also think that our problem with terrorists is a completely different situation, and it cannot be dealt with like a normal war situation. We must enforce our ability to torture in extreme situations to help keep our citizens, armed forces, and the world safe.

But can there really be a middle ground? How can we determine what situations are worth torturing? By the numbers of people in harm? I feel as though it is a clear yes or no situation. I lean towards Clarence's point of view, but I believe that there must be rules about the extent of torture used.

It is obvious that allowing torture is not ethical in any means. Some argue that torture cannot realistically be used in the real world. If torture was allowed, there would have to be strict rules about the type of torture allowed, how many people are allowed to be tortured, in what situations is torturing allowed, if innocent people are allowed to be tortured, as well as many other rules. But when someone is emotionally attached to a situation and know someone who is in danger, they argue with their hearts, and not their ethics. As Professor Johnson said in class, it’s what people want to do not what they are supposed to do. It is clear that if torture was allowed there would have to be strict rules or else it would get out of control.

Faceless Enemies

Today we watched the documentary, Faces of the Enemy. I found the first part of the movie that we watched to be very interesting. It was a powerful movie that suggested that people all over the world are the same, whether they are enemies, from different racial backgrounds, or if they believe in different forms of government or religion. In this movie all of the different Countries portrayed their enemies as faceless animals or monsters. Evidently, it is easier to encourage your army to kill a group of faceless beings instead of a friends or humans that are just like everyone else.

The soldiers were trained to relate to the enemies as pronouns and not as ‘Joe’ or ‘Mike’ because then killing someone would be much more difficult. By dehumanizing the enemy Countries are able to encourage and instill hate into their armed forces so that they are able to kill. Of course all of this seems unreal, but it has been happening for centuries and is even happening today. Perhaps this is just a way for armies to creatively change murder into killing. As one of the men in the video said, that only a soldier knows the fine line between murdering and killing. I believe that because the soldiers are instructed to kill the enemy, that it is not considered murder. I have nothing against our armed forces; rather I completely support and honor their hard work to protect our Country. But I did find this movie to be very interesting because it showed how all of the Countries deface their enemies to encourage hate and hostility against their opponents. I may be unaware, but I do not believe this is occurring in our world today, like it did during the World Wars and the Cold War. Perhaps new war tactics and different ways to deface our enemies have been developed in today’s world.

A Useful Scare Tactic?

The death penalty can be a very useful scare tactic that a state government can implement. But as we discussed in class, does Texas have less crime than Massachusetts? It is evident that there are different demographics and other elements that affect the crime levels in these two states. The question is if the death penalty discourages people to commit crime in Texas. In states like Massachusetts that do not execute the death penalty, it is said that people are more likely to commit crime because they can live a decent life in jail. People that live on the streets or have a poor home life may commit a crime to go to jail so that they have shelter, food, and warmth. On the other hand, people that live in places such as Texas that use the death penalty, discourage people from performing crimes because their lives will be at stake.

Although the death penalty seems like it could be useful, it also has many downfalls. The biggest argument with the death penalty is that innocent people can be killed. There may be plenty of evidence that someone is clearly guilty, but we will never actually know the truth. A great movie that shows the problem with the death penalty is, The Life of David Gale. This movie displays how an innocent man was sent to death because the jury believed that he committed the crime, when in fact he was completely innocent.

As discussed in class, racism can also play a huge role in the decision of the death penalty. Clearly this serves as an enormous problem because if a state enforces the death penalty, they cannot be racist when choosing who is going to be killed by the death penalty. Many minorities are put on death row simply because of their racial background. It is evident that there needs to be something done about these problems so that the death penalty can be enforced with faith that it will constructively discourage crime all over the United States.

God has Provided us with Animals

Animals play a huge role in our lives as a source of food for survival, companionship, entertainment, as well as many other purposes. It has been proven that the presence of animals brings happiness, helps with stress, lowers anger levels, and helps reduce the possibility of suicide in inmates. The animals seemed to help replace voids of family members and other companionship that these inmates have lost. It is evident that animals provide affection and other emotions that we cannot always receive from other humans.

The idea of humans having ownership and rule over animals is deeply rooted in religious tradition. In the Bible, God tells his people that he has provided them with animals to use for food and for pleasure. In the Genesis 9:2-3 it says, “All the wild animals, large and small, and the birds and fish will be afraid of you…I have given them to you as food, just as I have given you grain and vegetables.” It is evident that the Bible encourages its readers that the animals were put on earth by God for food, just like the wild vegetation.

The documentary showed the tradition in Spain of running and eventually killing a bull through the streets. Throughout the year there are more than four thousand of these traditional fiestas. These traditions of torture are done in the name of God or a celebration for God. Clearly, Christianity encourages the use and pleasure of animals, but do they encourage torture of animals? It is evident that in Spain, these torture sessions are traditional, so they argue that God and the Bible approve of it. But in the United States and other areas that have a vast population that practice Christianity, do not have traditions of torture. Perhaps, this torture is a part of the Spaniards culture and has been entwined with their religious beliefs.

Human Use and Abuse of Animals

The documentary, “To Love or to Kill, Humans vs. The Animals” was a very graphic depiction of human use and abuse of animals. I found this movie very interesting and informative. The movie not only showed the type of animal treatment in the United States but also other Countries around the world. The United States is always targeted for our poor treatment of animals and Countries such as Spain and China are over looked. It is evident that this animal abuse occurs all over the world, not just here in The States.

I found the documentary to be slightly biased. It seemed like they tried turning everything into abuse of animals. I do not believe that hunting is abuse to animals, rather it is population control. There are specific areas of land, times of the year, and specific rules that are clearly spelled out to hunters. The movie depicted hunting to be an angry sport by which people hunt animals just to watch the animal die and suffer. The men that were killing the animals in the movie were enjoying watching their prey undergo pain. Hunters do not wound the animals they are hunting to watch it suffer. There is an enormous difference between hunting and what was depicted in the documentary.

I did find the pidgin killings to be a bit excessive and abusive. But I find myself asking why these people are allowed to do this? If this is animal abuse, why are they allowed to do it? If it was abuse, wouldn’t it be outlawed? Perhaps it isn’t outlawed because the animals that they are killing are lower on the animal chain. I completely agree with the Rabi, the United States is not consistent with the differentiation of animals and pets. We allow slaughtering of cows for food but frown upon slaughtering of horses. Why? We need to develop a better system that will clearly state what animals are pets and what are for food and “our enjoyment.”

The Chinese are very consistent with their culture, because there is no difference between animals and pets. Everything that moves is considered food in their culture. There is no difference between cats, dogs, frogs, beetles, snakes, or any other animals, they are all necessary for their survival. Although this seems outrageous to us, their system eliminates the doubt of animal abuse. Even though their culture seems consistent, I still find myself squirming at the thought of killing kittens for food.

It was interesting to watch everyone’s reaction during the Chinese section of the movie, because no one could watch the TV. I found myself relating the kittens and cats to my own pets at home, and I’m sure that’s what everyone else was doing. It is evident that there has to be a line drawn between pets and food. We obviously need animals for food and our survival. (You may disagree if you do not eat meat.) So something needs to be done to decide what is morally and ethically right.

Levels of Morality

It is evident that not all people and non-humans receive the respect and justice that they deserve and demand. In Miller’s essay he concludes by saying that all humans and non-humans are entitled to degrees of consideration, respect, and justice. I agree with Miller that we need to have respect for everyone. It is clear that I am going to have more respect to a being of my kind because I have more in common. Evidently, non-humans are not capable of making their own decisions and doing things of their own, so we have lower standards for them. Non-humans do not have the capability to make moral judgments or know the difference between right and wrong. Although there are animal that seem to be highly intelligent, they do not understand when they are doing the “right” thing. I believe that animals respond and learn from rewards or punishment. A ‘smart’ animal is going to keep performing an action that rewards him/her with treats. Or, naturally a dog is going to be less likely to keep going into the trash if he/she is severely punished each time. Although it is proven that animals are intelligent beings, they are not at the same meta cognition level as humans.

morality of humans and nonhumans

There are various levels of competence that exist between all humans and nonhumans. There are three distinct different levels that help us distinguish between moral agents and moral patients. The lowest level of moral ability is cognition, which is a being knows but they do not understand how. This is where most people place animals and other nonhumans. The other divisions are meta cognition and moral reflection, which is where humans fit in. It is clear that nonhumans do not have the same thought capacity as humans, and thus they do not have the ability to make moral or ethical decisions. It could be argued that animals have some of the same thought qualities as humans but they do not understand the difference between right and wrong. Thus, some higher intelligent animals can be labeled as ‘quasi morality’.

Even though every living being on earth does not have the same capabilities, we all deserve respect. Miller suggests in the end of his essay that all humans and nonhumans are entitled to degrees of consideration, respect, and justice. I feel as though this is important for everyone to understand, because everything no matter its competence, deserve respect.