We discussed the final two books in The Poisonwood Bible, which were Song of the Three Children and The Eyes in the Trees.
The first things we discussed were the metaphors brought up in the final book, “The Eyes in the Trees.” The first metaphor we discussed was the tree, which we thought could represent the Congolese people since there are so many trees but not enough resources to support them. Also, we thought the tree could represent independence, since it rises above everything else seeking the light of freedom, but has the vines of Mobutu strangling it and preventing it from growing. Also, the tree could be Orleanna, because it produced seedlings, which could represent the Prices sisters. Also, the vines wrapping around the tree could be Nathan’s grip on Orleanna. We also discussed how the spider that was killed when it was helpless on its back could be Lumumba, since he was killed having done nothing wrong. Also, it could represent Adah, who was helpless because of her handicap and was squished emotionally by the people that looked down on her. We also talked about the rotten stump that had seedlings growing from it. We believed that the rotten stump represented Nathan who used to be great, like a tree, but had lost his importance and rotted into a crazy outcast, and we thought the seedlings were the Price sisters since Nathan had shaped their adult lives. We also talked about the snake, which we assumed was Ruth May because the snake was a thread through the forest and Ruth May was a thread through the sisters.
We then talked about the okapi and spider, which was proof that you always change the things around you. For example, when the family went into the forest, they were destined to kill the spider, but would scare away the okapi, making it more cautious and stop it from getting shot by hunters. This shows balance, which is something that Adah believes in because of her newfound belief in science.
We then discussed the religions of the girls. Rachel never really accepted Christianity because of her dislike in her father, so instead she believes in money, since she is somewhat of a gold digger, and she also believes in herself because she is very self-centered. Adah now believes in science for her religion. It is interesting, however, that Adah, who was the most cynical towards religion, now is the most needy for it, which is probably because she was cured of her handicap. Leah replaced her belief in Christianity with a belief in the Congo. She probably did this because when she replaced Nathan with Anatole, she replaced everything Nathan believed in with everything Anatole believes in. Orleanna’s new religion is her garden. This also has extra significance because it shows that she is independent from Nathan because tending gardens was Nathan’s job, and this symbolizes her new beginnings from Nathan. Also, with Ruth May’s forgiveness she can now finally plant her new seeds of life, since she could only move on with her life with Ruth May’s forgiveness.
We then discussed the nickname for the Price sisters, which were Lock, Stock, and Barrel. Rachel is Lock because she locks up her emotions so that she isn’t affected by the Congo. Adah is Stock because she stays in the background and takes stock of what happens between the sisters. And Leah is Barrel because she barrels forward fixing problems, such as her goal of solving the Congo’s problems.
Finally, we discussed the final phrase in the book, which was “walk forward into the light.” This shows that Ruth May finally forgives Orleanna. This demonstrates Adah’s idea of balance because the book began with Orleanna’s guilt and ended with her being forgiven.
These last two books were a good way to end the book because it showed how everyone changed, especially their beliefs. Also, the book represented many of Adah’s beliefs. For instance, the book began with a family in the jungle, and it ended with the same family. Also, the book was in perfect balance, since the beginning had Orleanna feeling guilty and the end had her forgiven. Overall, this book was very interesting, since it was told through many points of view. I believe that this book had many important messages such as the message of the okapi, which basically said that everyone changes the world, in both good and bad ways and you shouldn’t worry about the bad things and accept everything as a part of life.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Lit Circle #5 Psychological Critic
For book 6: Song of the Three Children and book 7: The Eyes in the Trees, in The Poisonwood Bible, I am the psychological critic which means I have to observe how the characters' minds work.
Rachel:
In book six: Song of the Three Children, Rachel is now fifty years old. And as a result she has changed drastically. Throughout her childhood, she had been completely helpless; she couldn’t even cook an egg omelet. However, now she successfully runs her own hotel. In fact, the work she put into her hotel has allowed her to develop a love for the hotel that she never had with any of her family; she feels bound to the hotel since she worked on it so much. Even though she changed a lot, Rachel still is extremely self-centered. She still has refused to truly adapt to Africa, even though she lives there. Also, she still believes in the book she had read that had told of how to survive dangerous scenarios by using other people, like a parasite. In fact, her hotel that she treasures so much is the result of this very thinking. She also still misses America and the lifestyle she left behind, but since she now has a calling in Africa she can’t go back. I’m still disappointed that Rachel still hasn’t developed a sense of empathy and still thinks that people exist to be used. However, at least she has developed a love for something other than herself, even if it is just a hotel.
Adah:
Adah’s change mainly comes from the correction of her handicap. She now can communicate and as a result we can see the personal side of Adah, which is completely different from her poetic observations that we were so accustomed to. Her love for books and poetry still remains, but her fascination with palindromes has nearly disappeared. This is probably because she can now protect herself with her own hands and doesn’t need to protect herself with her palindromes. If we look at her emotions, we see that she sees everything as equal, from humans to viruses. And as a result, she studies viruses not to rid the world of their evil, but because she admires them. Also, she feels that people like her only for her new body, and as a result she pushes them away. In this sense, she is similar to Rachel because they both do not believe in human relationships anymore. Instead, they fill their empty lives with their work; Rachel tends her hotel and Adah tends her viruses. This isolation from humans is probably the result of Ruth May’s death, which must have made them unable to create a relationship in fear that it would end as tragically as Ruth May’s death.
Rachel:
In book six: Song of the Three Children, Rachel is now fifty years old. And as a result she has changed drastically. Throughout her childhood, she had been completely helpless; she couldn’t even cook an egg omelet. However, now she successfully runs her own hotel. In fact, the work she put into her hotel has allowed her to develop a love for the hotel that she never had with any of her family; she feels bound to the hotel since she worked on it so much. Even though she changed a lot, Rachel still is extremely self-centered. She still has refused to truly adapt to Africa, even though she lives there. Also, she still believes in the book she had read that had told of how to survive dangerous scenarios by using other people, like a parasite. In fact, her hotel that she treasures so much is the result of this very thinking. She also still misses America and the lifestyle she left behind, but since she now has a calling in Africa she can’t go back. I’m still disappointed that Rachel still hasn’t developed a sense of empathy and still thinks that people exist to be used. However, at least she has developed a love for something other than herself, even if it is just a hotel.
Adah:
Adah’s change mainly comes from the correction of her handicap. She now can communicate and as a result we can see the personal side of Adah, which is completely different from her poetic observations that we were so accustomed to. Her love for books and poetry still remains, but her fascination with palindromes has nearly disappeared. This is probably because she can now protect herself with her own hands and doesn’t need to protect herself with her palindromes. If we look at her emotions, we see that she sees everything as equal, from humans to viruses. And as a result, she studies viruses not to rid the world of their evil, but because she admires them. Also, she feels that people like her only for her new body, and as a result she pushes them away. In this sense, she is similar to Rachel because they both do not believe in human relationships anymore. Instead, they fill their empty lives with their work; Rachel tends her hotel and Adah tends her viruses. This isolation from humans is probably the result of Ruth May’s death, which must have made them unable to create a relationship in fear that it would end as tragically as Ruth May’s death.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
If Everyone Cared
I was just looking through youtube and found this video and instantly thought about english class. This song is called "If Everyone Cared" by Nickelback. It talks about how a few people that cared for others changed the world. Such people like Nelson Mandela, who stopped the apartheid that had affected South Africa for decades, and Bob Geldof, a musician that organized the world's first global charity concert, Live Aid, and raised over one hundred fifty european pounds to stop world hunger. It then goes on to propose what would happen if everyone cared like these people did. Our world would be a brighter place and everyone could be happy. To me this song showed that no matter how small you are, you can do great things, as long as you are dedicated and truly believe you can do it. It ends with this quote:
"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
Lit Circle #4 Reflection
In class, we discussed Book 5: Exodus of The Poisonwood Bible.
The first thing we talked about was the developments of the Price sisters after Ruth May’s death. Rachel had lived with Eeben Axelroot, and married an ambassador’s aide and a rich old man. Her relationship with Axelroot allowed her to escape the Congo, and her marriage to the ambassador’s aide allowed her to escape Axelroot. However, as a result of her last marriage, she acquired a hotel. Because of her constant marriages for her own gain, we determined that she only uses her husbands and is a gold digger. Adah fixes her paralysis after someone says that it is a neurological disorder and sets her up on a program to reprogram her body. Leah becomes love struck with Anatole and marries him. Leah’s marriage to Anatole brought up a comparison between her and Orleanna. Leah wanted to be with her husband in the Congo and shared his goal to continue Lumumba’s work for the better of the Congo, but Orleanna didn’t want to be in the Congo and just followed Nathan. This then brought up a comparison between Anatole and Nathan. Anatole and Nathan both are devoted to a cause; for Anatole it is Lumumba and for Nathan it is Christianity. They also both were willing to sacrifice for their cause; Anatole went to jail and Nathan’s daughter died and his family left. However, Anatole seems to care for others through his work, since it will help everyone, whereas Nathan is sharing Christianity largely as redemption for himself. Also, Anatole is willing to assimilate other cultures, like when he went to America and tried to learn as much as possible, whereas Nathan doesn’t want to assimilate any other culture since he feels his is the only right one. After this we discussed how all the girls felt guilty for Ruth May’s death and how each one of them is trying to work through it and find redemption. Leah does this by helping the Congo through her pro-Lumumba work with her husband. Rachel opens a hotel that caters to white people in the Congo, which was something she had wanted in her stay in Kilanga. Adah goes to college and cures diseases and fixes her paralysis. And Orleanna got her daughters to safety and makes a garden that grows not food, but flowers pretty plants. We then discussed about Adah and how she had changed the most in Exodus. Not only did she go to college and cures diseases, but she also fixed her paralysis and now can communicate unlike before. With this, we see that she is actually very emotionally needy and wants her mother’s love. We also discussed the Price sisters’ reactions to Nathan’s death. Basically it affected Leah the most, who had loved her father the most and was only able to separate from him through her love for Anatole. We also noted how Leah and Adah have somewhat switched roles; Adah is perfectly healthy and is living a pretty normal American life, while Leah feels out of place because in America her family is isolated and in the Congo she is isolated. Also, Nathan’s death was similar to Jesus’ in the sense that both were killed atop a construction for sins, but Nathan was burned on a construction for killing children after trying to baptize them, whereas Jesus was killed on the cross for our sins. We then talked about the events that happened to the people in Kilanga. Nelson married and had multiple children, but Mbutu’s men killed Pascal when he was on the road. Kenge, Tata Ndu’s second son, took over as chief after Tata Ndu died because Gbeni was run out of town. And Tata Kuvundu lost respect after Ruth May’s death since he had planted the snake that killed her and he died a lonely death. We then talked about the historical events that took place. Mbutu’s attempts to strengthen the Congo put them in debt and he also used funds for aide for himself. He scheduled a boxing match called Rumble in the Jungle, which was between Mohammed Ali and George Foreman. Ali represented Lumumba because he tried to understand the Congolese, whereas Foreman took an American mindset and didn’t like the Congo. We then discussed the “you” Orleanna always refers to. We figured out that it means multiple things, like Ruth May, the Congolese, countries, even ourselves.
I think that this book was very good for closure. It basically tied up the loose ends in Kilanga and talked about how the girls had matured after their experiences in Kilanga. The death of Nathan, the one responsible for bringing them to Kilanga, marked the end of their story in Kilanga and now it seems they can move on with their lives. The lives of Adah, Leah, and Orleanna all seem the way they should be, with Adah and Leah living generally happy and Orleanna being mournful but relatively well since her daughter died. However, I find that Rachel still has a very bad personality and hopefully she’ll correct it by the end of the book.
The first thing we talked about was the developments of the Price sisters after Ruth May’s death. Rachel had lived with Eeben Axelroot, and married an ambassador’s aide and a rich old man. Her relationship with Axelroot allowed her to escape the Congo, and her marriage to the ambassador’s aide allowed her to escape Axelroot. However, as a result of her last marriage, she acquired a hotel. Because of her constant marriages for her own gain, we determined that she only uses her husbands and is a gold digger. Adah fixes her paralysis after someone says that it is a neurological disorder and sets her up on a program to reprogram her body. Leah becomes love struck with Anatole and marries him. Leah’s marriage to Anatole brought up a comparison between her and Orleanna. Leah wanted to be with her husband in the Congo and shared his goal to continue Lumumba’s work for the better of the Congo, but Orleanna didn’t want to be in the Congo and just followed Nathan. This then brought up a comparison between Anatole and Nathan. Anatole and Nathan both are devoted to a cause; for Anatole it is Lumumba and for Nathan it is Christianity. They also both were willing to sacrifice for their cause; Anatole went to jail and Nathan’s daughter died and his family left. However, Anatole seems to care for others through his work, since it will help everyone, whereas Nathan is sharing Christianity largely as redemption for himself. Also, Anatole is willing to assimilate other cultures, like when he went to America and tried to learn as much as possible, whereas Nathan doesn’t want to assimilate any other culture since he feels his is the only right one. After this we discussed how all the girls felt guilty for Ruth May’s death and how each one of them is trying to work through it and find redemption. Leah does this by helping the Congo through her pro-Lumumba work with her husband. Rachel opens a hotel that caters to white people in the Congo, which was something she had wanted in her stay in Kilanga. Adah goes to college and cures diseases and fixes her paralysis. And Orleanna got her daughters to safety and makes a garden that grows not food, but flowers pretty plants. We then discussed about Adah and how she had changed the most in Exodus. Not only did she go to college and cures diseases, but she also fixed her paralysis and now can communicate unlike before. With this, we see that she is actually very emotionally needy and wants her mother’s love. We also discussed the Price sisters’ reactions to Nathan’s death. Basically it affected Leah the most, who had loved her father the most and was only able to separate from him through her love for Anatole. We also noted how Leah and Adah have somewhat switched roles; Adah is perfectly healthy and is living a pretty normal American life, while Leah feels out of place because in America her family is isolated and in the Congo she is isolated. Also, Nathan’s death was similar to Jesus’ in the sense that both were killed atop a construction for sins, but Nathan was burned on a construction for killing children after trying to baptize them, whereas Jesus was killed on the cross for our sins. We then talked about the events that happened to the people in Kilanga. Nelson married and had multiple children, but Mbutu’s men killed Pascal when he was on the road. Kenge, Tata Ndu’s second son, took over as chief after Tata Ndu died because Gbeni was run out of town. And Tata Kuvundu lost respect after Ruth May’s death since he had planted the snake that killed her and he died a lonely death. We then talked about the historical events that took place. Mbutu’s attempts to strengthen the Congo put them in debt and he also used funds for aide for himself. He scheduled a boxing match called Rumble in the Jungle, which was between Mohammed Ali and George Foreman. Ali represented Lumumba because he tried to understand the Congolese, whereas Foreman took an American mindset and didn’t like the Congo. We then discussed the “you” Orleanna always refers to. We figured out that it means multiple things, like Ruth May, the Congolese, countries, even ourselves.
I think that this book was very good for closure. It basically tied up the loose ends in Kilanga and talked about how the girls had matured after their experiences in Kilanga. The death of Nathan, the one responsible for bringing them to Kilanga, marked the end of their story in Kilanga and now it seems they can move on with their lives. The lives of Adah, Leah, and Orleanna all seem the way they should be, with Adah and Leah living generally happy and Orleanna being mournful but relatively well since her daughter died. However, I find that Rachel still has a very bad personality and hopefully she’ll correct it by the end of the book.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Lit Circle #4 New Critic
“Leah and Adah and I started bickering practically the minute we met up in Senegal. We could never even agree on where to go or stay or what to eat. Whenever we found any place that was just the teeniest step above horrid, Leah felt it was too expensive. She and Anatole evidently have chosen to live like paupers. And Adah, helpful as always, would chime in with the list of what disease organisms were likely to be present” (477-478).
This passage is significant because it shows the contrast in the Price sisters. For example, Rachel’s reference to the inns as “the teeniest step above horrid,” reflects her pampered nature and general pessimistic view of Africa. Whereas Leah’s response on the inn’s cost shows her adaptation to African life, because she has probably been living in poverty so she doesn’t care what the quality of the lodgings are as long as it has a roof and is cheap. Adah’s response shows her personality since instead of joining in on the direct analysis of the lodgings, she looks beyond that and sees the diseases in the lodgings, which reflects her out-of-the-box thinking. It might also suggest that she is giving up her obsession with poetry and palindromes with an obsession for science. This passage is also significant because it shows that although they have grown up, most of the traits they had in childhood are still with them, either exactly the same or slightly evolved. Rachel had always had a pampered attitude, which still remains the same after growing up. Leah had always been very accepting of the Congo, and now she has married a Congolese man and is completely accustomed to the lifestyle. And Adah has always viewed things differently than the normal person, and her observations of diseases shows that this remains the same. These differences of personalities apparently have been growing larger over the years, and as a result, will probably result in the Price family’s complete detachment from one another.
“She pulled her hand out of mine so she could wipe her eyes and blow her nose. ‘I know that!’ She sounded mad. ‘The people in that village asked him to leave a hundred times, go someplace else, but he’d always sneak back. He said he wasn’t going to go away till he’d taken every child in the village down to the river and dunked them under. Which just scared everybody to death. So after the drowning incident they’d had enough, and everybody grabbed sticks and took out after him. They may have just meant to chase him away again. But I imagine Father was belligerent about it’” (486).
This passage is significant because it is the closure of the whole Congo event. The death of Nathan signifies the end of a mistake that had been costly to the Price family. Leah’s crying shows her love for her father, but when she told of his death, her anger showed that she knew what he was doing was wrong. Basically she loved her father but cursed his mistakes. Nathan’s death wasn’t a matter of what would happen, but when it would happen. Since Nathan is so stubborn in his beliefs, it could be inferred that the only way he would leave would be when he was forced out by the people he was trying to “save.” Also, by killing the children by baptizing them, he has hurt his mission more than helped it, since now the Congolese view Christianity as truly evil, which proves that doing something right the wrong way is just as bad as doing something wrong.
This passage is significant because it shows the contrast in the Price sisters. For example, Rachel’s reference to the inns as “the teeniest step above horrid,” reflects her pampered nature and general pessimistic view of Africa. Whereas Leah’s response on the inn’s cost shows her adaptation to African life, because she has probably been living in poverty so she doesn’t care what the quality of the lodgings are as long as it has a roof and is cheap. Adah’s response shows her personality since instead of joining in on the direct analysis of the lodgings, she looks beyond that and sees the diseases in the lodgings, which reflects her out-of-the-box thinking. It might also suggest that she is giving up her obsession with poetry and palindromes with an obsession for science. This passage is also significant because it shows that although they have grown up, most of the traits they had in childhood are still with them, either exactly the same or slightly evolved. Rachel had always had a pampered attitude, which still remains the same after growing up. Leah had always been very accepting of the Congo, and now she has married a Congolese man and is completely accustomed to the lifestyle. And Adah has always viewed things differently than the normal person, and her observations of diseases shows that this remains the same. These differences of personalities apparently have been growing larger over the years, and as a result, will probably result in the Price family’s complete detachment from one another.
“She pulled her hand out of mine so she could wipe her eyes and blow her nose. ‘I know that!’ She sounded mad. ‘The people in that village asked him to leave a hundred times, go someplace else, but he’d always sneak back. He said he wasn’t going to go away till he’d taken every child in the village down to the river and dunked them under. Which just scared everybody to death. So after the drowning incident they’d had enough, and everybody grabbed sticks and took out after him. They may have just meant to chase him away again. But I imagine Father was belligerent about it’” (486).
This passage is significant because it is the closure of the whole Congo event. The death of Nathan signifies the end of a mistake that had been costly to the Price family. Leah’s crying shows her love for her father, but when she told of his death, her anger showed that she knew what he was doing was wrong. Basically she loved her father but cursed his mistakes. Nathan’s death wasn’t a matter of what would happen, but when it would happen. Since Nathan is so stubborn in his beliefs, it could be inferred that the only way he would leave would be when he was forced out by the people he was trying to “save.” Also, by killing the children by baptizing them, he has hurt his mission more than helped it, since now the Congolese view Christianity as truly evil, which proves that doing something right the wrong way is just as bad as doing something wrong.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Freepost #4
In a book, it had an interesting scenario, which was that if you had the power to kill anyone you wanted mentally, so that there were no consequences, would you use it? I asked my friends this question and reflected upon their answers for my free post.
Many people would probably say yes to this question, rationalizing that there are always people that deserve to be killed, such as terrorists and murderers. In theory, this seems like a very good thing, you can better the world by ridding it of evil, but if you began punishing those that are evil, where would it end? Once you’ve killed every murderer, would you start killing people who steal? And even though you say now that you could just stop, isn’t it possible that, like a drug addict, you couldn’t live without controlling other people’s destinies. This entire scenario is similar to a Japanese manga called “Death Note.” In the story, the main character, who was a brilliant, morally decent person, obtains a notebook that allows him to kill anyone he chooses. He decided that with it, he would rid the world of evil. He eventually became power crazy, and in the end, his former-self was lost forever. So to me this scenario not only brought up the idea of killing evil people, but also brought up the idea that obtaining a power like this would change you forever.
When I brought up this question to my friends, practically all of them said they would use this ability. They probably believe that they have a strong enough sense of righteousness that they could never abuse these powers, but there are countless cases of people winning lotteries and changing drastically, having obtained wealth and with it the power to buy anything. If we can change so drastically over a physical thing like money, imagine what the power to kill can do to you?
If I were given this power, even knowing the consequences, I couldn’t safely say that I wouldn’t use them. In the Japanese manga, “Death Note,” in a short scene where the main character loses his memory, he reasons that there is no way that he would have used the notebook since he believes that he has strong morals. It is because of this that I cannot assume that I wouldn’t use the powers. My ignorance towards the subject allows me to be able to say that I wouldn’t use the powers, but when I rationalize the motives, I can’t say for sure that I won’t be a victim to the allure of such powers.
I found it interesting that this scenario brought up such different ideas in my friends’ and my own mind. To them, they were just contemplating the killing of people, whereas I contemplated the change to my personality that it would bring, since I had been introduced to the idea from before hand. I guess my friends’ contemplation are from the fear of going against their morals, whereas I, having read a story where these morals were so easily ignored, focus on the effects that these powers will have on me, already knowing that ignoring these morals are insignificant compared to the devastating effects these powers could have on your mind. So in the end, I believe that while the idea of eliminating evil seems noble, will become distorted if actually practiced. Therefore, I am glad that such powers will never exist in the real world.
Many people would probably say yes to this question, rationalizing that there are always people that deserve to be killed, such as terrorists and murderers. In theory, this seems like a very good thing, you can better the world by ridding it of evil, but if you began punishing those that are evil, where would it end? Once you’ve killed every murderer, would you start killing people who steal? And even though you say now that you could just stop, isn’t it possible that, like a drug addict, you couldn’t live without controlling other people’s destinies. This entire scenario is similar to a Japanese manga called “Death Note.” In the story, the main character, who was a brilliant, morally decent person, obtains a notebook that allows him to kill anyone he chooses. He decided that with it, he would rid the world of evil. He eventually became power crazy, and in the end, his former-self was lost forever. So to me this scenario not only brought up the idea of killing evil people, but also brought up the idea that obtaining a power like this would change you forever.
When I brought up this question to my friends, practically all of them said they would use this ability. They probably believe that they have a strong enough sense of righteousness that they could never abuse these powers, but there are countless cases of people winning lotteries and changing drastically, having obtained wealth and with it the power to buy anything. If we can change so drastically over a physical thing like money, imagine what the power to kill can do to you?
If I were given this power, even knowing the consequences, I couldn’t safely say that I wouldn’t use them. In the Japanese manga, “Death Note,” in a short scene where the main character loses his memory, he reasons that there is no way that he would have used the notebook since he believes that he has strong morals. It is because of this that I cannot assume that I wouldn’t use the powers. My ignorance towards the subject allows me to be able to say that I wouldn’t use the powers, but when I rationalize the motives, I can’t say for sure that I won’t be a victim to the allure of such powers.
I found it interesting that this scenario brought up such different ideas in my friends’ and my own mind. To them, they were just contemplating the killing of people, whereas I contemplated the change to my personality that it would bring, since I had been introduced to the idea from before hand. I guess my friends’ contemplation are from the fear of going against their morals, whereas I, having read a story where these morals were so easily ignored, focus on the effects that these powers will have on me, already knowing that ignoring these morals are insignificant compared to the devastating effects these powers could have on your mind. So in the end, I believe that while the idea of eliminating evil seems noble, will become distorted if actually practiced. Therefore, I am glad that such powers will never exist in the real world.
Freepost #3
While I was reading a book about scenarios and questions, I came across an interesting scenario and decided I would reflect upon the responses for the scenario for my free post.
If you could world hunger by killing a person, would you do it? I found this scenario interesting because it was related to the article we read in the beginning of the year entitled, “The Gift,” which was about a man who donated most of his estate to many charities. He sacrificed a lot to help others, and this scenario requires an even greater sacrifice to save others. I posed this scenario to a few of my friends and even a teacher. The majority of the boys that answered were quick to say that they would gladly sacrifice the one person to save many others, whereas the girls were reluctant to sacrifice anyone, but in the end decided to sacrifice the one person. In other words, the boys instantly weighed the total outcomes, whereas the girls tried to empathize with both parties before making a decision. The teacher also chose to sacrifice the person, but he explained his thought-process to us, which ended up being more profound than our thought-process’. He told us that he had not only weighed the two parties, but had accounted for who the person that was being sacrificed. As he put it, “I wouldn’t want to go home and find one of my parents dead and have to explain it to the other.” This made me think about how this would have changed the answers of my friends. Would the guys who didn’t even try to empathize with the unlucky person who would have to die be able to do the same to their mother? And would the girls who were so reluctant to sacrifice a stranger be able to sacrifice their father? Are our personalities so selfish that we couldn’t sacrifice our loved ones for the loved ones of many other families? In “The Gift,” the man had said that he didn’t know if he could sacrifice two strangers so that one of his kids could live. Which is the more morally, sacrificing many for a loved one or sacrificing a loved one for many?
When I answered this question, I was just trying to create opposition to make it more interesting. I decided to say that I wouldn’t sacrifice the person (this is assuming the person is a stranger), under the pretense that saving many people would actually be detrimental to the human race. Our population is increasing with the deaths of many due to starvation, which will eventually cause over population in the world, which would hurt everyone. If those that should have died from starvation end up living and contributing to the population increase, then in our lifetime we could expect drastic increases in population densities across the globe. This increase of population would also greatly affect our resources, such as plastics, metals, and fuel. When I proposed this, I instantly thought of all the charitable people in the world that would hate me for just thinking this, but I questioned whether they saw the future of mankind or only the present. Eventually, all of my controversial ideas accumulated to two questions; by helping others that are less fortunate, are we helping the human race as well as being morally decent? And is there a difference between helping the human race and being morally decent? The workings of the world are too complex to comprehend, and maybe the helping others and resources don’t even have a correlation. But if it were, the entire view on what is good would be completely different and our ideas on life would change drastically, either for the better or for the worse.
If you could world hunger by killing a person, would you do it? I found this scenario interesting because it was related to the article we read in the beginning of the year entitled, “The Gift,” which was about a man who donated most of his estate to many charities. He sacrificed a lot to help others, and this scenario requires an even greater sacrifice to save others. I posed this scenario to a few of my friends and even a teacher. The majority of the boys that answered were quick to say that they would gladly sacrifice the one person to save many others, whereas the girls were reluctant to sacrifice anyone, but in the end decided to sacrifice the one person. In other words, the boys instantly weighed the total outcomes, whereas the girls tried to empathize with both parties before making a decision. The teacher also chose to sacrifice the person, but he explained his thought-process to us, which ended up being more profound than our thought-process’. He told us that he had not only weighed the two parties, but had accounted for who the person that was being sacrificed. As he put it, “I wouldn’t want to go home and find one of my parents dead and have to explain it to the other.” This made me think about how this would have changed the answers of my friends. Would the guys who didn’t even try to empathize with the unlucky person who would have to die be able to do the same to their mother? And would the girls who were so reluctant to sacrifice a stranger be able to sacrifice their father? Are our personalities so selfish that we couldn’t sacrifice our loved ones for the loved ones of many other families? In “The Gift,” the man had said that he didn’t know if he could sacrifice two strangers so that one of his kids could live. Which is the more morally, sacrificing many for a loved one or sacrificing a loved one for many?
When I answered this question, I was just trying to create opposition to make it more interesting. I decided to say that I wouldn’t sacrifice the person (this is assuming the person is a stranger), under the pretense that saving many people would actually be detrimental to the human race. Our population is increasing with the deaths of many due to starvation, which will eventually cause over population in the world, which would hurt everyone. If those that should have died from starvation end up living and contributing to the population increase, then in our lifetime we could expect drastic increases in population densities across the globe. This increase of population would also greatly affect our resources, such as plastics, metals, and fuel. When I proposed this, I instantly thought of all the charitable people in the world that would hate me for just thinking this, but I questioned whether they saw the future of mankind or only the present. Eventually, all of my controversial ideas accumulated to two questions; by helping others that are less fortunate, are we helping the human race as well as being morally decent? And is there a difference between helping the human race and being morally decent? The workings of the world are too complex to comprehend, and maybe the helping others and resources don’t even have a correlation. But if it were, the entire view on what is good would be completely different and our ideas on life would change drastically, either for the better or for the worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)