I would have to agree with Liz. I could not have recounted our presentation anymore eloquently. Bearing it all out there, and exposing the truth of Breast Cancer can be alarming. However, now that WE, as a class, understand issues concerning Logos, Ethos, and Pathos, we can strip the emotion, filter the logic, and pinpoint their ethical issue for the better or the worse.
Having been enlightened and 'entertained' after last Friday's presentation, I certainly hope that Timothy Treadwell did not persuade you to bear it with the grizzlies. In the beginning of the class, I tried to convince you that Mr. T was suicidal and that he was apart of murdering his girlfriend. It is difficult to say he is guilty of murder and suicide at the same time if you have not watched the whole movie. In fact, I anticipated the class disagreeing with me or at least being confused. Lulled and fascinated by his comical energy and insight. You could not see. You did not see beneath the pathos and HIS logic to agree with me in convicting him of murder and suicide.
The point of the exercise was to have you watch Tim in action and find out how the documentary appealed to our understanding of Ethos, Pathos, and logos. If not that then how the film used these ideas to convince viewers of his plight in saving the (nicely populated amount) of grizzly bears.
2.22.2007
Ethos, Pathos, Logos Forum Conclusion
Forum Conclusion: Our goal for the ethos pathos logos was to have the class practice actively applying these ideas as we read and interpret texts. We tried to incorporate several contexts for applying ethos pathos and logos to show how prevalent and pervasive these ideas are in our lives and what that means as far as evolving our analytical and interpretive skills. The Obsessed with Breasts ads serve to question how advertisements are appealing to us and help us analyze our responses to those ads as well as others that we see every day. They ask us to question whether the advertisers actually have ethos; what agendas lie behind pathetic appeals and ask ourselves if the argument is even logical. And hopefully, keeping in mind ethos, pathos and logos we can not only improve our skills as rhetors but hopefully allow us to adequately analyze the rhetorical devices used by others to help us cut through the bullshit.
2.21.2007
Kairos Symposium Prep
Here's a transcript of and link to Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. As you read --and or watch-- the speech, consider how ethos, pathos and logos contribute to the overall kairos (urgency, opportunity, timing, etc.) of his speech. Also note how time, place and community escalate the urgency of the issue.
Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1732754907698549493
Transcript:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1732754907698549493
Transcript:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “I have a Dream” speech:
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life,
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in
But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
We cannot walk alone.
And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.
We cannot turn back.
There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. *We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by a sign stating: "For Whites Only."* We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."²
This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:
My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!
And if
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of
But not only that:
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of
From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!³
*Text within asterisks was added on 3/31/06. Credit Randy Mayeux for bringing the omissions to my attention.
¹ Amos 5:24 (rendered precisely in The American Standard Version of the Holy Bible)
² Isaiah 40:4-5 (King James Version of the Holy Bible). Quotation marks are excluded from part of this moment in the text because King's rendering of Isaiah 40:4 does not precisely follow the KJV version from which he quotes (e.g., "hill" and "mountain" are reversed in the KJV). King's rendering of Isaiah 40:5, however, is precisely quoted from the KJV.
2.19.2007
Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion?
It would be a safe claim to say that there are many people who believe that it would be immoral to perform an abortion, yet at the same time there should be no laws preventing an individual from getting one because people have an inherent right to their body and the government cannot tell any individual how they should use it or what they should do with it. In general I hold the belief that the government as it is formed in the United States holds no authority to prohibit any person from doing what they will with their own body so long as they bring no injury or harm to any other in the process. If we were to apply the same logic which is applied in the previous claim to any other vice or action which people perform upon their bodies then it must be said that people who think it is immoral to ingest cocaine, heroin, or any other drug should also believe that it should not be illegal to do so based upon the claim that they have the rights to their own bodies and nobody can tell them not to do these things. Government however does provide legislation about these drugs based on the rationalization that an individual under the effects of these substances will potentially cause harm to others. This may seem to justify the government in making drugs illegal but because it is only a potentiality that a person may become a danger to others it does not make it necessity to outlaw them. A person under the influence of alcohol, or even adrenaline and testosterone, may become a threat to others around them and alcohol is not only legal, but prevalent and it would be absurd to even attempt to outlaw someone from activating their adrenal glands.
Abortion is a special case when dealing with what an individual may do with their body because it not only involves the life and body of the woman, but also the life and body of the fetus. Abortion presents a direct and intentional injury to the life of the fetus. The fetus is a separate living being within the woman and must be treated as such because whether the fetus were in that womans uterus or another it would still be a fetus and a living being. All of the necessary components for life are present (feeding, moving, respiration, excretion, growth (obviously), sensitivity, and reproduction). These factors of life may not resemble anything of what a human might do outside the womb, but upon fertilization all of these things are present in one way or another and therefore the fetus is a living thing. If we admit that a parasite or a virus were a living thing then so too must we admit that the single cell which results from fertilization is a living thing.
The thing which is the result of the fertilization of a human egg with a human sperm cannot be anything other than a human. This seems to go without saying, atleast I would hope so. Human beings and nothing else can be the result of a cell with 23 chromosomes fertilizing another cell with 23 matching chromosomes with the resultant cell being the zygote, which is composed of 44 autosomes and 2 sex chromosomes (if it forms normally without mutation, I am not a geneticist so I cannot claim to know about any abnormalities which could occur). So thereby upon fertilization not only is that cell living but also it is a human cell. I do not know to what human this would belong to other than that of itself because it's DNA is different from that of both the parent strands of DNA. Therefore it must be assumed that not only is this a human cell, which is alive, it is also a separate being from the woman. As a separate human being it must be treated as such and because it is immoral for one person to unjustifiably kill another human being it would be immoral to kill this human being as well even though it is not fully developed. After all, it is also true that a 5 year old child is not fully developed so why do we say that a human cell which is not fully developed is any less? I'm not saying that the quote from Monty Python is true, no not "every sperm is sacred" because a sperm is not a human life. It is a building block for human life, but so is the protein that is found in a McDonald's french fry.
Abortion in extenuating circumstances such as rape, incest(which is rape), and danger to the mother are problematic. A woman who is raped and as a result becomes pregnant should by no means be forced to raise the child, but at the same time should she also be allowed to kill the life inside her. And how would that child feel if they ever found out they were the progeny of a rapist? In the case where the birth of the child is a threat to the mother, who's life then is the one that should take precedence? If we allow abortion then the woman has the choice to try and save herself at the cost of the fetus' life, but without abortion she must leave it up to chance. There have been many advances in medicine which provide steps to be taken such as inducing premature birth. Currently Preeclampsia is the leading cause of maternal death and there is no cure for it, however as provided in the link below there have been great strides in finding the cause and a potential cure. These questions are difficult to be sure but that's why there's so much debate about them.
I believe this is a good starting point for discussion. I haven't specifically stated what I believe the legislation should be on the issue of abortion, whether it be no abortions for anyone or abortion for some under specific circumstances, but that's because I'm not even sure myself. Hopefully we can get closer to that decision with this discussion. As a male, I do not feel like I can adequately address this topic, so please, feel free to put forth opinions or thoughts.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookhumgen.html
http://www.saburchill.com/chapters/chap0001.html
http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2003/March21_2003/maternal_medicine.html
Abortion is a special case when dealing with what an individual may do with their body because it not only involves the life and body of the woman, but also the life and body of the fetus. Abortion presents a direct and intentional injury to the life of the fetus. The fetus is a separate living being within the woman and must be treated as such because whether the fetus were in that womans uterus or another it would still be a fetus and a living being. All of the necessary components for life are present (feeding, moving, respiration, excretion, growth (obviously), sensitivity, and reproduction). These factors of life may not resemble anything of what a human might do outside the womb, but upon fertilization all of these things are present in one way or another and therefore the fetus is a living thing. If we admit that a parasite or a virus were a living thing then so too must we admit that the single cell which results from fertilization is a living thing.
The thing which is the result of the fertilization of a human egg with a human sperm cannot be anything other than a human. This seems to go without saying, atleast I would hope so. Human beings and nothing else can be the result of a cell with 23 chromosomes fertilizing another cell with 23 matching chromosomes with the resultant cell being the zygote, which is composed of 44 autosomes and 2 sex chromosomes (if it forms normally without mutation, I am not a geneticist so I cannot claim to know about any abnormalities which could occur). So thereby upon fertilization not only is that cell living but also it is a human cell. I do not know to what human this would belong to other than that of itself because it's DNA is different from that of both the parent strands of DNA. Therefore it must be assumed that not only is this a human cell, which is alive, it is also a separate being from the woman. As a separate human being it must be treated as such and because it is immoral for one person to unjustifiably kill another human being it would be immoral to kill this human being as well even though it is not fully developed. After all, it is also true that a 5 year old child is not fully developed so why do we say that a human cell which is not fully developed is any less? I'm not saying that the quote from Monty Python is true, no not "every sperm is sacred" because a sperm is not a human life. It is a building block for human life, but so is the protein that is found in a McDonald's french fry.
Abortion in extenuating circumstances such as rape, incest(which is rape), and danger to the mother are problematic. A woman who is raped and as a result becomes pregnant should by no means be forced to raise the child, but at the same time should she also be allowed to kill the life inside her. And how would that child feel if they ever found out they were the progeny of a rapist? In the case where the birth of the child is a threat to the mother, who's life then is the one that should take precedence? If we allow abortion then the woman has the choice to try and save herself at the cost of the fetus' life, but without abortion she must leave it up to chance. There have been many advances in medicine which provide steps to be taken such as inducing premature birth. Currently Preeclampsia is the leading cause of maternal death and there is no cure for it, however as provided in the link below there have been great strides in finding the cause and a potential cure. These questions are difficult to be sure but that's why there's so much debate about them.
I believe this is a good starting point for discussion. I haven't specifically stated what I believe the legislation should be on the issue of abortion, whether it be no abortions for anyone or abortion for some under specific circumstances, but that's because I'm not even sure myself. Hopefully we can get closer to that decision with this discussion. As a male, I do not feel like I can adequately address this topic, so please, feel free to put forth opinions or thoughts.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookhumgen.html
http://www.saburchill.com/chapters/chap0001.html
http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2003/March21_2003/maternal_medicine.html
2.18.2007
how i learned to stop worrying and love irrationality...
it seems like we keep returning to the intersection of religion and rationality (and non-human animal rights and rationality, and any belief and rationality) so i thought i would throw this into the mix.
i was reading a 2002 essay entitled "vegetarian ecofeminism: a review essay" (big surprise, i know!) yesterday by greta gaard. in her intro, gaard interrogates "sympathy" and talks about the ways in which sympathy has come to be not typically supported in this particular cultural milieu. gaard is talking here, obviously, about non-human animal rights (not religion or the other things we've discussed) but/and she borrows an argument made by brian luke about sympathy and rationality that seems important. she quotes luke, who argues:
All of us, whether vivisector or vegan, have been subject to mechanisms undercutting sympathy for animals. How long and to what extent we submit to these mechanisms is not a matter of rationality: to cut off our feelings and support animal exploitation is rational, given societal expectations and sanctions; but to assert our feelings and oppose animal exploitation is also rational, given the pain involved in losing our natural bonds with animals. So our task is not to
pass judgment on others' rationality, but to speak honestly of the loneliness and isolaton of anthropocentric society, and of the damage done to every person expected to hurt animals.
this strikes me as a point worthy of discussion. according to luke, there is rationality in choosing an ideological (or philosophical or spiritual) position that allows you to feel okay in the world (for lack of a more flowery phrase!).
the question i pose to you, then (and i'm thinking here especially of the piece we read for friday's forum by sam harris) is:
to what extent is the argument of "irrationality" persuausive? when and how is it useful to suggest that people who hold certain ideological positions that help to "make them feel okay in the world" are being irrational by holding those beliefs? how could you make this sort of argument without appealing to rationality? is there even a reason to do that?
i was reading a 2002 essay entitled "vegetarian ecofeminism: a review essay" (big surprise, i know!) yesterday by greta gaard. in her intro, gaard interrogates "sympathy" and talks about the ways in which sympathy has come to be not typically supported in this particular cultural milieu. gaard is talking here, obviously, about non-human animal rights (not religion or the other things we've discussed) but/and she borrows an argument made by brian luke about sympathy and rationality that seems important. she quotes luke, who argues:
All of us, whether vivisector or vegan, have been subject to mechanisms undercutting sympathy for animals. How long and to what extent we submit to these mechanisms is not a matter of rationality: to cut off our feelings and support animal exploitation is rational, given societal expectations and sanctions; but to assert our feelings and oppose animal exploitation is also rational, given the pain involved in losing our natural bonds with animals. So our task is not to
pass judgment on others' rationality, but to speak honestly of the loneliness and isolaton of anthropocentric society, and of the damage done to every person expected to hurt animals.
this strikes me as a point worthy of discussion. according to luke, there is rationality in choosing an ideological (or philosophical or spiritual) position that allows you to feel okay in the world (for lack of a more flowery phrase!).
the question i pose to you, then (and i'm thinking here especially of the piece we read for friday's forum by sam harris) is:
to what extent is the argument of "irrationality" persuausive? when and how is it useful to suggest that people who hold certain ideological positions that help to "make them feel okay in the world" are being irrational by holding those beliefs? how could you make this sort of argument without appealing to rationality? is there even a reason to do that?
2.13.2007
Anyone up for Torture?
Torture is a means to exercise the control of power over anyone who
needs to be silenced, anyone who is a terrorist or threat to that power
source, and anyone who has vital information or needs to confess
something.
Most of the countries that torture openly are in Asia, Africa, and the Middle
East. Although, there are many other countries that abuse this power that
violates human rights (and animal rights too).
It is a mistake to think that torture only is prevalent in authoritarian or
quasi-authoritarian states. Many democratic governments have used
torture.
Where torture is very atrocious:
Egypt: type of torture includes electric shock, suspension by the wrists or ankles and threats of violence or rape.
North Korea: Type of torture include severe beatings, electric shock, prolonged periods of exposure???, public nakedness, and confinement to ‘punishment cells’ too small for prisoners to stand upright or lie down.
China: Physical and psychological torture.
Colombia: All of Colombia’s three sides torture (don't know what that is???look it up).
Congo: Again torture is practiced by all its combatants in the countries chaotic civil war.
Uzbekistan: Type of torture used includes suffocation, electric shock, rape and other sexual abuses.
Turkey: Military and law enforcement officials use torture. Women detainees are routinely raped.
India: Torture is used in criminal investigations in areas where political and sectarian violence is common.
Israel and Palestinian Authority: Both sides use torture against each other.
Torturers often end up physically beating their prey. They often employ mind games with their prisoners, threatening their families and their pets.
The propose of torture is to reduce your detainee to an inferior level
wherein you have absolute power and control over them.
Post 9-11 shifted the topic of torture to something that needs to be looked
needs to be silenced, anyone who is a terrorist or threat to that power
source, and anyone who has vital information or needs to confess
something.
Most of the countries that torture openly are in Asia, Africa, and the Middle
East. Although, there are many other countries that abuse this power that
violates human rights (and animal rights too).
It is a mistake to think that torture only is prevalent in authoritarian or
quasi-authoritarian states. Many democratic governments have used
torture.
Where torture is very atrocious:
Egypt: type of torture includes electric shock, suspension by the wrists or ankles and threats of violence or rape.
North Korea: Type of torture include severe beatings, electric shock, prolonged periods of exposure???, public nakedness, and confinement to ‘punishment cells’ too small for prisoners to stand upright or lie down.
China: Physical and psychological torture.
Colombia: All of Colombia’s three sides torture (don't know what that is???look it up).
Congo: Again torture is practiced by all its combatants in the countries chaotic civil war.
Uzbekistan: Type of torture used includes suffocation, electric shock, rape and other sexual abuses.
Turkey: Military and law enforcement officials use torture. Women detainees are routinely raped.
India: Torture is used in criminal investigations in areas where political and sectarian violence is common.
Israel and Palestinian Authority: Both sides use torture against each other.
Torturers often end up physically beating their prey. They often employ mind games with their prisoners, threatening their families and their pets.
The propose of torture is to reduce your detainee to an inferior level
wherein you have absolute power and control over them.
Post 9-11 shifted the topic of torture to something that needs to be looked
Contentious claims, refutable?
Either there is a moral distinction between non-human animals and human animals or there is not. It can be said that some human animals are morally indistinct from some non-human animals, that is, they may be less rational, unable to communicate, or unable to conceive of themselves over time, with interests (this list is not exhaustive). As a result, there exists some non-human animals who are morally distinct from some human animals, that is, they may be able to rationalize, communicate, and/or conceive of themselves over time, with interests (again, this list is not exhaustive). If there are no moral distinctions between human and non-human animals, then it is morally wrong to kill, torture, eat, or exploit non-human animals for the same reason it is to kill, torture, eat, or exploit human animals. If there is/are (a) moral distinction(s) between human and non-human animals, then we must elevate those non-human animals, such as all primate species, who reside on the human animal side of the moral distinction line, to the no kill-torture-eat-exploit status presently enjoyed by all humans. In addition, we must also suppress those human animals who reside on the non-human animal side of the moral distinction line, such as infants, mentally-disabled people, and/or people who score lower than a predetermined Intelligence Quotient to the kill-torture-eat-exploit status. Therefore, either it is morally wrong to kill, torture, eat, and/or exploit non-human animals for the same reason it is to do so to human animals or we must distinguish between those non-human animals that meet our morally distinct criteria and those human animals that do not and confer upon them both the properties allocated as such being a member of each group, i.e. infants and mentally-disabled people, along with the other non-human animals, for kill, torture, eat, or exploitation status and 'higher' animals for rights reserved recognition. For those versed in Singer, the latter will parallel his thoughts.
To aid the reader, I never define what a ‘moral distinction line’ might encompass, however, I do make a grand assumption (as a suppressed premise) that whatever morally distinct line we may be able to draw it will inevitably elevate some non-human animals and depress some human animals.
(I reference Seva throughout the next couple paragraphs not for arbitrary distinction, but because I think she is, for want of a better classification, intelligent.)
Seva, the brilliant skeptic she is, instantly pointed out that non-human animals used for experimentation aid human physiological comprehension and reduce the amount of suffering (of humans) worldwide. I’m sure that if she were given more time she could have elaborated further on the number of pharmaceuticals alone that have saved or prolonged human life at the expense of a non-human animal test subject. Point well taken; “her” (because it certainly does not ‘belong’ to her, and probably did not originate in her cognitive capacities either) argument broken down goes something like this: 1) Some act is morally justifiable if it increases human longevity and decreases human suffering. 2) It is morally unjustifiable to use any human as a means to an end. 3) Experimentation on non-human animals is some act that increases human longevity and decreases human suffering, while simultaneously not using a human as a means, therefore 4) experimentation on non-human animals is justifiable. Within this argument is a/the suppressed premise that I attack vigorously: “it is morally justifiable to use any non-human animal as a means to an end.” This premise has not been addressed, let alone substantiated, repeatedly by those responsible for the ethics of science and it is through the ignoring of this said premise that experimental scientists and behavioral psychologists have been able to slaughter, mutilate, torture, and rape non-human animals’ lives for generations. Indeed, the Holocaust, Crusades, and other various subjugations of minority groups should be considered lighter moments in our continued history of arrogant persecution and anguish compared to the ravaging assault we inflict on disparate species each day. It follows that I don’t dispute Seva’s claim outright, I merely point to the fact that scientists, along with other non-human animal torturers and murderers, apply an arbitrary distinction between Homo sapiens and every other specie with no moral justification whatever. Either we use those Homo sapiens who are non-human animal-like for the same purposes we exploit non-human animals, or we reject the exploitation of all non-human animals as morally indefensible.
However, Utilitarians might agree with Seva insofar as the total amount of happiness in the world must result in a net gain compared with the total amount of suffering in the world –as Utilitarians are principally concerned with beings’ happiness and unhappiness, pleasure and pain. Nevertheless, it is quite arguable, but not in the scope of this essay, to assert that electrocuting a dog until it defecates just to see her jump over a dividing wall or terrifying a young primate just to see her hold onto the fake “mother” with the furry chest tells us 1) very little about human behavior and 2) causes an extreme discrepancy between the amount of suffering caused and the happiness gained by divergent beings. As a Psych major, Seva, I’m sure you could detail to me far more barbarically savage acts of “behavioral evaluations” than I have listed here; my chief question to you, and to others who reason along these lines, is that if we can claim to derive the knowledge we do from these non-human animal test subjects, then what criteria do we use to morally distinguish between Pavlov’s dogs and mentally retarded individuals? Between Thorndike’s cat puzzle boxes and infants? Between Skinner’s rat boxes and women, Blacks, gays, or any other subjugated minority? More directly, if we concede that it is morally justifiable to use non-human animals for food, torture, experimentation, and/or exploitation, then we have no more moral justification for condemning Hellenistic infanticide or the Nazi eugenics program than we do for enslaving Blacks or burning heretics during the Inquisition, as each of these [groups] were arguably (at their respective times) considered less than human –whether that ultimately matters or not is what we are currently questioning.
Another argument proffered was the argument from potentiality. Infants, it was reasoned, are a ‘potential’ human being and thus should have the rights conferred upon them as such being a member of the class human being. This still does not address the issue of why a member of species A has any more right to life than species B, however. Working with the ‘infant as potential human being’ argument, might we then say that an infant guaranteed to die (perhaps by some terminal disease) before the age of 5, or even 10, can and should be used for food, experimentation, or general exploitation? I see why not, for she will always remain in a child-like state of life, and if she is going to die young, we might as well use her to the betterment of human-kind (the question I’m indirectly asking is when “human being” begins and zygote, fetus, or infant leaves off). Of course, one will certainly have to define what we mean when we say human being. Do we mean a member of the species Homo sapiens, or some other complex, yet to be defined variable(s)? Frankly, the argument from potentiality seems suspect, it has been claimed by obstetricians that over 50% of fertilized eggs do not implant on the uterine wall and are excreted with other waste; many times the woman didn’t even realize she was pregnant. Are we to therefore hold women liable for murder, or at least negligent homicide, after all, they did excrete and destroy a potential human being?
Ok, let’s get down to business and dismiss the argument once and for all. Barack Obama is a potential president of the United States. Barack’s potentiality to presidency does in no way bestow upon him some right to the presidency, much like a cluster of cells or an infant in no way bestows upon ‘them’ the rights of a human being merely because they have the potential to become a human being. No? You have the potential to be a University graduate. Would you claim that you hold, or at least should hold, the rights of a University graduate now even though you are still a student? Absolutely not, and it follows that the argument from potentiality is as vacuous as the argument from animal experimentation.
If one should wish not to post a comment to the blog, I would be more than happy to answer any and all objections that may arise through email: mgriff20@uic.edu
-please note, this is a tentative piece, subject to review for the accuracy of the claims made by myself. In other words, if my hastily constructed arguments are, upon review, not what I intended, I reserve the right to revise. Thanks.
To aid the reader, I never define what a ‘moral distinction line’ might encompass, however, I do make a grand assumption (as a suppressed premise) that whatever morally distinct line we may be able to draw it will inevitably elevate some non-human animals and depress some human animals.
(I reference Seva throughout the next couple paragraphs not for arbitrary distinction, but because I think she is, for want of a better classification, intelligent.)
Seva, the brilliant skeptic she is, instantly pointed out that non-human animals used for experimentation aid human physiological comprehension and reduce the amount of suffering (of humans) worldwide. I’m sure that if she were given more time she could have elaborated further on the number of pharmaceuticals alone that have saved or prolonged human life at the expense of a non-human animal test subject. Point well taken; “her” (because it certainly does not ‘belong’ to her, and probably did not originate in her cognitive capacities either) argument broken down goes something like this: 1) Some act is morally justifiable if it increases human longevity and decreases human suffering. 2) It is morally unjustifiable to use any human as a means to an end. 3) Experimentation on non-human animals is some act that increases human longevity and decreases human suffering, while simultaneously not using a human as a means, therefore 4) experimentation on non-human animals is justifiable. Within this argument is a/the suppressed premise that I attack vigorously: “it is morally justifiable to use any non-human animal as a means to an end.” This premise has not been addressed, let alone substantiated, repeatedly by those responsible for the ethics of science and it is through the ignoring of this said premise that experimental scientists and behavioral psychologists have been able to slaughter, mutilate, torture, and rape non-human animals’ lives for generations. Indeed, the Holocaust, Crusades, and other various subjugations of minority groups should be considered lighter moments in our continued history of arrogant persecution and anguish compared to the ravaging assault we inflict on disparate species each day. It follows that I don’t dispute Seva’s claim outright, I merely point to the fact that scientists, along with other non-human animal torturers and murderers, apply an arbitrary distinction between Homo sapiens and every other specie with no moral justification whatever. Either we use those Homo sapiens who are non-human animal-like for the same purposes we exploit non-human animals, or we reject the exploitation of all non-human animals as morally indefensible.
However, Utilitarians might agree with Seva insofar as the total amount of happiness in the world must result in a net gain compared with the total amount of suffering in the world –as Utilitarians are principally concerned with beings’ happiness and unhappiness, pleasure and pain. Nevertheless, it is quite arguable, but not in the scope of this essay, to assert that electrocuting a dog until it defecates just to see her jump over a dividing wall or terrifying a young primate just to see her hold onto the fake “mother” with the furry chest tells us 1) very little about human behavior and 2) causes an extreme discrepancy between the amount of suffering caused and the happiness gained by divergent beings. As a Psych major, Seva, I’m sure you could detail to me far more barbarically savage acts of “behavioral evaluations” than I have listed here; my chief question to you, and to others who reason along these lines, is that if we can claim to derive the knowledge we do from these non-human animal test subjects, then what criteria do we use to morally distinguish between Pavlov’s dogs and mentally retarded individuals? Between Thorndike’s cat puzzle boxes and infants? Between Skinner’s rat boxes and women, Blacks, gays, or any other subjugated minority? More directly, if we concede that it is morally justifiable to use non-human animals for food, torture, experimentation, and/or exploitation, then we have no more moral justification for condemning Hellenistic infanticide or the Nazi eugenics program than we do for enslaving Blacks or burning heretics during the Inquisition, as each of these [groups] were arguably (at their respective times) considered less than human –whether that ultimately matters or not is what we are currently questioning.
Another argument proffered was the argument from potentiality. Infants, it was reasoned, are a ‘potential’ human being and thus should have the rights conferred upon them as such being a member of the class human being. This still does not address the issue of why a member of species A has any more right to life than species B, however. Working with the ‘infant as potential human being’ argument, might we then say that an infant guaranteed to die (perhaps by some terminal disease) before the age of 5, or even 10, can and should be used for food, experimentation, or general exploitation? I see why not, for she will always remain in a child-like state of life, and if she is going to die young, we might as well use her to the betterment of human-kind (the question I’m indirectly asking is when “human being” begins and zygote, fetus, or infant leaves off). Of course, one will certainly have to define what we mean when we say human being. Do we mean a member of the species Homo sapiens, or some other complex, yet to be defined variable(s)? Frankly, the argument from potentiality seems suspect, it has been claimed by obstetricians that over 50% of fertilized eggs do not implant on the uterine wall and are excreted with other waste; many times the woman didn’t even realize she was pregnant. Are we to therefore hold women liable for murder, or at least negligent homicide, after all, they did excrete and destroy a potential human being?
Ok, let’s get down to business and dismiss the argument once and for all. Barack Obama is a potential president of the United States. Barack’s potentiality to presidency does in no way bestow upon him some right to the presidency, much like a cluster of cells or an infant in no way bestows upon ‘them’ the rights of a human being merely because they have the potential to become a human being. No? You have the potential to be a University graduate. Would you claim that you hold, or at least should hold, the rights of a University graduate now even though you are still a student? Absolutely not, and it follows that the argument from potentiality is as vacuous as the argument from animal experimentation.
If one should wish not to post a comment to the blog, I would be more than happy to answer any and all objections that may arise through email: mgriff20@uic.edu
-please note, this is a tentative piece, subject to review for the accuracy of the claims made by myself. In other words, if my hastily constructed arguments are, upon review, not what I intended, I reserve the right to revise. Thanks.
2.11.2007
The god problem; an open discussion
As Seva so correctly alluded to in class on Friday, discussion of a religion’s merits would take far greater time than what is generally allotted, so it is here on this blog that I wish to probe the foundations and implications of what we so colloquially refer to as “faith” or “belief.” Prior to beginning our discussion, some housekeeping is in order. When I speak of a “god” I am referring to the deity of the three great monotheistic traditions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; who is characterized as possessing omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence; and who is said to be perfect. In addition, when I refer to “religion” it is concerning any set of claims, structured or not, that depend upon a supernatural entity for their validity. And lastly, I will generally use “faith” and “belief” interchangeably in the dictionary.com, numbers 2 and 3, sense; that is, as “a belief not based on proof” and as a “belief in god or in the doctrines or the teachings of religion.” These definitions are by no means exclusive and I welcome any deviation that may be agreed upon.
There is a seemingly infinite number of angles with which to evaluate the claims made by religious adherents, so I think I’ll just start with where we left off in class on Friday; the bible (or Qur’an) as fable.
The central argument for bible (or Qur’an) validity can be dismissed rather efficiently. It goes something like this: “I know the bible (or Qur’an) is true, because it’s the word of god and god does not lie. How do I know god doesn’t lie? The bible (or Qur’an) says so.” Spelled out the argument looks like this: 1) The bible (or Qur’an) states that god does not lie, 2) The bible (or Qur’an) is god’s word, 3) therefore, the bible (or Qur’an) is true. In this argument lies an unexpressed premise of mass proportions: “god exists.” If we are to further this argument to substantiate the suppressed premise “god exists” we could say 1) the bible (or Qur’an) states that god exists, 2) the bible (or Qur’an) is true because it is god’s word and therefore, 3) god exists. The circularity and frequency of this argument in modern discourse are both greater and far more rampant than we should care to imagine -hopefully they need not be expanded on any further here. Directly put, one’s premises cannot presuppose the conclusion; here it being “god exists.” In fact, this type of unwarranted assumption is so common that it even carries with it the eloquent title of petitio principii, i.e. begging the question.
But what if there are other, more crafty arguments for the existence of a deity that my straw-man hasn’t afforded, thus rendering the bible-(or Qur’an)-as-true argument more plausible? There are, namely the teleological and ontological a priori modes of argumentation; but to what leap of logic should we address our claim to knowledge from there? Pointedly, if religion X makes the same claim to knowledge of Yahweh (Yahweh here for expediency), and through Yahweh, that religion Y and Z do, yet holds incompatible beliefs comparatively, to whose supernatural insight are we to look for correct knowledge? It follows quite readily that even if we were to conquer the intellectual feat of validating the existence of a god, the competing claims to supreme truth would likely go violently unresolved, much like today. From here it is likely that religious persons will claim it to be “faith” they rest upon when making the aforementioned leap of logic towards supernatural knowledge. To this claim I will address at a later time.
There is one other qualification to make to my claim that the bible (or Qur’an) is mere fable. It has been said that the bible (or Qur’an) can be a useful guide to historical events, that is, we can interpret it as a historically accurate document. I dispute that claim. It is practically prudent for us to view biblical (or Qur’an based) accounts of history along the lines of “The Iliad” or “Odyssey,” and even that seems quite generous –no offence to Homer. Frankly, when deciphering what may be historically accurate depictions in the bible (or Qur’an) juxtaposed to obvious cognitive absurdities, it becomes difficult, though not impossible, to separate fact from fiction. Here is my discord: I have no problem understanding that a Jewish man named Jesus, who was from Nazareth, taught an apocalyptic version of Judaism that earned him the ire of the greater Jewish, and subsequently Roman, populations. On the other hand, I do have a problem with the preposterous notions that this same mortal man was born of a virgin (which if he was wouldn’t the Jews have elevated him to messiah position posthaste?), died for my sins (however an effect can precede its cause I know not), was resurrected from the dead (which seems to violate all known laws of physics), and is, if you are Catholic, the father, son, and holy spirit (which are “three Persons…truly distinct from one another…and yet there are not 3 gods, but 1 god –Catholic Encyclopedia [this last one seems to take the cake for intellectual dishonesty]) Likewise, I have no trouble comprehending Muhammad, peace be upon him or not, as a roughshod figure who was expelled to Medina where he subsequently raised an army of credulous followers who then proceeded to build a religious empire around conquering others by the sword. What I do have a problem with is the absolutely, unjustifiably absurd claim that he flew to “heaven” on a winged horse (wherever “heaven” may be).
I think this is a good start for a conversation. Hopefully by dispelling some of the outlandishly fallacious modes of thinking, such as begging the question, we can get to the meat and potatoes of what it is we truly mean when we claim to “believe” in (a) god or accept the bible or Qur’an as inerrant explanations of the way the world actually is.
-note: My capitalization of the “Q” in Qur’an is an error; it, the Qur’an, deserves no more special recognition than the bible. In further posts I will treat them as indistinct. Additionally, I will also address my unwitting, intellectual mistake that led to the capitalization of said “Q” –for primer, it has everything to do with the misplaced notion in our society that a religious belief/text/claim deserves some sort of special respect just because it is religious.
There is a seemingly infinite number of angles with which to evaluate the claims made by religious adherents, so I think I’ll just start with where we left off in class on Friday; the bible (or Qur’an) as fable.
The central argument for bible (or Qur’an) validity can be dismissed rather efficiently. It goes something like this: “I know the bible (or Qur’an) is true, because it’s the word of god and god does not lie. How do I know god doesn’t lie? The bible (or Qur’an) says so.” Spelled out the argument looks like this: 1) The bible (or Qur’an) states that god does not lie, 2) The bible (or Qur’an) is god’s word, 3) therefore, the bible (or Qur’an) is true. In this argument lies an unexpressed premise of mass proportions: “god exists.” If we are to further this argument to substantiate the suppressed premise “god exists” we could say 1) the bible (or Qur’an) states that god exists, 2) the bible (or Qur’an) is true because it is god’s word and therefore, 3) god exists. The circularity and frequency of this argument in modern discourse are both greater and far more rampant than we should care to imagine -hopefully they need not be expanded on any further here. Directly put, one’s premises cannot presuppose the conclusion; here it being “god exists.” In fact, this type of unwarranted assumption is so common that it even carries with it the eloquent title of petitio principii, i.e. begging the question.
But what if there are other, more crafty arguments for the existence of a deity that my straw-man hasn’t afforded, thus rendering the bible-(or Qur’an)-as-true argument more plausible? There are, namely the teleological and ontological a priori modes of argumentation; but to what leap of logic should we address our claim to knowledge from there? Pointedly, if religion X makes the same claim to knowledge of Yahweh (Yahweh here for expediency), and through Yahweh, that religion Y and Z do, yet holds incompatible beliefs comparatively, to whose supernatural insight are we to look for correct knowledge? It follows quite readily that even if we were to conquer the intellectual feat of validating the existence of a god, the competing claims to supreme truth would likely go violently unresolved, much like today. From here it is likely that religious persons will claim it to be “faith” they rest upon when making the aforementioned leap of logic towards supernatural knowledge. To this claim I will address at a later time.
There is one other qualification to make to my claim that the bible (or Qur’an) is mere fable. It has been said that the bible (or Qur’an) can be a useful guide to historical events, that is, we can interpret it as a historically accurate document. I dispute that claim. It is practically prudent for us to view biblical (or Qur’an based) accounts of history along the lines of “The Iliad” or “Odyssey,” and even that seems quite generous –no offence to Homer. Frankly, when deciphering what may be historically accurate depictions in the bible (or Qur’an) juxtaposed to obvious cognitive absurdities, it becomes difficult, though not impossible, to separate fact from fiction. Here is my discord: I have no problem understanding that a Jewish man named Jesus, who was from Nazareth, taught an apocalyptic version of Judaism that earned him the ire of the greater Jewish, and subsequently Roman, populations. On the other hand, I do have a problem with the preposterous notions that this same mortal man was born of a virgin (which if he was wouldn’t the Jews have elevated him to messiah position posthaste?), died for my sins (however an effect can precede its cause I know not), was resurrected from the dead (which seems to violate all known laws of physics), and is, if you are Catholic, the father, son, and holy spirit (which are “three Persons…truly distinct from one another…and yet there are not 3 gods, but 1 god –Catholic Encyclopedia [this last one seems to take the cake for intellectual dishonesty]) Likewise, I have no trouble comprehending Muhammad, peace be upon him or not, as a roughshod figure who was expelled to Medina where he subsequently raised an army of credulous followers who then proceeded to build a religious empire around conquering others by the sword. What I do have a problem with is the absolutely, unjustifiably absurd claim that he flew to “heaven” on a winged horse (wherever “heaven” may be).
I think this is a good start for a conversation. Hopefully by dispelling some of the outlandishly fallacious modes of thinking, such as begging the question, we can get to the meat and potatoes of what it is we truly mean when we claim to “believe” in (a) god or accept the bible or Qur’an as inerrant explanations of the way the world actually is.
-note: My capitalization of the “Q” in Qur’an is an error; it, the Qur’an, deserves no more special recognition than the bible. In further posts I will treat them as indistinct. Additionally, I will also address my unwitting, intellectual mistake that led to the capitalization of said “Q” –for primer, it has everything to do with the misplaced notion in our society that a religious belief/text/claim deserves some sort of special respect just because it is religious.
2.10.2007
Pathos - Bicycle Funeral
Does a bicycle goes to heaven when it dies?
A few days ago, my bicycle broke down, literally, when the pedal 'broke' off. Seeing that trying to fix it will cost more resources than buying a new one ('He' was a Target bicycle that costed me $50 a year ago), I decided to say goodbye to my old pal. Quite cold-bloodedly, I bought a new bicycle and salvaged some parts (wheels, seats,...) of the old one that I can use. As I'm about to throw the frame away, I'm reminded of the Ikea Lamp commercial. Like the lamp, the frame is probably sitting out in the dark being covered by snow. A little, about 1 ppb, part of me felt guilty. I wish I didn't have to throw it away... but there's noway I can keep both my bikes in my apartment.. it'll be very awkward for the two them (since the can't "just be friends" now). In the end, I wonder if I made the right choice. What do you think?
P.S. May be it's some sort of karma, but I ended up damaging the bolts on my new bike when I tried to change the wheels. An advice on that would help too.
A few days ago, my bicycle broke down, literally, when the pedal 'broke' off. Seeing that trying to fix it will cost more resources than buying a new one ('He' was a Target bicycle that costed me $50 a year ago), I decided to say goodbye to my old pal. Quite cold-bloodedly, I bought a new bicycle and salvaged some parts (wheels, seats,...) of the old one that I can use. As I'm about to throw the frame away, I'm reminded of the Ikea Lamp commercial. Like the lamp, the frame is probably sitting out in the dark being covered by snow. A little, about 1 ppb, part of me felt guilty. I wish I didn't have to throw it away... but there's noway I can keep both my bikes in my apartment.. it'll be very awkward for the two them (since the can't "just be friends" now). In the end, I wonder if I made the right choice. What do you think?
P.S. May be it's some sort of karma, but I ended up damaging the bolts on my new bike when I tried to change the wheels. An advice on that would help too.
Cont. discussion
One of the activities I wanted to do in class was distribute advertisements and talk about the fictional examples they might address as well as the underlying premises, whether they be positive or negative. A couple of ads in particular I wanted to talk about were a Joe Camel cigarette ad and a McDonalds ad. The book states that “Advertisers often use animals or fabulous human beings to sell their products. If everyone can remember the Joe Camel ads, he was always thought to be cool and popular whether he was playing pool or riding a motorcycle. Many adults, mostly parents were against these ads due to the camel itself. They feared the ads were trying to target younger generations by having a “fun loving” animal smoking.
Another ad, I wanted to touch on was a McDonalds ad that features two young black boys, maybe ages 6-8, having a discussion about something on some steps. Underneath the boys is the saying “The bigger we get, the bigger our dreams get. The problem is what they are wearing in my opinion. These young boys are wearing baggy clothes and baggy sweaters with their shoelaces untied. When I asked various family and friends if they saw anything wrong with ad, majority of them said, “Do they have to be in such baggy clothes, like little thugs?” The answer…of course not. McDonalds is no stranger to controversy though. A few years back, many African Americans were upset because the commercials for the food chain mainly focused on blacks either rapping or dancing. Many people thought, is this how they view us? I just happen to think that these two ads are great example ads having negative premises.
Another ad, I wanted to touch on was a McDonalds ad that features two young black boys, maybe ages 6-8, having a discussion about something on some steps. Underneath the boys is the saying “The bigger we get, the bigger our dreams get. The problem is what they are wearing in my opinion. These young boys are wearing baggy clothes and baggy sweaters with their shoelaces untied. When I asked various family and friends if they saw anything wrong with ad, majority of them said, “Do they have to be in such baggy clothes, like little thugs?” The answer…of course not. McDonalds is no stranger to controversy though. A few years back, many African Americans were upset because the commercials for the food chain mainly focused on blacks either rapping or dancing. Many people thought, is this how they view us? I just happen to think that these two ads are great example ads having negative premises.
2.08.2007
Aristotle's Rhetoric
I hope this clears some of this weeks logos up:
We persuade by the argument itself (logos) when we demostrate or seem to demonstrate that something is the case. For Aristotle, there are two species of arguments: inductions and deductions. Induction is defined as the proceeding from particulars up to a universal. A deduction is an argument in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the suppositions results of necessity through them or because of thier being ture. The inductive argument in rhetoric is the example; it does not proceed from many particular cases to one universal case, but from one particular to a similar particular if both particulars fall under the same class. The deductive argument in rhetoric is the enthymeme.
The Enthymeme:
The Concept of Enthymeme
For Aristotle, an enthymeme is what has the function of a proof or demostration in the domain of public speech. Since a demonstration is a kind of 'sullogismos.' The concepts 'proof' and 'sullogismos' play a crucial role in Aristotle's logical-dialectical theory. Properly understood, what people call 'enthymeme' should have the form of a sullogismos, i.e. a deductive argument.
Rapp, Christof, "Aristotle's Rhetoric", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Summer 2002 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=
We persuade by the argument itself (logos) when we demostrate or seem to demonstrate that something is the case. For Aristotle, there are two species of arguments: inductions and deductions. Induction is defined as the proceeding from particulars up to a universal. A deduction is an argument in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the suppositions results of necessity through them or because of thier being ture. The inductive argument in rhetoric is the example; it does not proceed from many particular cases to one universal case, but from one particular to a similar particular if both particulars fall under the same class. The deductive argument in rhetoric is the enthymeme.
The Enthymeme:
The Concept of Enthymeme
For Aristotle, an enthymeme is what has the function of a proof or demostration in the domain of public speech. Since a demonstration is a kind of 'sullogismos.' The concepts 'proof' and 'sullogismos' play a crucial role in Aristotle's logical-dialectical theory. Properly understood, what people call 'enthymeme' should have the form of a sullogismos, i.e. a deductive argument.
Rapp, Christof, "Aristotle's Rhetoric", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Summer 2002 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=
Logos Historical Examples
In the Logos chapter, one of the concepts discussed is the idea of rhetorical examples and historical examples and how effective they can be when used to make an argument. To prove that point, the text brings up how that if you wanted to oppose the Iraq war, you could invoke memories of what happened in the Vietnam war by demonstrating similarities the two wars might have (obviously a historical example). Once you make valid comparisons of the two you can use the sentiment that people have of the Vietnam war to agree with you on your point about the Iraq war. Click the link below and watch the video!
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2006/11/21/hardball-vietnam-iraq-comparison/
*you have to click the video for it to play*
Did the clip do a successful job in establishing similarities through comparison of the two wars?
If it did (or didn't) why was it successful (or unsuccessful)?
What unsaid conclusions can you infer from the video?
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2006/11/21/hardball-vietnam-iraq-comparison/
*you have to click the video for it to play*
Did the clip do a successful job in establishing similarities through comparison of the two wars?
If it did (or didn't) why was it successful (or unsuccessful)?
What unsaid conclusions can you infer from the video?
Pathos?
When reading chapter 7 on the enargeia, the example of a rhetor who supports the regulation of hate speech fell short for me. Here it is listed below.
"A small child walks juantily home from school, swinging her backpack in time with her steps. Her eyes sparkle with hapiness-school is out for the day-and her smile indicates her sheer happiness at being alive on this beautiful autumn afternoon. Suddenly, three girls from her class at school appear on the sidewalk in front of her. Giggling, they point at her in unison and the tallest one yells "Fatso! Go on a diet." They run away.
This depiction is intended to elicit sympathy for victims of hate speech."
I for one am proud to be reading a book that addresses these issues. Even-though that during my youth PC was simply unheard of- simple politeness was the common line that we all walked on.
Anyway, I found that this Pathos example made me laugh and I don't like to admit it. I just see, something like this, on Saturday Night Live. Perhaps I am wrong, SNL never aired anything so horrible. I felt that this was a poor example of appealing to pathos because it made me laugh, or maybe that's the point...we are laughing (a colleague of mine and I).
After reading it the first time I thought, what mean girls!, without feeling empathy, sympathy, or identification with her. I heard no violin playing. Yes, I felt that justice needed to be done. Yes it was a rude comment. I thought to myself that I maybe either
A) not a good reader. Or
B) not aware of the times I live in.
Great, I'm glad that I am aware of my weaknesses. This segment could have been better if it would have described her struggle as being over weight instead of trying to establish the hate speech.
Maybe this might work better...
Janice peers over the desk that is too small to sit at and tries to take notes like everyone else. She spends half her time, throughout eight classes, juggling her notes and books from the table built into the chair that's too small for her . In frustration, she huffs and puffs about her weight. With great joy, the day in school ends and she leaves the classes feeling the steady eyes glare at her large physique.
Walking home alone, she meets eyes with a clique of girls from school. They glare quickly at her and gossip together as a group giggling. As Janice approaches them, her classmates smile politely and one says "Hey fatso!" laced with scorn, "Get on a diet!"
I don't see why the author made me laugh when I am supposed to feel some sort of emotion.
"A small child walks juantily home from school, swinging her backpack in time with her steps. Her eyes sparkle with hapiness-school is out for the day-and her smile indicates her sheer happiness at being alive on this beautiful autumn afternoon. Suddenly, three girls from her class at school appear on the sidewalk in front of her. Giggling, they point at her in unison and the tallest one yells "Fatso! Go on a diet." They run away.
This depiction is intended to elicit sympathy for victims of hate speech."
I for one am proud to be reading a book that addresses these issues. Even-though that during my youth PC was simply unheard of- simple politeness was the common line that we all walked on.
Anyway, I found that this Pathos example made me laugh and I don't like to admit it. I just see, something like this, on Saturday Night Live. Perhaps I am wrong, SNL never aired anything so horrible. I felt that this was a poor example of appealing to pathos because it made me laugh, or maybe that's the point...we are laughing (a colleague of mine and I).
After reading it the first time I thought, what mean girls!, without feeling empathy, sympathy, or identification with her. I heard no violin playing. Yes, I felt that justice needed to be done. Yes it was a rude comment. I thought to myself that I maybe either
A) not a good reader. Or
B) not aware of the times I live in.
Great, I'm glad that I am aware of my weaknesses. This segment could have been better if it would have described her struggle as being over weight instead of trying to establish the hate speech.
Maybe this might work better...
Janice peers over the desk that is too small to sit at and tries to take notes like everyone else. She spends half her time, throughout eight classes, juggling her notes and books from the table built into the chair that's too small for her . In frustration, she huffs and puffs about her weight. With great joy, the day in school ends and she leaves the classes feeling the steady eyes glare at her large physique.
Walking home alone, she meets eyes with a clique of girls from school. They glare quickly at her and gossip together as a group giggling. As Janice approaches them, her classmates smile politely and one says "Hey fatso!" laced with scorn, "Get on a diet!"
I don't see why the author made me laugh when I am supposed to feel some sort of emotion.
2.01.2007
On equality; a brief enargeia
You're in a cage. This cage is scarcely larger than your body and you find yourself immobilized within. You can't turn your head because it too is secured in place and so you wait...nervously, anxiously, all the while in a borderline state of panic. You hardly notice that the greater part of your head is positioned outside of the cage, but all too soon it makes sense. A person is approaching, they seem to be carrying a variety of medical-use items, and before you can reduce the complexities of the situation unfolding, a pair of forceps have forced one of your eyes wide open. The pain is aggressively terrible and you are terrified, "why," after all, "would I ever be in this position?," you ask. No more quickly than rendering yourself helplessly impotent, a syringe filled with some future cosmetic or toiletry chemical is deposited on your eye, the forceps are removed, and your eye is cinched shut with a clamp-like bandage, leaving as much of the chemical as fitfully possible. The pain is nothing like you've ever felt, nor have ever cared to imagine. In a cruel mix of fate the chemical not only dissolves your eye, rendering you blind, but sears the flesh off your face from the upper cheek to the brow ridge. In an exponentiation of terror and fear, the excruciating pain from the blistering chemical reaction combined with the total immobility of your head and body leave you in a psychological grab-bag of grief, misery, and suffering (little do you know that you may be in this position for the next ten days). Unable to move, urinating and excreting waste on yourself, contemplating the utter agony which you now find yourself in, welcome to the life of a rabbit who, ripped from her life of enjoyment of foraging and playing with other rabbits, is now having chemicals tested on her eye so that you, great consumers, may have your Revlon makeup, Chanel perfume, and Crest mouthwash without any worries.
I guess, and what I will argue at much greater length in another post, is that if the justification for (non-human) animal experimentation is premised on the idea that (non-human) animals are somehow different from human animals, then why do we continue to test a variety of chemicals on disparate members of the animal kingdom? For if the differences are as great as professed, then how could we possibly infer anything from these experimentations? In addition, the differences must be so great as to render the moral objections to such a practice moot, the fact that they do not should itself raise serious doubts as to the legitimacy of these claims. Subsequently, it is without doubt that the similarities between species must be so strikingly similar that we necessarily infer such claimed properties from these tests, such as how a splash of nail-polish remover in one's eye will not lead to blindness (which we know from testing absurd concentrations of it on different animals' eyes), for if we could not infer such properties what, outside the practice of sadistic cruelty, would be the purpose of performing such barbaric acts?
The purpose of this brief introduction to non-human animal rights argumentation was to present one of the unjustified, savage acts of cruelty that is perpetrated against are animal neighbors each day. The ignorance and indifference with which normal people view this is either an intellectual emergency or a moral atrocity, probably both. While "good" people are saving the world from African poverty or reminiscing over the lives lost in Iraq, there occurs a slaughter of Holocaust proportions each day. To somehow shed tears for the death of 3 thousand people in collapsed buildings, who arguably acted to perpetuate their own demise, and not blink an eye at the extinction of 10 billion sentient beings per year seems to me to be a moral outrage of epic proportions, though wholly unsurprising given the level of stupefying ignorance held by this country's members. -Michael Griffin
I guess, and what I will argue at much greater length in another post, is that if the justification for (non-human) animal experimentation is premised on the idea that (non-human) animals are somehow different from human animals, then why do we continue to test a variety of chemicals on disparate members of the animal kingdom? For if the differences are as great as professed, then how could we possibly infer anything from these experimentations? In addition, the differences must be so great as to render the moral objections to such a practice moot, the fact that they do not should itself raise serious doubts as to the legitimacy of these claims. Subsequently, it is without doubt that the similarities between species must be so strikingly similar that we necessarily infer such claimed properties from these tests, such as how a splash of nail-polish remover in one's eye will not lead to blindness (which we know from testing absurd concentrations of it on different animals' eyes), for if we could not infer such properties what, outside the practice of sadistic cruelty, would be the purpose of performing such barbaric acts?
The purpose of this brief introduction to non-human animal rights argumentation was to present one of the unjustified, savage acts of cruelty that is perpetrated against are animal neighbors each day. The ignorance and indifference with which normal people view this is either an intellectual emergency or a moral atrocity, probably both. While "good" people are saving the world from African poverty or reminiscing over the lives lost in Iraq, there occurs a slaughter of Holocaust proportions each day. To somehow shed tears for the death of 3 thousand people in collapsed buildings, who arguably acted to perpetuate their own demise, and not blink an eye at the extinction of 10 billion sentient beings per year seems to me to be a moral outrage of epic proportions, though wholly unsurprising given the level of stupefying ignorance held by this country's members. -Michael Griffin
the energia of enargeia.
i wish we would have gotten a chance to hear from more students yesterday during our enargeia-slam so if you're willing to break through your shyness, you can post your examples of enargeia here.
to kick things off, here's the vivid scene i came up with during class:
Picture yourself leaving campus late one evening after a particularly rigorous night of rhetorical debate. Turning over the events of the evening in your mind - how would Mayor Daley's speech have changed if he spoke to a more hostile audience? why does our crazy teacher keep trying to turn her invented ethos into situated ethos? can we ever really be outside of rhetoric? - you notice that you're now all alone, wandering down a particularly deserted street northwest of campus. "Why didn't I take that ride Caroline offered me on the back of her bike?!?" you curse. "Just a few more blocks," you think, but, secretly, you're terrified. You decide to make a risky choice, turning down a dark alley because it will get you home more quickly. Halfway down the alley, with the other end in sight, a man stumbles out in front of you. He's holding a knife. He looks drunk. He looks frightening. "Give me your money and your rhetoric textbook!" he yells. You begin to reach for your wallet and then decide you can't bear to part with your Crowley and Hawhee. You're scared but you realize your audience doesn't share that emotion. What's a rhetorician to do?!?!? "Listen mister," you begin, "Picture yourself leaving campus late one evening after a particularly rigorous night of rhetorical debate..."
to kick things off, here's the vivid scene i came up with during class:
Picture yourself leaving campus late one evening after a particularly rigorous night of rhetorical debate. Turning over the events of the evening in your mind - how would Mayor Daley's speech have changed if he spoke to a more hostile audience? why does our crazy teacher keep trying to turn her invented ethos into situated ethos? can we ever really be outside of rhetoric? - you notice that you're now all alone, wandering down a particularly deserted street northwest of campus. "Why didn't I take that ride Caroline offered me on the back of her bike?!?" you curse. "Just a few more blocks," you think, but, secretly, you're terrified. You decide to make a risky choice, turning down a dark alley because it will get you home more quickly. Halfway down the alley, with the other end in sight, a man stumbles out in front of you. He's holding a knife. He looks drunk. He looks frightening. "Give me your money and your rhetoric textbook!" he yells. You begin to reach for your wallet and then decide you can't bear to part with your Crowley and Hawhee. You're scared but you realize your audience doesn't share that emotion. What's a rhetorician to do?!?!? "Listen mister," you begin, "Picture yourself leaving campus late one evening after a particularly rigorous night of rhetorical debate..."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)