On “Unspeakable Conversations” Essay Example for Free

On â€Å"Unspeakable Conversations† Essay The issues of euthanasia and infanticide have long been subjects of heated debate, and there are no signs that the arguments for and against the two ethical dilemmas are coming to a halt. For the most part, the issue stems from the classic stand-off between religion and science, or religion and the state. In cases where the aforementioned conflict applies, what are brought to the table are arguments revolving around and stemming from the idea of a human being’s â€Å"right to life†. Generally the church invokes the central belief that a life can only be ended by the supreme being that created it, to counter whatever propositions that may have been deducted from scientific studies and philosophical undertakings that deviate from the said belief. Nowadays, debates on euthanasia and infanticide no longer just stem from religious beliefs. Opposition for the legalization of the two issues likewise comes from various organizations that, in more ways than one, are (or will be) directly affected. An example of such an organization is Not Dead Yet: a movement that concerns itself with the plight of the disabled, and of which Harriet McBride Johnson whose article â€Å"Unspeakable Conversations† is at the heart of this position paper – is a member. For purposes of clarity, this paper focuses on the implications of and points in Johnson’s article in exploring the philosophy of Peter Singer, who is undoubtedly one of the most controversial philosophers – nay, figures – today, with the intent of refuting his position relative to the two areas of concern. In a nutshell, this paper, while acceding to the logicality and coherence of Singer’s position, argues that the world in general is not yet ready for his revolutionary view of morality and ethics; and that there are more grounded alternatives that have yet to be considered and taken which do not require the legalization of either euthanasia or infanticide. The Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary defines euthanasia as â€Å"the act or practice of killing hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy; also : the act or practice of allowing a hopelessly sick or injured patient to die by taking less than complete medical measures to prolong life—called also mercy killing†; infanticide, on the other hand, translates to â€Å"the killing of an infant†. Since the latter definition elicits horror, it is important to emphasize that what Singer proposes is selective infanticide – a concept that is not as horrifying when understood in the context of his philosophy. Harriet McBride Johnson’s â€Å"Unspeakable Conversations† is a personal account of the lawyer’s relationship with Singer, which began when she accepted the latter’s invitation to two speaking engagements in Princeton University in March 2002, and her thoughts on his philosophy. Even before her encounter with the controversial bioethicist, Johnson had been fully aware of Singer’s philosophy, what with her organization Not Dead Yet being a thorn on the professor’s side, disrupting his lectures and even protesting his appointment in Princeton University. As such, it is no surprise that in the latter part of the article Johnson recounts that her agreeing to be involved in one of Singer’s talks in a non-violent manner (so to speak) aroused negative feedback not only from her co-members in the organization – who believe that a discussion with him is out of the question since giving him an audience legitimizes his view but from her sister, who clearly is of the opinion that Singer’s view, if used as a basis for future legislation / action, may pave the way for another genocide. Johnson’s opposition to selective infanticide is grounded on two ideas: (1) that people are not fungible, and (2) the basis for selecting disabled infants is prejudicial. The first concept is clearly a response to Singer’s assertion that infants are replaceable, and thus infanticide cannot be considered wrong when done under the correct pretense. Such a striking proposition is rooted in what Johnson sees as Singer’s view that infants cannot be considered â€Å"persons† on the basis of their inability for self-awareness, and their inability to express preferences, the most important of which is the preference to live. As for the second idea, Johnson strengthened her argument by raising the issue of race versus disability (in relation to trends in adopting babies): if the basis for killing a certain infant is the prediction that its life will be worse-off in the future due to disability, then why can’t a mixed-race baby – whose chances of being adopted are slimmer compared to white babies, thereby raising its chances of living a life that is not at all appealing – also be considered? This oversight, for her, is a product of prejudice prevalent today. As indicated in the article, Singer responded to the question by saying that whereas preferences based on race are not reasonable, those based on ability are not. With regard to euthanasia, or assisted suicide, Johnson made use of the ideas of Andrew Batavia and Carol Gill to better make understood her point.. For Batavia, assisted suicide is but another way of upholding a person’s autonomy: if a person wants to die, then out of respect for the autonomy of that person, everything – even assistance – should be given to facilitate the choice. Carol Gill, on the other hand, considers assisted suicide a form of discrimination directed towards the disabled. This idea stems from the fact that on a general note, society takes every known measure to prevent the occurrence of suicides; and yet, suicides for the ill and the disabled – though assisted – are considered (or even encouraged). This contradiction is explained by Gill as a product of the underestimation most people have of the quality of life a disabled person has or can have, which likewise gave birth to the stereotypical image of the disabled as people who are to be pitied. With the above statement in mind, it only follows that society is not surprised – in fact, Gill went as far as to say that it is considered rational – when a choice to die is made by a disabled/ill person. Johnson quite expectedly sided with Gill, adding that what is worrying is what she calls the â€Å"veneer of beneficence – the medical determination that, for a given individual, suicide is reasonable or right. † Debunking Batavia, her article implies that choices are, in fact, illusory when the discussion is that of a disabled person’s preference to die. Why is this so? Under â€Å"normal† circumstances – that is, with a non-disabled person – a choice is to be upheld in respect of a person’s autonomy. When it comes to a disabled/ill person’s â€Å"choice† to die, however, the issue is not that of upholding the choice but of the very occurrence of the thought that the person prefers to die rather than live. For Johnson, prior to legalizing assisted suicide, what should be done is exhaust all possible means of upholding the right to live of the disabled and the ill. Quoting her: â€Å"We shouldn’t offer assistance with suicide until we have all the assistance we need to get out of bed in the morning and live a good life. Common causes of suicidality†¦ are entirely curable. † In defense of Singer and his views, Johnson acceded that the professor’s work is logical, in that â€Å"it does make sense – within the conceptual world of Peter Singer†. If one were to read his work â€Å"Practical Ethics†, it is clear that the ideas of Singer regarding infanticide and euthanasia are entirely rational, albeit horrifyingly so for the majority of the human race who have yet to understand his way of thinking. A utilitarian through and through, Singer merely applied the dictum of producing the most happiness for the most people in conjunction with his view that what matters is not the species of a creature but its sentience and ability for self-awareness. With these in mind, and all subjectivity aside, his pursuit of the legalization of euthanasia and selective infanticide are logical – as logical as his pursuit for animal rights are. However, such a revolutionary way of looking at the universe in general is still unwelcome today. To think like Singer is to uproot age-old beliefs and completely reconstruct one’s brand of morality – a feat that is perhaps not impossible, but improbable. As such, Johnson’s idea that before thinking of assisted suicide, assistance first should be given to the disabled and the ill, is the better route to take. REFERENCES Johnson, Harriet. (2003). Unspeakable Conversations. New York Times. February 16, 2003, from http://query. nytimes. com/gst/fullpage. html sec=healthres=9401EFDC113BF935A25751C0A9659C8B63 Mar. (2008). Princeton Bio-Medical Ethics Professor Peter Singer Teaches Controversial Ethics. Associated Content. February 21, 2008, from http://www. associatedcontent. com/article/616049/princeton_biomedical_ethics_professor. html? cat=5 Singer, Peter. (2008). Putting Practice Into Ethics. The Sun: New York. January 16, 2008, from http://www. nysun. com/arts/putting-practice-into-ethics/69595/

Lead And The Environment :: essays research papers

Lead and The Environment Some materials are so commonplace that we take them for granted. One of those materials is a grayish metal that has been with us for thousands of years. That metal is lead, still one of the world's most useful substances, and one that never ceases to find a role in human society.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Lead has the atomic symbol of Pb (for plumbum, lead in Latin). The atomic number for lead is 82 and the atomic mass is 207.19 AMU. It melts at about 327.502 oC and boils at 1740 oC. Lead is a heavy, ductile, soft, gray solid. It is soluble in nitric acid and insoluble in water. It is found in North, Central and South America, Australia, Africa and Europe. In modern times, lead has found a wide range of uses, and world demand for lead and its products has steadily increased. Lead's usefulness stems from the metal's many desirable properties: softness, high density, low melting point, ability to block radiation, resistance to corrosion, readiness to form alloys and chemical compounds, and ease of recycling. Its versatility, as well as its physical and chemical properties, accounted for its extensive use. Lead can be rolled into sheets which can be made into rods and pipes. It can also be molded into containers and mixed with other metallic elements.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Lead was used in ancient times for making coinage, art objects and water pipes. One of the first known toxic substances, lead was used by the Romans for lining aqueducts and in glazes on containers used for food and wine storage; and it is suspected to have resulted in widespread lead poisoning. Members of the famous Franklin Expedition to the Northwest Passage in the mid-1840s met a similar fate, being poisoned from lead in solder, widely used at the time to seal tins used to store foods. Until recently, one of the most significant uses was an anti-knock additive in gasoline. In the 1970s and 1980s, steps were taken to reduce the use of leaded gas. By 1990, these actions had virtually eliminated the use of lead in gasoline. Lead is also one of the best and earliest examples of recycling about 55 percent of the lead used in Canada comes from recycled material.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  One particular category of toxic tort is injury caused by exposure to lead-based paint. The hazards of lead-based paint have been known since the early 1900s, when the use of lead in the manufacture of paint was banned in Australia. The lead mining and lead pigment industries in the United States were able, however, to forestall the banning the use of lead in the manufacture of

Professional Athletes: Role Models or Criminals?

Professional athletes have been role models for children and adults alike since the beginning of time. They are often thought of superhuman, celebrities, and to some—even Gods due to their incredible physical strength, and unnatural talent. Professional athletes are given many things that the average American only dreams about; ranging from multi-million dollar paychecks, expensive cars, high profile romances, to exotic vacations. Oh, and being above the law. Numerous high profile players have been arrested multiple times throughout their career, escaping with nothing more than a slap on the wrist from law enforcement, or the NFL.Even those players convicted, and sent to prison for their â€Å"sentence† will be able to return to the football field after being released. Over the past decade the incidents regarding player’s conduct have increased dramatically all the while dragging the NFL’s reputation and ethics through the mud. It begs the question– should these athletes who are the role models for millions, be above the law simply because they are entertainers and celebrities? The answer is no. In my opinion a drastic change needs to happen immediately regarding this growing problem.No longer should players be able to go unpunished for committing crimes. However, to find the solution for this growing predicament—is to establish what factors contribute directly to it. The problem goes beyond the athletes being able to go unpunished for committing crimes. It starts with the league’s menial punishments, team owner’s irresponsible player management, fan attitudes, and the character of the player’s themselves. On the other hand, there are people, including; fans, agents, and of course the players themselves, who believe that the punishments being given now are too severe.I would just like to show those people another view of this debate—the view of an everyday person. In April 2007 NFL commissione r Roger Goodell put into effect new policies regarding player conduct based on the high number of players being arrested for major crimes. Due to the nature of the transgressions NFL officials began to worry about losing fans deterred by the league’s image. The new policy included longer suspensions, heavier fines, and team accountability for their players committing crimes.The new policy includes â€Å"requiring teams to pay the league a portion of the salaries forfeited by players suspended for violating policies regarding personal conduct† (Schrotenboer). Goodell’s goal is to hold team owners and managers partially responsible for the actions of the players on their roster. This forces the decision makers to put more consideration into drafting and signing troubled athletes, because now it is their money—not just their image at stake. Although the policy is a step in the right direction it is not doing near enough to clean up the league because talent is more important than character to a team.One example of this is Cincinnati Bengal’s receiver Chris Henry who was released by the team only after being arrested six times between December 2005 and March 2009 for crimes ranging from possession of marijuana, sex with a minor, DUI, and possession of and aggravated assault with a gun (Brandt). However, even with his arrest log reading like a novel, Henry has served a total of just eighty-eight days in prison for his crimes. This sentence came only after the second incident concerning relations with a minor.But, the Bengals kept him on the roster, even though four of the six incidents occurred after Goodell’s new conduct policy was put into effect. As far as the harsher punishment Goodell promised, Henry received a total a three game suspension for each of the incidents before being cut following the most recent assault arrest (Carpenter, Maske). Who should be to blame for allowing this criminal to go free and continue mak ing his millions? The ultimate blame needs to be placed on not only Henry himself, but also the owner and manager of the Cincinnati Bengals.Coaches have a large impact on the players on their teams. By allowing them to misbehave, they are basically telling the players what they do off the field does not matter as long as you win. In order to help clean up the NFL, coaches need to set an example by putting the law before the sport. Being in charge of a multi-million dollar business such as a professional football team, head coaches are under immense pressure to win, and will do so by any means. Marvin Lewis, the head coach of Chris Henry’s former team, the Bengals is a perfect example of winning at any cost—all the while denying so.In the article Player Arrest Put the NFL in A Defensive Mode, authors Les Carpenter and Mark Maske point out Lewis’ actions. During a 2007 press conference focused on the eight Bengals players arrested in the past year, including one p layer, Chris Henry, who had been arrested three times. Coach Lewis was asked to give his opinion on the player’s behavior. He responded by bitterly condemning the player’s actions. â€Å"It is an embarrassment to our organization†¦It doesn’t matter what you do for a living or who you are, you’ve got to follow those rules and laws† (Carpenter and Maske).This statement came from the leader of these players, as well as the man who only suspended Henry for two games after his prison stint. However, Lewis is not the only coach to allow felon players to escape punishment—because they are needed to win. In order to reverse the coaches attitudes toward the law there are things that need to be changed. For example, coaches should be required to pay a fine for every player who breaks the conduct code, or gets arrested. The new policy requires the team to pay—but not the coaches. Even if fining the coaches was put into effect it wouldn†™t alter the situation on its own.To have maximum impact on the league as a whole, another avenue needs to be taken. One way is suggested by Mike Florio in his article, NFL should strip draft picks from rogue teams. â€Å"The only way to get teams to avoid players with a history of legal problems—or, even better, help the player change his unlawful ways—is to strip the team of draft picks† (Florio). However, in order for this to happen, league officials such as Goodell need to introduce harsher penalties and fines to have any impact on players, coaches, and owners alike.However, for some people the current punishments being enforced are completely over the top already. When Goodell revealed his plans for the new policy in 2007 he was met with enthusiasm, praise, doubt, and protest—and that was just from fans. This shocked me that there is an NFL fan out there so dedicated to his or her favorite player that they oppose punishing offenders? Surprisingly t he answer is yes. On April 1st, 2009 Cleveland Brown’s wide receiver Donte’ Stallworth left a Miami nightclub at two o-clock in the morning, got behind the wheel of his Bentley and began to drive home.Three miles from his destination he was approaching what he thought was a yellow light and sped up to avoid it changing. However, due to his drunken stupor he failed to notice it was actually a red light—which he ran seconds before striking, and killing a pedestrian using the crosswalk. Stallworth was then charged with DUI vehicular manslaughter and released on $200,000 bail. His punishment? Thirty days in prison, two years house arrest—oh and a one season suspension from the league. Stallworth killed a man and will spend a total of thirty days in county jail, and forfeit a maximum of $745,000 salary for killing a man.To many people this is an utterly inconceivable notion. Stallworth killed an innocent man by choosing to drive intoxicated, and because of his status as one of the league’s best players he did less jail time than most drug dealers. Following Stallworth’s arrest all eyes turned to Goodell and the rest of the NFL officials to see what punishment, under the still new polictallworth’s arrest all eyes turned to Goodell and the rest of the NFL officials to see what punishment, under the new policy would be given. Stallworth was suspended a total of sixteen games during the time which he serves house arrest.To me, that is not punishment. However, others do not agree—and they are another piece of the NFL’s problem. One of those people is La Mont Chappell who writes in an article addressing Goodell’s choice of punishment for Stallworth and other criminal players. â€Å"Donte Stallworth deserves some sort of punishment for getting drunk, choosing to drive drunk, hitting a pedestrian, and ultimately killing that pedestrian†¦It is unfair to Donte Stallworth to be suspended for such a lo ng period of time because NFL players do not have long careers† (Chappell).To Chappell and other protestors of increasing punishment where do they draw a line? In another article reaming Goodell NFL agent Peter Schaffer writes, â€Å"It is clear our new NFL commissioner has pushed the punitive bar too high, to the point of inappropriate excessive†¦in Stallworth’s case—the one major difference between a murder or some other type of intentional crime and a DUI manslaughter is that there was not the original intent to do harm to another human† (Schaffer). People such as Chappell and Schaffer; fans and agents are the final component to fixing the NFL’s image.Athletes will continue to commit crimes because loyal fans, and money hungry agents will make excuses for their actions, something that can be changed. For example, agents get paid big bucks when athletes get paid big bucks. So, if an athlete is suspended, it hurts the agent’s pockets as well. A new policy could be added that will fine agents as well as players for breaking the law. That will prevent agents from representing the players that are multiple offenders—therefore setting a positive example to the public, and making players think twice about doing something stupid.In then end the NFL’s image problem can be chalked up to many different sources and comprise of many different factors and unless something is done to counteract the current trend nothing will change. The commissioner took a small step forward in 2007 by implementing the new policy—but he needs to step up as the leader he is and make punishments and fines that will impact players into changing their ways. Sure, there will be critics, but that is what it takes to regain the respectable name the NFL once had. It will not be simple, and it may take time, but it needs to be done.

The Journey of Mrs. Turpin through Life in Revelation by Flannery OConnor Free Essay Example, 1000 words

Mrs. Turpin s attitude, character, and view of life are changed based on the experiences she encounters. This begins right at the waiting room when Mary Grace kept looking at her in a way that suggested she knew Turpin in some intense and personal way, beyond time and place and condition (O Connor, 146). Through her looks, Turpin started to realize that people were seeing her differently, and this was the beginning of the revelation. Grace attacks Mrs. Turpin and tells her to Go back to hell where you came from, you old wart hog (O Connor, 146). This message made Turpin sink back in her chair and started to deeply think of what she had been told. She began to ask herself; How am I a hog? Exactly how am I like them (O Connor, 150)? She begins to see herself as trash; just the same way she had treated everybody at the office and throughout her life. While at her home, Turpin cries and gets angry that such a message was directed to her. She even asks herself why the message had been directed to her instated of the trash in there; there was plenty of trash there. We will write a custom essay sample on The Journey of Mrs. Turpin through Life in Revelation by Flannery O'Connor or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/page The visionary light here symbolizes new pair of eyes she had acquired. Her view of other people and life, in general, started to change. The visionary light appeared like a bridge that extended from earth through a field of living fire (O Connor, 151). She saw people on the bridge different from what she had been used to. For instance, there were companies of white trash, clean for the first time in their lives (O Connor, 151). She saw white niggers in white robes and battalions of freaks and lunatics shouting and clapping and leaping like frogs (O Connor, 151).