Click on the link below to view the work I have done in Honors Humanities!
Solitude
in Snow
Ding
dong, ding dong, ding dong, ding dong, smack!
I violently smash my fist into the large snooze button on my obnoxious
alarm clock. Damn you red blocky numbers!
I snuggle deeper into the cocoon of down and pillows. My muscles relax back into the bed. What seems like only a moment passes before
another ding dong, smack! I take a few
moments of inner struggle before I finally decide that it is in my best interest
to get my lazy ass out of bed. I let out
a groan and hoist myself into a vertical position. Groggy, I rub my eyes and open my blinds to
let in some light. As I look outside my
window, something clicks in my half-asleep brain. Snow!
Outside lays a blanket of white that covered everything. That's when the realization hits me, I am going skiing today. Suddenly the exhaustion that had enveloped
my mind dissipates and is replaced by excitement and anticipation. I leap out of bed and immediately begin the
search for my snow clothes. I cannot
wait to get outside and
into the winter wonderland. As I am
rummaging through my closet for my snow pants a beep comes from my
computer. Some of my snow-induced bliss
recedes as I am reminded of the homework that lies unfinished on my hard drive. Even my room, a sanctuary from the crazy
world, holds constant reminders of my commitments. Determined to enjoy my day, I continue to dig
through my closet. Before I reach my
water resistant gear, I come across some bike gear. A wave of guilt sweeps over me. I should have done more this winter to stay
in shape for the upcoming season. My
success from last year feels like false advertising. I was good, I did do well, but it is doubtful
that I will do as well next year. You do well to use “triggers” in your room to
transition to these other ideas about responsibilities....
Visual Piece
Artists Statement
In the painting there are
two main symbols; one is the brain and the other in the net. The brain symbolizes human technology and
advancement. As a society we have
created so many unbelievable tools that have made so many amazing tasks
possible. However these technologies
have also lead to the destruction of our planet. The brain is standing on the world to
symbolize the devastation of the natural world caused by human technology. The net represents the hope as well as the
need that we and our world have for the advancement in green technology. The brain is stepping on the world but is
also holding it up. Because of the
destruction done by human inventions, it is our moral obligation to use our
minds to think of greener ways to produce energy and ways to co-exist effectively with the natural world. This innovation could come in the form of
something as simple as building your house in a passive solar way or as
complicated as inventing a whole new energy source. This painting represent the hope that I have
for our future and the faith that I have in the human races ability to invent
and adapt.
Throughout
the duration of this project I changed my idea for the visual piece multiple
times. First I thought about representing
my perspective through paper mache, but then I was reminded that paper mache
usually produces project that look a little childish. After that was shut down, I struggled for a
couple days and then decided on a Photoshop poster. I got the program on my computer and then
realized , as I inserted the first picture, that I had no idea what I was
doing. Because I had already wasted so
much time trying to figure out what I wanted to do, I didn't really have time
to watch fifteen YouTube tutorials. Finally
I ended up deciding on a painting. Now I
don't mean to be self deprecating but I am not what you call artistically
gifted. However, for what I lacked in
talent I made up for by painting and repainting each piece. I redid the brain three times and after each coat of paint I outlined the
design in sharpie to insure clean, distinct lines. To express the desired perspective without
cluttering the painting, I thought of the symbol of the brain to represent both
the good and the bad of technological advancement.
I tend
to be a negative writer ,meaning I normally write about the problems and issues
rather than the solutions. The truth is
that I do actually have some optimistic perspectives. For this assignment I wanted to show
something positive. I am passionate
about the environment and am angry at mankind for being so idiotic and selfish
in regards to the health of our planet.
I also however, have respect and awe for the advancements and inventions
that the human mind has created. I
believe that if people become more aware and start to care more that great
ideas will come. I don't believe that
the biggest problem we face is not having the technology but instead the
problem is ignorance and the mentality that humans are superior and that the
planet is here to serve us. For this
visual piece, I not only wanted to be positive but also bring the attention to
the fact that we do have the ability to lift the world up instead of step on
it.
Reflection
In this project we looked at different environmental ethic, we looked at our current sense of place, and we looked at how energy consumption and usage effected us and our environment. We also learned about creative writing and learned some of the skills and techniques of nature writing. The task of the project was to create a piece of writing that showed your personal sense of place, and either an environmental ethic or a focus on a type of energy production. In chemistry we were investigating different sources of energy such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear so the classes were related for this project. For the project we also looked at different environmental ethics to help us look at nature in different ways as well as to establish an ethic of our own.
The hardest part about this assignment was the unstructured freedom that came with creative writing. With an essay you have a general idea of what the layout will look like where as with creative writing you can take it where ever you want it to go. I have trouble beginning a writing piece and what really helps me is the outline and structure that I can layout before I begin. With this essay I was a little lost as to how to start. I am a perfectionist and therefore "just writing" is a struggle. I want every world to be the way I want it even if I don't know what I want which tends to make me go in circles. Despite my struggles figuring out how to start and my not being okay with not knowing what the end project would look like, I persevered and figured it out. I learned that if your sleep deprived enough you and lull yourself into a false confidence that allows ones creative juices to flow with them being judged and scrutinized by your judgmental self. Sometimes you just have to be okay with letting it be how it is.
Something that I did well in this assignment was probably the descriptive language and elements of nature writing. I feel as though I really grew in this area. At first every metaphor or description I wrote sounded corny and generic, but by the end I was able to create some interesting metaphors. For example this sentence from my essay when describing snow: " Unified in their inevitable demise, tiny angels swirling down from heaven to purify the world". I feel as though this metaphor invokes an image in your mind that is unique and beautiful.
Combining the projects of chemistry and humanities, in my eyes, was not a huge success. When the requirement that a energy source be included was removed the classes didn't complement each other. They each had had value but the only strand connecting them was the environment and that is a large topic. In the end I feel as though the "combined" project just ended up turning into two separate humanities classes.
Korematsu v. The United States (1944)
J. Franklin Carter's Cross Examination:
Did you assign Munson to evaluate the threat of people of Japanese ancestry on the West coast?
Did you trust him to do a fair and thorough job?
Permission to approach the witness?
WIthout telling the court what this is do you recognize this exhibit? What is it? Does it appear to be complete and accurate? Defence moves to submit Munson’s Report with Carter’s summary as exhibit C. Please read the highlighted portion.
In your own words please summarize.
That interesting... I’d like to acknowledge that Mr. Carter has adequate summarizing ability.
It’s safe to say that the tone of this passage seem sympathetic to Japanese Americans of the like of my client Korematsu?
Please read the highlighted portion of your summary given to President Roosevelt.
It’s safe to say that this tone is quite hostile and evokes fear.
I know that you have no problem summarizing, so is it correct to assume that the inconsistency between the report and your summary is due to your racial discrimination towards people with Japanese ancestry?
What other explanation is there?
No further questions your Honors.
Did you trust him to do a fair and thorough job?
- Then why did you assign him this duty?
Permission to approach the witness?
WIthout telling the court what this is do you recognize this exhibit? What is it? Does it appear to be complete and accurate? Defence moves to submit Munson’s Report with Carter’s summary as exhibit C. Please read the highlighted portion.
In your own words please summarize.
That interesting... I’d like to acknowledge that Mr. Carter has adequate summarizing ability.
It’s safe to say that the tone of this passage seem sympathetic to Japanese Americans of the like of my client Korematsu?
- What in this seems hostile?
Please read the highlighted portion of your summary given to President Roosevelt.
It’s safe to say that this tone is quite hostile and evokes fear.
I know that you have no problem summarizing, so is it correct to assume that the inconsistency between the report and your summary is due to your racial discrimination towards people with Japanese ancestry?
What other explanation is there?
No further questions your Honors.
Link to Carter's Summary and the Munson Report:
J. Edgar Hoover's Direct Examination:
- Please state your name for the court.
- What is your job?
- How long have you been in this line of work?
- In your professional opinion do people in the U.S. of Japanese Ancestry pose a threat?
- What do you think about the Civilian Exclusion Orders?
- Thank you Mr. Hoover. I have no more questions, Your Honors.
Curtis Munson's Direct Examination:
- Please state your name for the court:
- -Curtis B. Munson
- Can you describe your professional experience:
- -I'm currently a businessman located in Chicago. I also worked as an informant for the government on the topic of the loyalty of Japanese people living in the United States
- What were you assigned to do by Franklin Carter and why:
- - I was recruited by J. Franklin Carter on the orders of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to travel along the west coast to secretly investigate the loyalty of the Japanese residing in this country.
- What was the duration of this study:
- -I spent October and November 1941, so two months, traveling through the 11th-13th Naval Districts, meeting with FBI investigators and interviewing Japanese Americans.
- What was the conclusion and process of this study:
- -I separated the Japanese into four groups: Issei, native Japanese who then immigrated to America; Nisei, second generation Japanese-Americans; Kibei, American citizens who have then gone back to Japan for schooling; and Sansei, the third generation. I didn't do much research on the Sansei as they are mostly children, but the other groups I looked at seriously. I found that the Nisei are the most loyal, simply because they have lived their entire lives in America as American citizens. The Issei were also very loyal to the country as this is the place where they chose to make their life and raise their children. I also felt that the Kibei showed general loyalty, spending time in Japan only helped to build their love of this country. In fact, when I submitted my report, I advised that Japanese-Americans be asked to help in the war effort as "(the Nisei are) pathetically eager to show (their) loyalty."
- What was your suggested course of action based on this report to control the risk:
- -I suggested that we put more security on Naval Bases, but that's all. I felt that there really wasn't a risk.
- What do you think about the Civilian Exclusion Orders?:
- -They were not necessary.
- In what ways does Carter's summary reflect the findings of this report:
- -It doesn't reflect my findings at all. Carter hid my findings by summarizing my results incorrectly, in a way that made the Japanese look guilty. He made it seem as though I feared attack. I believe that it was this incorrect summary that influenced the President to make the choices he did.
- Why might Carter challenge your findings:
- -He might have challenged my findings for several reasons: because he didn't think that two months was long enough to get an accurate idea, beLincause he had a previous bias, or he may have just misunderstood my report. But I'm not the only person to research Japanese American Loyalty, and my conclusion was shared by other subsequent reports
Please provide an example of such a subsequent report?
- Permission to approach the bench Your Honors.
- WIthout telling the court what this is do you recognize exhibit F? What is it? Does it appear to be complete and accurate? Defence moves to submits the Ringle Report as exhibit F. Please read the highlighted portion.
- Does Lieutenant Commander K.D. Ringle’s findings match the findings of your report?
- -Yes, they did.
Link to the RIngle Report:
Project Refection
For
this project we read the book Snow Falling on Cedars and studies
Japanese Internment camps during World War II.
This led us to learning about Pearl Harbor and our justice system. After we had a firm grasp of the historical
events and atmosphere at the time, we
began to prepare for our mock trial.
Each student was assigned a role, either a judge, a lawyer or a
witness. I was assigned the role of a defense
lawyer. The case that we were to try was
a supreme court case that involved a Japanese American named Korematsu and the United
States. Korematsu had been arrested for disobeying Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Exclusion
Orders and was convicted, he then petitioned
to the supreme court and was granted another trial. The trial was to look at Executive Order 9066
and the Civilian Exclusion Orders and decide whether they were unconstitutional. My job as the defense lawyer was to prove
that they were. I had two direct
examinations and one cross examination.
For the direct I had to look at my two witnesses and figure out how
their expertise or experience would help our case. For the cross I had to research the witness
and find a way to make him seem not credible or break down his testimony. The mock trial was a great real would
application of my understanding of these historical events and our justice system. It was a great way to learn history and boring
legal garb in a engaging way.
There
was a lot of team work and corroboration
in this project. As a lawyer you had to
communicate with the other lawyer as well as your witnesses in an effective
manner. We did not have enough time to
all be experts on every part of the case so it was very important that we be
able share the load and still make a persuasive legal argument. We each had our own witness/witnesses that
brought a different point to our case.
We had to come together and formulate a common argument that encompassed
all the different components. The
lawyers also had to be able to collaborate with the witnesses because they were
the ones that knew all about their characters.
It was a very cool experience to have a bunch of people coming together
and moving towards a common goal. The
mock trial was a great learning experience because it showed us what a real
world example of working in a group would be like. The main difficulty with working in these
groups was the fact that you had to trust each other. The lawyers had to trust each other to all do
their part. The witnesses had to trust
their lawyers to prepare them for the question that were going to be asked as
well as protect them against the other lawyers.
The lawyers had to trust the witnesses to know their character. In the end every one did their part and the
trial was a success.
My cross
examination questions probably went through the most revisions. It was difficult to create yes or no
questions that expressed the point I was trying to make. My original argument was to try and show
that Carter's summary did not reflect the results of Munson's Report and that
he had not done any research himself. I
also originally had Munson's Report and Carters summary submitted during
Munson's direct. This did not work
because the prosecution went first. I
had to move stuff around and change both my cross and direct in order to move
this evidence. I also changed my cross
to allow a bigger focus on proving that the error in his summary was due to
racial discrimination. Both of my direct
examinations went through revisions when ever new evidence was presented or one
of my class mates made a suggestion.
Going
into this project I was incredibly nervous.
I am not always the best under pressure and a mock trial involves spur
of the moment decisions and acting on your feet. I was also very excited because it was
something I had never done before and sounded like an incredibly interesting
experience. Both these feelings carried
throughout the project. It was a ton of
fun and challenging in a good way. To be
better prepared next year I would definitely make sure to communicate more with
the person in the other class that is direct examining the same witness. It help to have someone to bounce ideas off
and collaborate findings with. I would
also want to learn about the three test
of scrutiny earlier so that I could have more time to shape my questions to
show how Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Exclusion Orders did not pass these tests.
The Morality and Politics of Justice
Political Poster
Artist Statement
Although fracking should not be stopped altogether, it is
a dangerous unknown that needs to be regulated and slowed down. Natural gas should only be used as a
transitional source of energy as we wean ourselves away from oil and coal and
onto green energy. In my poster I use
the symbol of a fracking well and a truck to give it an industrial feel. The jump rope and the little girl symbolizes
innocence. I also use the little girl as
pathos to appeal to the viewers emotions.
The little girl is looking sickly and sad. We are a society that protects our young,
This poster appeals to that need to protect.
She is drinking contaminated water, her skirt is ripped, there is sludge
dripping on her head, and she is surrounded by industrial tools. Her future is looking pretty dreary. I used ethos by citing the constitution and
making my poster seem more reliable and appealing to peoples respect for this
document. I decided to burn the edges to
give a smoggy rugged look. It dulled the
bright white that it used to be and made it match the themes being depicted. I mounted it on black paper to make it look
more refined. It ending up looking like
you are peering into a picture which gives it a more realistic feel. I am proud of the end look of my poster. It has a destructive, sad, desperate tone
that draws in people's attention. It's
almost as if the little girl is calling for help.
Not in My Back Yard
Foreign oil and coal are the United States' most
prominent energy sources. The chance to
replace this dirty supply with a cleaner alternative is one too good to pass up
as long as we do it right. The natural gas boon affects and is affected by the
environment, the economy and civil rights issues. To reach the wealth of gas trapped in the
ground, natural gas companies use a process known as fracking. Fracking or hydraulic fracturing uses millions
of gallons of water, sand and chemicals directed at a piece of shale at
extremely high pressure. Fracking also
releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
During this process chemicals can leak into the water supply. Conversely, natural gas presents the
opportunity to lower the United States' reliance on foreign oil and coal
energy. The natural gas industry also brings jobs and some economic stability
to our country. Although fracking should
not be stopped altogether, it is a dangerous unknown that needs to be regulated
and slowed down. Natural gas should only
be used as a transitional source of energy as we wean ourselves away from oil
and coal and onto sustainable, green energy.
The main concern about fracking is the environmental
implications. The chemicals used in fracking
are not all well known; those we are familiar with are known carcinogens, and some
are even radioactive. The affect that
these chemicals are having on our environment and health is still unknown. And as such, it is irresponsible and
dangerous to continue drilling and expanding this industry with the regulations
presently in place. Though I do not know the specific
regulations currently in place, I do know that when it comes to health, more
can always be done. As Deborah Goldberg
explained in the "Intelligence Squared Debate on Fracking" at the
Aspen Ideas Festival this summer, the natural gas industry is cutting corners
in order to cut costs by using cheap material for the casing around the drill
that is used to keep chemicals from leaking.
This is where we see these company's taking their right to liberty
(economic liberty in this case) a little too far. These chemicals can leak into water
supplies. Even if the contaminated water
used in the fracking process is dealt with properly, we still have the issue
that this water is no longer usable and is stored underground. If we are taking water from the natural
cycle, how long will it be before water
becomes a rare resource?
It is not only the
chemicals used that should be of concern, but also the fumes that are released
into the air during the fracturing process.
It is a well known fact that an
abundance of methane is produced along with the natural gas. Though there are some regulations of this
greenhouse gas, there is not nearly enough nor is it well enforced. Climate change is a serious issue, of which
we are already seeing the detrimental affects.
Destructive natural disasters, severe heat waves, and the melting of the
ice caps are three troubling examples. Methane, being a potent greenhouse gas, is not
something to mess with. We need to
collect and dispose of it in a safe, clean way.
The contamination of water supplies does not only cause
health and environmental problems but also presents a civil rights issue. How natural gas is currently extracted
violates people's unspoken right to live in a place that does not have
contaminated water and polluted air. As the
moral theory of the harm principle states, "The only purpose for which
power can be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his
will, is to prevent harm from others"(Mills). The idea of "not in my back yard" is
a reasonable request, but these wells have to be in someone's back yard. Katherine Hudson, also at the Intelligence
Squared Debate, talked about how these fracking sites usually end up near an
impoverished town where the people in that town do not have the luxury of
moving somewhere else and do not have the political power to speak up for
themselves. Your income should not
determine the quality of health at which you live. There have been reports of
"a rise in breast cancer in one area where drilling is
booming"(Fehling).
It is in our
Constitution that everyone is to be treated equally, no matter their economic
status. The less fortunate of the
country should be helped, not taken advantage of. You don't see the president or the investors
of these fracking companies building wells in their back yards. Regulation needs to be put in place to
control the ambition of these companies.
As the ninth amendment of the United States Constitution states,
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." One of these unspoken rights is the right to
live in a place where your water is not giving you cancer.
The future of fracking does not look to be promising, but
we are a country dependant on coal and oil.
In order to transition from these destructive forms of energy onto
cleaner sources, we need a transitional fuel.
Natural gas has the potential to be that fuel if we are able to regulate
and minimize the risks and harms associated with it. We need to protect everyone's back yard not
just our own, cast off this "tomorrow" mentality, and start making
change now. We are a nation of equals,
so let us stop taking advantage of others.
Climate change is too big of a risk to "wait and see". We need to address the causes now.
Work
Cited
Fehling,
Dave. "Texas €˜Needs More Research into Health Risk of Living Near Drilling
Sites."StateImpact Texas. National Public Radio, 20 Aug. 2012. Web.
23 Oct. 2012. <http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/08/20/texas-to-investigate-health-risk-of-living-near-drilling-sites/>.
Goldberg, Deborah. Hudson, Katherine. Nocera,Joe.
Tierney, Susan. "NO FRACKING WAY: THE NATURAL GAS BOOM IS DOING MORE HARM
THAN GOOD." Intelligence
Squared Debates. N.p., 1 July 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2012
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Peterborough,
Canada: Broadview Press, 1999. Accessed on "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." <http://www.iep.utm.edu/milljs/>
Moral Dilemma Essay
Whether based on religion, laws, or an internal knowing
everyone has a moral compass that guides them when making decisions. On September 19th of 2012, I conducted an
interview with a white middle age,
middle class American to determine his moral reasoning and the moral theory he
most often uses. To protect his identity, I will refer to my subject through
the pen name of Philip. Philip owns a
small business that sells medical instruments and implants to hospitals. He is religious but his religion cannot be
classified into one category. By
discovering his moral reasoning capabilities, we will get a closer look at the
human brain and the thinking that separates humans from other animals on this
earth. Moral reasoning is the processes
that humans go through when faced with a moral problem. To me the meaning of moral is the principle that decides what makes
something right or wrong. Our ability to reason and make decisions
based on morals is complex and convoluted but still some philosophers tackled
this concept. The philosophers that I
will focus on in this essay are Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan for stage
theory of moral development and Immanuel Kent, J. S. Mills, Jeremy Bentham, and
John Locke for ethical theories and principles such as rights ethics,
deontology and utilitarianism. The
subject that I interviewed was especially hard to categorize which led me to
develop a more critical eye towards these moral theories. Hence, although
these moral theories are useful in providing a new perspective on morality,
they were limiting in regards to my subject who would use multiple of these
theories at once to make moral decisions and thus refused to be constrained by
just one "moral box".
Although Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning development
has truth and worth, it was difficult to put Philip into just one category. In this reply, to the question about whether
you should do well at your job, Philip is more in the conventional stages of
three and four. "Yes, because if I'm going to engage in something the way
I handle it that says something about me and tells people something about who I
am in the world. Intrinsic value to
doing the best that I can. To do
well. Anything worth doing is worth
doing well" (personal interview, 9-19-12). In these responses he reflects moral reasoning
that matches with both Kohlberg's pre-conventional and conventional
morality. Level three of moral reasoning
is when "they believe that people should live up to the expectations of
the family and community and behave in "good" ways" ("Kohlberg's
Method", 205). Philip addresses how
he works hard in order to keep a good impression and to show people who he is
in the world, this is where we see level three reasoning. He takes into consideration what others may
think as a result of his actions. As you
can see from the quote above, stage three reasoning is all about the
expectation for everyone to do "good" based on what the people around
them think is good. In this response he
shows that need for community approval and doing something in order to uphold
his image in the eyes of the people around him.
In response to the question, what makes something morally right or
morally wrong, Philip said, "How it affects others or the world. Anything that would take advantage or be
harmful to somebody else or the environment is morally wrong"(personal
interview, 9-19-12). This response
reflects post-conventional morality which is stage five and six. Stage five looks at keeping a functioning
society but also a "good" society, meaning that they not only look at
the rules already established but also have a more internal compass to direct
them in the morally right direction.
Philip talks about whether an action is harmful to people or world is a
key point in directing what is moral.
This falls under stage five because he is looking at what is best for
society, what is not harmful, but he also takes his reasoning outside function
and looks more at values and rights ("Kohlberg's Method", 5). Though parts of his response puts him into
stage five, it doesn't completely fit.
He looks at the function of society and not being harmful to others but
deeper than that he is looking at people's right to live in a society without
fear of harm. Looking at individual
right falls into stage six. As the
article "Kohlberg's Method" says about stage six, "The
principles of justice are [...] universal; they apply to all" (5). Philip doesn't specify a group or a majority
that this rule applies to, he says that
if it is harmful to a person it is wrong.
This is a universal statement that applies to all. Kohlberg is not the only philosopher that
Philip evades. Gilligan's more
humanitarian view on morals also doesn't explain Philips moral reasoning.
Philip shows similarities to
Gilligan's theory of morals, "care ethics", but in the end
contradicts it. His responses are both
evidence for and evidence against her theory.
Gilligan's care ethics theory is
defined by an ethics of care rather than the ethics of justice that is seen in
Kohlberg's theory. In response to the
question related to the trolley car dilemma, he was asked if it would change what
he would do if that one person was someone he knew to which he replied; "
if I saw someone I knew I think my body would
reflexively turn away from that person that I felt a connection with. It's probably a selfish reason but it would affect my decision. I think I would hit the five, but I don't
necessarily think that it the morally just thing to do." Gilligan's In "Care Perspective", Gilligan states that "Men tend to be
duty- and principle-oriented; women are more context-oriented and tend to view
the world in a more emotional and personal way" ("Lawrence Kohlberg:
The Stage Theory of Moral Development", 216). In this theory she talks about the personal
connections that we as human beings create and how that plays into people's
moral reasoning. She suggests that when a
decision is made that is influence by this connection it does not mean that
that person is at lower stage of reasoning than someone who ignored these
feelings. When Philip talks about how he
would hit the five instead of the one if he had a connection with that one, he
is demonstrating the care ethics philosophy.
But he then contradicts Gilligan's theory by saying that though this is
the decision that he would make, is not what is morally just. He agrees with her when he says that this
connection would affect his decision but contradicts her when he adds that that
would not be the morally just course of action.
Just as in Gilligan and Kohlberg's theories, Philip uses more than one
ethical theory when making moral decision.
There
are three ethical theories and Philip uses each in different instances to solve
moral dilemmas. This first quote from
Philip's interview was in response to the question: Would you do everything
that you could to save a person's life? Philip responded, "if I connected with
that person and that person wanted to be saved and I had the means to save that
person I think I would naturally do everything I could. Now if that person wanted to die then I would
respect those wishes" (personal interview, 9-19-12). This answer reflects a right ethicists way of
moral reasoning. Philip is holding that
sick person's individual rights as the number one priority. He does not evaluate what would do the
greatest amount of good, utilitarianism, or look at his duty to save a life,
deontology. He instead holds what that
person's wishes are above his own and respects their individual rights. Philip doesn't just use rights ethics to
solve moral problems, in this response, Philip shows a more utilitarianism
approach to solve Heinz's Dilemma; "I think doing the least amount of
damage is the right thing to do. I would
make the decision that would cause the least amount of damage" (personal
interview, 9-19-12). Philip is taking
a greatest good stance in this response. Utilitarianism is about, "the choice that yields that
greatest benefit to the most people is the choice that is ethically
correct" (Rainbow, 2002). When he
talks about the least amount damage, he is illustrating the greatest benefit
idea. Utilitarianism looks at the affects
of action and as in the quote above as well as the quote in paragraph one,
Philip looks at the outcome to decide on a morally correct course of
action. Though he looks at the end
result when deciding what to do, that is not the only component at which he
looks. In the first quote in this
paragraph, Philip shows his concern for the individual rights of a person. He cannot be categorized into just one of these
ethical theories, but instead bounces back and forth between categories
depending on the problem presented.
Everything we do, touch, feel, smell,
see, or hear is influenced by the pervious experiences that we have done,
touched, felt, smelled, seen or heard.
Philip could not be put into one of these moral reasoning categories
because his moral reasoning is influenced by all these points of view. He cares about his family and the people
connected to him which reflects Gilligan theory as well as Kohlberg's
conventional stage moral reasoning. He
holds human life in high regards and as something that should be treated with
equal respect no matter whose life it is.
This reflects the pre-conventional stage of Kohlberg's theory. Philip wants the greatest good for the greatest
amount of people which reflects utilitarianism.
He believes in individual right and that everyone should get an equal
opportunity which reflects rights ethics as well as stage five of Kohlberg's
theory. The ideas in these theories
overlap and Philip's moral reasoning breaches the gap between the
theories. His decisions and how he came
to those decision are not universally the same but change based on the problem
being looked at. Philip is a collage of
moral reasoning.
Reflection
At the beginning of this project we
investigated moral development theory, and moral dilemmas. Once we had a firm grasp of the theories we
had to interview a person, measure and analyze them to figure out their level
of moral reasoning based on Kohlberg's moral development theory. We also had to decide whether their moral
reasoning matched deontology, utilitarianism, or rights ethics. After we established and categorized there
moral reasoning, we had to support our claim with quotes from the persons
interview and references to these moral theories. I took a little bit of a different take and
took the stance that a person's morality cannot be pinpointed and put in a box
but depends on the circumstances and the interpretation. Then we began to look at security, liberty
and equality. We had to investigate
which of the three we thought was the most important in different situations. After furthering our understanding of the
constitution and the circumstances in which it was created we had to bring all
our knowledge together. We chose a
current political issue to write and op-ed article on and create a political
poster about. I chose fracking as my
political issue. The point of this
activity was to look at these issues from a different perspective than they are
normally viewed from. Instead of looking
at it from the perspective of democrat or republican we had to look at the
issue from a moral stand point. We also
had to address how our stand on that political issue affected security, liberty
and/or equality. For the political
poster and our op-ed article we had to use rhetorical devices such as ethos,
pathos and logos. The poster had to
reflect our stand on the political issue that we chose. This project gave us a deeper understanding
of morality and a new perspective on justice.
In this project I used perseverance
to overcome obstacles. One such obstacle
was my disinterest in the theories of morality.
It just wasn't something that I thought was important to learn. I persevered and found a way to connect to
the project and not just do the assignments but obtain skills and ideas that
would benefit me in the future. Instead
of writing the generic essay that put my interviewee's moral reasoning in one
of these philosophers categories, I brought to attention the idea that we
change and our morality changes based on the situation. My first draft of this essay was very rough
and the evidence didn't support my claim.
I considered rewriting my essay completely and throwing away my
complicated thesis, but I believed what my original conclusion was right. Instead of throwing in the towel I persevered
and ended up with a strong essay.
The strongest part of my op-ed
article is its development and evidence.
I feel that in most writing assignments this is my strong point. I use a lot of quotes and reference the
debate I watched on Intelligence Squared.
My article clearly acknowledges the opposing view and I made sure to
explain and analyze every piece of evidence used. The part that I need to work on most in my
article is my proof reading. Again,
learning from past experiences grammar and punctuation is not my strong
suit. I had my father read over it but I
am still a little apprehensive. I cannot
pinpoint a place where I know I made an error but I just know that that is a
weakness of mine. I could have had
someone else read over it to look for things that both my dad and I missed. I should also review comma usage and effect
vs. affect and things like that. For the
op-ed article I would give myself an A 95% in organization, an A 98% in
development and evidence, an -A 93% in sentence craft, and an -A 90% in proof
reading. My overall grade would be an A 94%.
For my poster I would give myself an -A 93% in refinement, an -A 90% in integration,
and an A 95% in rhetorical impact. My
overall grade would be an -A 92%.
If I had another week to work on
this project I would get more feedback on my op-ed article in order to fine
tune it. This would also allow me to
make sure it is interesting and accessible.
For my poster I would work on integrating my quote and making my message
more clear. My thesis was a hard one to
represent because it was more middle ground on the issue. I would try and make that more clear while
still keeping that pathos rhetoric. It wouldn't be easy but if I had another week
that's what I would do. 
No comments:
Post a Comment