Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing Eastern & Western Religions
Comparing Eastern & Western Religions
Comparing Eastern & Western Religions
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The first instance of differing opinions between Maintenance and Kirinyaga is shown when Barbara Eaton asks Koriba about whether the baby had free will or not. She asks, “was that baby you killed given such a choice?”(9). Resnick demonstrates the two differing opinions about whether babies have the freedom to decide or not. Here we see that the women from Maintenance represents the western culture’s belief that humans have the freedom to decide what they want and how they want to act. On the other hand, when Koriba replies back by saying “it was not a baby but a demon” (9) , the author provides the opposing belief when Koriba compares the innocent baby to a devilish being. In other words, the tradition decides for the baby who he or she is; …show more content…
the newborn’s feelings and emotions are not brought into consideration. As a result, Koriba does not feel babies should have free will because tradition has already pre-determined whether the infant is a demon or not. I belief the first subjective view on free will leads to Koriba training the male adolescents in the town to prepare for a fight because he knows that if Maintenence feels that the newborns humanities are not being taken into account, then Ms. Eaton and her team will take the children from the utopian society. This act though will impose on Kirinya’s traditions that Koriba is so desperately trying to maintain. So, he becomes defensive and will eventually prepare for a war; Koriba wants to preserve the perfect utopian world and Maintenence is in the way of that. Accordingly, this example is the first reason why Koriba feels his has the right to resort to violence. I believe that Koriba is not a sly man. In order to gain respect, at least in my eyes, you must always be honest and upfront. With this said, the witch doctor is not open and transparent about his feelings towards the situation with Maintenance. I feel that he is so worried about protecting his traditions that he starts to develop a new trait that is unlike him. He becomes defensive. Koriba is even so anxious and worried that his own tribe would question the Kirinyaga traditions that he trains the young men for war at night, even though he assures the tribe that there was no chance of Maintenance becoming violent. I say that only someone who is paranoid that something he loves is going to be taken away does things when everyone else is sleeping. Koriba becomes desperate and turns into someone that he is not. Moreover, I think that the culturally relative view on free will leads the doctor to accept the belief that he needs to be violent in order to protect his tribe. The second disagreement between Maintenance and Koriba that pushes him towards war is when Barbara attempts to level with Koriba about the difference in religious practices and murder.
She states, “but surely you must see the difference between the torture of animals as a religious ritual and the murder of a human baby” (9). Right after this quote, Koriba starts explaining to her what happened when they abandoned their religion and became westernized. Resnick illustrates the difference in religious beliefs between Maintenance and the tribe of Kirinyaga. He includes the word “human” to highlight how Barbra feels there is a striking difference between babies and animals for religious sacrifice. In western culture, there is a common belief that killing of any sort is murder, and Barbara agrees. With this said, Koriba feels “they are one in the same”(9). In his religion, they do not see any more or less humanity in a baby then they do an animal. Therefore the people of Kirinyaga do not believe there is a distinction between killing and sacrificing. Their religion is based on upholding tradition and anything or anyone who disrupts that should be taken care of, and it does not matter whether it's a child, elder, or …show more content…
animal. I belief this divide is another reason why the witch doctor is lead to war because he feels threatened by the western society. The “demons” and the elderly and weak are meant serve a purpose once they are determined as unimportant or harmful to the society, and if Maintenance takes away the babies then Kirinyaga cannot uphold the traditions. In one aspect, I understand why Koriba becomes defensive about the people and animals in his tribe. Although I am not a mother, I have two dogs that I love and treasure; I would do anything to keep them safe. I am not a violent or even confrontational person but I would be if it meant protecting my dogs. Although I am just talking about four legged beings I view them like family, just as I feel Koriba views all of the people and creatures in his tribe as family. Moreover, in this aspect I can empathize with Koriba about wanting to protect what is sacred to him. However, I grew up in the western world like Barbara. I learned that everyone is a child of God and you should never take away someone's life no matter the circumstance. Thus I can also understand why Maintenance is so concerned with Kirinyaga’s view of the purpose of children and the elderly. Children are innocent, and it is wrong to view them as having to be sacrificed for the sacredness of a tradition. I think though that Koriba knows that Maintenance is going to retaliate. It is not in his character to be violent but he realizes that in order to cherish his tradition he needs to protect his society. The only logical way, I believe, he feels that he can do so is with war because the best chance the tribe has at surviving is to physically fight off intruders and the intruders in this case it would be Maintenance. Furthermore, the contrast in religious opinions about how children are viewed is the second culturally relative difference between the two societies that causes Koriba to resort to building a future army for war. Also, an idea that causes tension between the westernized and the utopian society is the belief about allies. This is exemplified when Koriba is telling a story to the children of the utopian society and he says that “you must always remember that Kikuya have no true friends except themselves”(6). Here we see that Resnick depicts Koriba’s beliefs about allies by using the word “true”, because it shows that the society does not trust anyone. They may have friends but it is out of convenience and the only people the Kikuyu should trust are the ones who have the same traditions and beliefs as them, so that would be only themselves. On the other hand, Resnick suggests that Barbara wants to become allies when she is talking to Koriba about trying to avoid conflict and claims that “it seems to me that you could at least meet me halfway”(10). The maintenance worker believes that Koriba can compromise which shows that she wants to reach out and be an ally to Kirinyaga. I maintain that Barbara would not have tried to level with Koriba unless she really wanted to help him.
For me personally, if I do not like someone and I know they do not like me either, I will not go out of my way to try to understand or even sway their opinion, but she tried to do that. All Barbara needed to do was address the situation but she did more. Also, growing up in the western world, I learned it is important to help my neighbors and treat those the way that I would want to be treated. I concur Barbara especially, would have the same belief about assuming that everyone must extend a hand to their fellow citizens. Even though it does not state what her religion is, she is a product of that society and Christianity is a major religion that is practiced in the western world. So, I think that Barbara has the same mentality as the one I learned in my home, which supports why Ms. Eaton wants to be an ally for Koriba and his
tribe. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I say that if someone doesn't have any friends then they must only have enemies. If one has no friends then I believe that everyone that lonely person comes in contact with is looked at as a threat to his or her existence. It follows, then that the individual would always feel like they need to defend themselves. Furthermore, if Koriba views other societies as the enemy then I regard that it would only make sense that the witch doctor would become defensive towards Maintenance. Similar to the way his defensive trait develops from the previously mentioned circumstances, Koriba views Maintenance as the enemy and wants to protect his sacred traditions. He has to take on this aggressive persona in order to do so and I believe that is why this difference in opinions about needing help from others is the third reason that aids Koriba’s decision to prepare for war. Lastly, it is important to address that I believe Koriba does not want to resort to violence. Even though his tribe accepts cultural relativism and with that comes accepting violence and war, I think Koriba is not a violent man. All he wants is to live in his utopia in peace. We can see this when he is having inner dialogue with himself and how he is admitting that he will have to “administer a hideous oath and force you [ the adolescent boys] to do unspeakable things...”(16). Resnick deliberately attempts to create an ugly image in our head of what this oath forces you to do. The words “hideous” and “force” have a negative connotation to them which means what Koriba has to administer towards these young men is not something that is pleasant or fun. This leads me to believe that Koriba does not want to have to enforce this terrible oath on the boys. If I was a leader, I would never want to purposefully inflict pain onto my citizens or even set them up to experience pain in the future. That unfortunately sometimes is a result of being in charge because you know that there are some things that are inevitable and someone is going to suffer no matter what. Furthermore, I think Koriba does not want to have to deal with this negative side effect either. He wants to keep this perfect utopia afloat as long as he can and avoid all violence or suffering. Therefore, I believe when Koriba does resort to violence in the end, it was the last thing he wanted to do. Since the witch doctor feels this way, every indifference between the utopian and westernized societies causes Koriba to become someone that he does not want to be but feels he has to be in order to save his long standing traditions. The only way he can think of doing this is to start a war. He realizes that violence is something that the western culture accepts as well and the doctor knows Maintenance is eventually going retaliate. So, his tribe has to be ready to fight back in order to salvage what is left of the Kirinyaga tradition. This worry though was all caused because of the differences in beliefs between Maintenance and Koriba. Furthermore, those differences were a result of the freedom of believing what you that cultural relativism creates, which is why I amend that cultural relativism is not appealing.
As external onlookers, we are influenced by contextual knowledge of what this “perfectly normal baby” achieves when he grows up. Through confessional dialogue, we discover the father’s disappointment of his small and weak child as he questions “why can’t they be better specimens” contrasted to the mother’s desperation for her “strong and healthy” child to live. As we progress though this 1st person reflective narrative, we are pulled into the conundrum of what we believe the baby’s fate should be; on one side he is a child – an innocent baby and on the other side he is a dictator deciding life and death of millions of people.
Patrick Lee and Robert P. George’s, “The Wrong of Abortion” is a contentious composition that argues the choice of abortion is objectively unethical. Throughout their composition, Lee and George use credibility and reason to appeal the immorality of abortions. The use of these two methods of persuasion are effective and compels the reader to consider the ethical significance. Lee and George construct their argument by disputing different theories that would justify abortions. They challenge the ontological and evaluation theories of the fetus, as well as the unintentional killing theory. This article was obtained through Google, in the form of a PDF file that is associated with Iowa State University.
In her essay, “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible in most cases even when the fetus is considered a person. She does this by claiming that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life in almost every case and that the intention of the mother is important in defining when an abortion is permissible. Through multiple thought experiments she shows that the Western perspective often places more importance on the right to autonomy than the right to life even though it is claimed otherwise, and that if a mother does not intend to become pregnant she is not morally obligated to carry the fetus to term in most cases. I will examine these thought experiments and their implications in Thomson’s argument, present a rebuttal and speculate on her response.
...This idea respects the adult person in the moral community, not the infant. It can be compared to the idea that it is wrong to destroy someone’s home or natural recourses. (Disputed Moral Issues, p.189).
Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS) means systematic caring, inspecting, and servicing of military equipment to keep it in good condition and to prevent breakdowns. The operator of the vehicle mission is to be sure to perform PMCS each time he/she operate the vehicle. Always do the PMCS in the same order, so it gets to be a habit. Once you've had some practice, you will quickly spot anything wrong.
In this paper I will be arguing in favor of Judith Jarvis Thomson view point on abortion. I am defending the use abortion and only in the first trimester. I will consider Don Marquis objections of the practice but ultimately side with Thomson.
Tooley views abortion as morally permissible. From the beginning he is fully aware that he may be taking the less sympathetic or unpopular viewpoint. He insists that to make an ethical verdict on abortion, “one should be prepared to point to a morally relevant difference between a newborn baby and the earlier stage in the development of a human being” (Tooley 38).
“She may be unmarried or in a bad marriage. She may consider herself too poor to raise a child. She may think her life is too unstable or unhappy, or she may think that her drinking or drug use will damage the baby’s health” (126). The emotional appeal in this paragraph could make the reader think they are pro-choice. Apart from their use of pathos, the authors do a great job using a mixture of both ethos and logos. Page 130 is an example of both, which were used expertly to help the reader understand their point of view and the
...man soldiers use infants and babies as targets for machine guns. These Jewish babies were tossed into the air and used as target practice for the German machine gunners. The soldiers were never told to do this; they chose to. They made their own personal choice to kill the babies. It is natural instinct for humans to protect babies and infants. In order for the soldiers to shoot them, they had to deliberately go against their nature to kill the babies.
...e open to all women at any point of pregnancy, and that the woman reserves the right as a fully conscious member of the moral community to choose to carry the child or not. She argues that fetuses are not persons or members of the moral community because they don’t fulfill the five qualities of personhood she has fashioned. Warren’s arguments are valid, mostly sound, and cover just about all aspects of the overall topic. However much she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent. Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset.
One of the most disputed subjects into day’s society is abortion. Children have been sacrificed by millions of women all across the world. There’s always a powerful urge to vindicate the suffering, emotional pain, and deprivation by the mother and her significant other. Therefore, in any debate, you will run up against an invisible brick wall. Which means even the greatest Knowledge will neglect to influence. When it comes to abortion the best way to tackle the subject is through facts. Some of the wondrous arguments stem from the law, science, and the rights women have to aid the pro-life case opposed to abortion.
Infanticide is a way to alter the reproductive stream before the child has the status of a real person, which is culturally defined (source). The deaths of weak, illegitimate, excess, deformed and unwanted infants are not defined as murder when the infants have not yet been born into the social world. Infanticide occurs cross-culturally for a multitude of causes. The reasons for infanticide can be summed up into three categories: biological (including the health of the child and twin stigmas), economical (relation to other children, women's workload, and available resources) and cultural (preferred gender, illegitimate children). This essay will examine cross-culturally the biological, economic and cultural factors for infanticide.
... she wouldn't be as hated, but she knows that Christianity is just a mask and that the whites will always see a Negro before they see a Christian. " 'Their color is a diabolic dye.' Remember, Christians, Negroes black as Cain, may be refined, and join the angelic train."
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
With the start of human life unclear, relying on our intuition becomes ineffective; thus leaving that obligation up for debate. Should we grant a full set of moral rights to a fetus on their first trimester as we do a fully developed person of moral standing? The answer is yes. In accordance to Emmanuel Kant’s ethical theory, the act of abortion, in direct violation to the first and second formulation to the categorical imperative, is morally wrong. I defend the human value of a fetus from the moment of conception upon the following Kantian grounds: denying or removing another person’s future of a life cannot be (1) universalized nor (2) is it acting in a way that treats others as ends in themselves.