"Dolly's False Legacy" by Ian Wilmut

Ian Wilmut examines reasons for cloning humans and consequences of it in “Dolly’s False Legacy.”  Wilmut recognizes there is great potential for cloning to help in medicine, which appears to be the best reason for cloning after reading his essay. 

            Wilmut counters the motive of using cloning in an attempt to predispose a child towards a certain talent and interest.  Wilmut states, “Every child should be wanted for itself, as an individual” (536).  It is sweet to imagine- if more people believed that, then they would probably be more supportive of children, rather than trying to force children into useless boxes that ultimately serve to divide people from each other and pull people away from their true selves.  Beyond this, people might recognize that the respect for each unique child is applicable to adults as well- suddenly the world is more beautiful and diverse and unified.  While I would not expect every living person to hold this view, it very realistically could be more popularly held.  If many people can concern themselves with insignificant material matters, many people may reach better understanding and value something ethically and logically sound and live by such more.  I believe he refers to the child as “itself” for lack of a gender-neutral pronoun, rather than to objectify, because he shows respect for children as he values their individuality.

            While people may speculate about cloning someone to bring back a loved one, 

Wilmut points out fallacies in this logic.  The greatest fallacy is ignorance of the combination of genetics and one's environment and experiences in forming personality.  This heightens Wilmut's credibility by showing his logical sense.

            Wilmut skillfully brings people together in his examination of cloning.  An example of this may be seen in the way he reasons in a paragraph about a cloned child to homosexual or single parents.  While one of the controversies today involves some people’s idea of who family should be, Wilmut says, “My concerns are not on religious grounds or on the basis of a perceived intrinsic ethical principle” (536).  Wilmut has chosen instead to focus on the well-being of the child. 

Wilmut has a strong conclusion by continuing to communicate a rational thought process.  Rather than stating an incorrect absolute, he recognizes that much of cloning remains a mystery today.  In addition, he warns people to be cautious in using cloning, which is a logical finish to his essay that considers many of its dangers.

“Race in America: We Would Like to Believe We are Over the Problem”

Mary Ann Cusimano Love wrote “Race in America: We Would Like to Believe We are Over the Problem.”  Her title captures the essence of her essay very well- “would like to believe” suggests that although it may be comfortable to be unconscious that way is wrong.  It makes the focus of her essay clear, but still leaves readers curious for more knowledge about her topic.

Love’s essay is centered on refuting a comment.  She shares Delegate Frank D. Hargrove Sr.’s statement that “‘blacks need to get over’ slavery” (451).  Her credibility is somewhat questionable by her quote use- she quotes “blacks need to get over,” and that could leave curiosity as to the reason(s) why she did not simply use the whole quote.  A reader might then wonder if she is taking something he said out of context, or if she changed the language to be more concise.  She hurts Delegate Hargrove’s credibility by sharing the context of his statement- it was made on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in Virginia, where, historically, slavery began.  By stating that context, it could leave readers wondering if he has a prejudice against black people, if not only showing his own insensitivity to the issue of racial inequality.  

Love's sharing of the context of Delegate Hargrove's statement, and the fact that he is a Republican, hurts her credibility more.  She does not share Senator Obama or Marsh’s political affiliation, so sharing Hargrove’s in this context suggests that she is either trying to appeal to anti-Republicans, or is trying to hurt the image of the Republican party by paving the way for schemas about them.  In addition, stating the context of the statement seems irrelevant to her argument- she should not need to hurt the reputation of the man who said the statement to further her argument because the truth in the ideas matters, and whoever said them should be, essentially, irrelevant.

Love counters the argument that the currently living are not responsible for slavery, and hence should no action need be taken today to try correct any effects of it.  Love leads by example- she shares her own background, and faces the sad fact that she could very likely have had ancestors who owned slaves, as could be suggested by blacks and whites alike sharing her last name.  Rather than in an ignorant bliss absolve herself of the “moral responsibility” (450) owed to African-Americans today, Love follows this recognition with proof of current, unacceptable racial inequities to demonstrate America’s continued responsibility in the aftermath of slavery.

Love makes a strong argument for the need to make efforts directed at ending, or at least lessening, racial inequalities.  The first step to lessening racial inequities is recognizing them.  She uses past attorney general’s statistics that illustrate atrocious racial disparities to effectively support her thesis.  Large disparities in infant mortality and poverty rates are emotionally-loaded statistics, but these improve her argument because they are facts and ethically wrong.  This shows the harsh reality of racial inequality and demonstrates a reason recognizing race matters:  as Love concludes, communities must take action to shrink such racial imbalances. 

Love follows the disturbing statistics with evidence about the current existence of hate groups and a study that demonstrated the reality of internalized racism in young African-American children.  This shows that not only are African-Americans statistically disadvantaged in poverty and mortality rates, but there is also a great problem within American attitudes.  Not all Americans are hateful racists, but not nearly enough are taking action against racism, and there is much too much hate.

Love ends her essay with a very valid point.  She refutes the proposed solution of colorblindness as she suggests individuals take a stand against racism, and people make efforts to end social inequality.  Her suggestion for individuals to be intolerant of racism is underdeveloped- Love should define racism to make her argument more effective.  Hatred towards a certain race is obviously bad, so people’s attitudes need to change.  These changes are not only towards race- people need to forget every derogatory, dividing label they have learned or created and view everyone, including themselves, as the diverse beautiful humans that they are.  Forget political parties, forget socioeconomic status, and take it upon oneself to be a more conscious human being that holds unbreakable ties to the rest of the world.  With this comes the responsibility to help those in poverty, those with higher infant mortality, and those who are still unjustly discriminated against. 

Making such progress first requires awareness.  De Anza College Professor Ethan Lee’s class, Race, Ethnicity, and Social Stratification, should be a prerequisite for any people going to positions of power, from managers to police officers to teachers, because it gives people more knowledge on that subject.  The information in that class is highly relevant to solving racial inequality today.  It explores many concepts that could have been included in Love’s essay to make it stronger, like hegemony and racial formation, although it is unfair to expect her essay to provide as much insight and understanding as a class.  Love is right- there are still lots of problems surrounding race in America, and ignorance of such is not the solution.  The solution will be awareness leading to people making change as individuals, communities, and countries.

Philip G. Zimbardo reflects upon his classic study in “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A Lesson in the Power of Situation.”  He begins with a brief description of previous related social science studies.  He mentions his inspiration from Lord of the Flies that led to his experiment on the weight of different factors in deciding behavior, specifically one’s inner morality against “an evil situation” (388).  Zimbardo goes on to give details of the experiment and a short summary, including the role others’ played in their viewing of the experiment in progress.  He describes the participants’ abusive treatment of others when detached from their real identities and in positions of power as prison guards in the study. In the end, Zimbardo concludes that society needs to recognize the great weight of situational influence.  He hopes people will use understanding of it to counter such influence.

Zimbardo’s description of methods used to choose participants hurts his credibility.  He leaves relevant questions unanswered, such as why did only men participate in the experiment?  His experiment is “good people” (388) against challenging situations- what defines a “good” person?  Zimbardo chose healthy male college students “with no history of crime or violence” (388).  While criminal history may be relevant to the moral goodness that a person lives by, being in college proves nothing about one’s “goodness”.  Zimbardo chose “the best and brightest” (388) - why does one’s academic intelligence correlate to their goodness as a person?  Did he have participants of varied racial backgrounds?  What was their socio-economic status?  One’s background impacts their actions, so these are all aspects that should have been addressed to conduct such an experiment if one hopes to form any conclusions from it.  In addition, the experiment should be done on a greater scale to be significant- there were 24 men to begin with in the experiment, half of which were put in positions of power, meaning twelve men of limited demographics became abusive.  However, this experiment turned out to be unethical, so to retest such results would require big changes, if even possible.  Zimbardo repeatedly mentions conclusions about human nature found through his experiment, but his experiment ultimately lacks great enough significance to apply such conclusions.

Zimbardo’s essay is easier to follow with concise bold subtitles within it, which assist in the essay’s organization and may be attention-grabbing as well.  An example of this is “Terminating the Torment” (389).  Zimbardo utilizes alliteration and powerful word choice here to seize readers’ focus.  In addition, the title effectively captures the essence of the passage that follows.  However, these language techniques are somewhat irrelevant compared to the ideas within the essay.

Zimbardo explains the present importance of his study, and although his study may not hold as much scientific significance as he believes, the ideas behind it are as important.  Zimbardo has a relevant message about raised consciousness: If people were more aware of the influence of the situation in their decisions, they might be more capable in staying true to their own morals and beliefs in their decision-making.  People may also use this awareness to limit the negative potential such situations may hold, relevant especially to the military.  He is effective in naming recent atrocities that involved potentially dangerous situations of power and other factors. 

            When Zimbardo gives his conclusions and his role in allowing the abuse in his experiment to continue for six days, it sounds like an ineffective defense of his actions.  He concludes, “There should have been someone with authority over mine…who surely would have blown the whistle earlier” (390).  The problem is consciousness and personal vigilance.  How would he determine someone to be such an authority over him?  With his understanding of situational influences, why would he not wish that he had simply been more conscious and questioned the ethics of continuing the experiment sooner?

            Zimbardo raises relevant questions, like, “How can situational influences be countered in the military?” and many others.  However, his Stanford prison experiment is lacking elements to give it as much scientific importance as he believes, although it has been influential by suggesting the powerful influence of situations.  His essay shows his subjectivity and creative subtitle use, but needs further development to keep from taking away from a positive message with his fallacies.

“The Singer Solution to World Poverty”

            Peter Singer’s essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” addresses important ethical questions.  He targets Americans with excess money in a demand to donate it to others with greater need, or accept that they are living immorally.  Singer cites a statistic from the Conference Board, but does not give enough evidence to prove the statistic relevant.  He states, “An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities.”  This statistic is naturally questionable- how did the Conference Board produce it?  How are “necessities” defined?  The paragraph about this then weakens his credibility. 

In the same paragraph, Singer controversially states, “Whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away”.  He calls on Americans’ moral obligation to donate this money towards saving children’s lives.  However, he fails to address any other ways Americans can help others.  People can volunteer their time, or if working, one may have a job that is actively trying to find solution to the plights of others, like a teacher educating, and thereby enabling, illiterate women in patriarchal countries where women’s literacy rates are drastically lower than men’s, which may make women less powerful to help their families and more dependent on men.  People can vote for change in America, as well as make change in other ways through politics.  Why does Singer not mention any of these options, or others, if he is really interested in helping the impoverished?  While money is needed, it is often the distribution of money and power, and not a shortage of money to be had, that becomes problematic.  While those who have received the short-end of that, it is important to help.  Help can and should go far beyond the donations to charities solely suggested by Singer.

            Singer improves his credibility by rationally explaining the reason he focuses on children in his composition.  He states, “I do not believe that children are more worth saving than adults, but since no one can argue that children have brought their poverty on themselves, focusing on them simplifies the issues”.  This argument targets people who may believe it is more important to save children, people who believe saving children or adults is equally important, and people who may be undecided between the two.  Singer’s point is not to prove whose life is more worth saving- it is to demonstrate a moral obligation for people with the ability to donate money, and the only group he excludes with this statement are people who believe adults are more worth saving than children, so everyone else is tied into this cause of helping save children’s lives with their excess money.

            Singer strengthens his argument by exploring hypothetical situations.  These hypothetical situations parallel middle-class Americans to extremely wealthy in their ability and moral obligation to help those in dire need, which is a very strong argument in itself. 

While presentation of an argument is important because it often determines the receptivity of those it calls to action, it is truly the ideas that matter most.  The man who wrote, “All men are created equal” in American’s Declaration of Independece owned slaves.  That fact could hurt his credibility, but is the idea itself any less valid (aside from its use of the word “men” instead of people)?  Singer’s essay creates discussion about moral responsibility.  Judging by the excess epitomized by Supersizes at McDonald’s and American materialism, this discussion is highly necessary.  “Popular culture” is typically not raising consciousness- for youth, popular media often is sadly quite the opposite.  They hear it on the radio, they see it on television- if they want better awareness and progress, they need to seek it out themselves.  Singer’s essay counters some of the media that promotes mindless, illogical following.  Social progress needs to happen faster, and people need to stop merely scapegoating events outside their control and start making change.  Websites and organizations, such as http://petition.thebodyshop-usa.com/sign-petition.php, http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=3, change.org, Somaly Mam, AFESIP, Loaves and Fishes, YWCA, Haitian Health Foundation, domestic violence shelters, are just a few of the many, many ways people can start making change.

Solving Aggression- Is Controlling Media the Best Way?

"The television screen is the lens through which most children learn about violence" (263).  Where are the parents?  This statement points in the direction that violence could be better solved by improving the education of children and parents.  Sissela Bok's argument depends on the perceptions of the child and adolescent viewers- it assumes that they will see violence and emulate it, despite its context and without influence from their own ethics or experience. 

            Bok recognizes that other factors are involved in violent crime and that “not even the total elimination of media violence would wipe out the problem of violence” (263).  Why?  One of the characteristics present in almost every violent act is a circumstance of passion over-taking rationality.  Preventing children from seeing violent images does nothing to combat this.  Children have active imaginations and it is dangerous to assume they lack capacity to think of violence without television’s influence.  It is therefore necessary to combat this.  Children acting without logic or guidance, on mere impulse, are most susceptible to observational learning of negative actions.  Educating children is more important than sheltering them.  Thoughtful consciousness should be more highly valued and sought.  Rather than putting ear muffs on children to keep them from hearing “bad words”, teach them that they have the choice of how they express themselves and the uselessness of hatred and anger in relating to others.  This same logic applies to violence.  Children are constantly surrounded by opportunities to do good and bad.  Rather than trying to control the things they see, try to influence children with positive, accepting thought patterns and peaceful conflict resolution. 

Imagine all the other crimes and worries of the world that could be decreased through a population of people more often driven first by logic and then passion. Now if the children are choosing violence through solid logic, which is undoubtedly less often the case, educating children of their place in society and working for children to feel loved, supported and secure is more direct and impactful than putting blinders over their eyes.  There are television ratings and warnings that already exist to shelter children from violent images, as well as parental controls on some televisions.  The education of children needs to be pushed, and primarily targeting media violence is a distraction from this that society really needs.