Reader Response #5

Dolly's False Legacy by Ian Wilmut

Cloning have been a highly debate controversial issue among the politics and common people for many years now. Despite all the positive outcomes cloning can help the human race, there are still many negative setbacks and consequences to consider. In the article “Dolly’s False Legacy”, Ian Wilmut discusses all the questionable issues surrounding cloning.

Although there have been successful cases in cloning experimental animals, it does not give a full reassurance to whether human cloning will be successful. I agree with Wilmut that cloning may bring new hopes to human race, but it is easy to overlook all the negative or aftermath effects that cloning may cause. As Wilmut explains, cloning is simply copying the genes of adults to form an “identical twin of the original”.

In the article, Wilmut questions all the reasons for why people wish to clone an identical human being. I believe Wilmut raises the questions that people who are too caught up in the excitement of cloning would overlook. The questions bring the issue back into reality allowing people to think carefully about the controversy.

Overall, Wilmut sets up the article by addressing the reasons why certain people like the idea of cloning, then attacks each reason stating the overlooked questions regarding it. Although I agree with Wilmut that cloning may be a big contribution to the field of medicine in the future, I do not believe cloning should continued to be specialized. I believe cloning will distort the human cycle and environment. It can also be dangerous to the human race if misused. Thus, I believe human race should just be content about the way life is now rather than trying to change it for our own selfishness.

Reader Response #4

"Let America Be America Again" by Langston Hughes

America is the homeland that provides dream to all those suffering around the world. America is a country that promises equality and liberty. However, in “Let America Be America Again”, a poem written by Langston Hughes, points out all the broken dreams and promises that Americans have endured in the past years.

Hughes starts out his poetry by stating the way America should have been. Nonetheless, America never lives up to its words of equality and freedom. To point out America’s failure in keeping its promise, Hughes uses a constant repetition to describe the people and the land of the country. “I am the poor white…I am the Negro…I am the red man…I am the immigrant…” utters throughout the poetry representing the diversity of the country. Although America is a country that is said to provide a better life for all, it has only created more pain and harm to the poor, the outsiders, the colored, etc.

Then, Hughes continues by stating “The free?” America is supposed to be a country of equality in which everyone can exercise their freedom without restraints. However, a country, as Hughes states, can never be truly equal if everyone is divided and selfish. The greed within people has broken and divided America. Thus, Hughes pleads for all Americans to make America the way it should be by throwing away all greed and unite as one.

I believe Hughes makes a valid point in his poetry. America is a country that holds unimaginable dreams for immigrants. America is a country that protects all men’s freedom. America is a country that brings equality upon all diversity of people. Yet, throughout history, America has been tainted by its enslavement of African Americans, its segregation and discrimination, and its brutal oppression against weaker nations. Overall, behind the façade of that made up image of “America is where your dream will come true”, America is no difference from any other uprising nations in the world.

Reader Response #3

In the article, “How People Turn Monstrous”, Mark Buchanan states that people who become abusive and monstrous because of situational environment should not be punished.

In the beginning of the article, Buchanan reminisces the CBS News' public broadcasting several years ago of the abusive and insane acts that guard officers have imposed on the prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Because the prisoner guards' abusive and humiliating ways of treating the prisoners are highly criticized, the government feels a need to punish them by picking out the “few bad apples” as Buchanan mocks.

Then, Buchanan continues to argue that these so-called “few bad apples” should not be the ones getting punished for. Buchanan states that even the most pacify person can turn monstrous in a situation where authority is given to the person. He backs this argument up using the famous experiment in 1970s where Philip Zimbardo and other psychologists at Stanford University placed several students in the basement lab of the psychology department. Some students played the role as prisoners and some as prisoner guards. The experiment lasted for lass than a week due to the shocking results of emotional breakdown of several student prisoners and the abusive behavior of the student prisoner guard. I believe the experiment serves a valid support in backing up Buchanan's claim. The result of the experiment shows that even the most ordinary people, with no records of abusive acts, become offensive towards others with less power under the situation.

With the experimentation showing that people's behavior can be alter based on their surroundings, Buchanan questions whether or not it is still considered a crime if a person simply act the same way any other people would act in that specific situation. Although Buchanan makes a good point and support, it does not, I believe, exclude the people from receiving punishments for their unacceptable acts. A crime is a crime and the criminal should be punished. If Buchanan's claim that all normal and ordinary people would have done the same in that situation can be used as an excuse to exclude those people from receiving their punishments, then, all other criminals such as thieves or robbers can defend themselves in court by simply stating that because of their situation so they have no choice but to go out and rob someone else. It is nearly impossible to differentiate crime that is done out of free-will or any other factors. Thus, I believe this claim provide a loophole for others to break apart his claim and argument.

It seems to me that Buchanan's article is mostly pointing fingers at the incompetents and corruption of the government. In the end of his article, Buchanan claims that the people such as the prisoner guards that committed insane acts due to environmental pressure should not be punished. The ones that should be taken into justice are the ones in the White House. The one with the most authorities that are sending down orders to the innocent civilians.

Overall, I believe Buchanan's article sets up a good claim and backs up validly with a strong support.

Reader Response #2

Peter Singer, an Australian-born philosopher and bioethicist, states that average Americans should engage in charity more rather than spending on luxury goods in his article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”.

In the article, Singer provides a comparison between a Brazilian film, in which a retired schoolteacher, Dora, who sold a homeless child to organ peddlers unintentionally then risks her life saving the kid, and a hypothetical example written in Peter Unger’s, a New York University philosopher, Living High and Letting Die about Bob, who rather saves his Bugatti of high value than a faraway child that is about to get run over by a train. The comparison between the two demonstrates a logical presentation in how people perceive charity and helping others.

The logical part of the comparison is when Singer illustrates that Dora felt a sense of guilt after learning about the situation. After all, she had some physical contacts with the kid and had personally transferred the child from her hand to the organ peddlers’ hands. Thus, she felt a need to amend her wrong doings by saving the kid while risking the consequences. Whereas, Bob, who did not have any sort of physical contacts with the kid standing faraway on the track. Thus, decided to save his Bugatti that he enjoys much more than the kid. Like Singer says, the hypothetical example of Bob serves as a reminder that “we, too, have opportunities to save the lives of children” (372). Also, Singer addresses the fact that to what extend a person needs to sacrifice in order to save a child’s life. All these are factors that, I, personally, believe affects how a person decides on whether or not to participate in charity.

Lastly, Singer brings up the idea of having all average Americans can donate a “fair share” of their hard-earned income to help save lives of homeless children. This idea of Singer, I believe, serves as a downfall to his article. Singer neglects the fact that not all average Americans are living a luxurious life as he describes. Some may have personal issues as well as difficulties to overcome, therefore, does not have the ability to donate their share to the charity. Also, if there is no spending on luxurious items, then what would happen to the economy if everyone stops altogether in buying the newly invented gadgets?

Overall, I believe Singer’s article addresses the issue of how donating a few amount of your money to charity can help save many lives well. Nevertheless, the solution he offers – whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away (374) – only stimulates another issue to the society.

"The Wrong Lesson: Teaching College Reporters to be Meek" - David Wallis

David Wallis has suggested good examples of restrictions on college journalists to express their thoughts and speech freely in the article “The Wrong Lesson: Teaching College Reporters to be Meek”. According to the article, the main targets that Wallis is pointing his fingers at are the private, religious-based colleges as well as all other colleges that are limiting college journalists in expressing their writings freely. As a journalist and writer himself, Wallis has pointed out the limitations and restrictions that are imposed on college journalists. I believed that these boundaries are set for the students in order to provide the college with an outstanding public reputation. In this case, as Wallis has said, are depriving away the college student journalists’ right to freedom of speech and religion – simply as the 1^st amendment. Throughout the argument, I think Wallis does an effective job in building up his argument with persuasive supporting examples. The examples are given in short summarized form, but they hit on the point his arguing directly. He also states the authority from which he derived his examples from, which easily convinces his audiences that he is sincere and truthful in his arguments. Although Wallis’ article is considered short, he builds up the tension and then is still able to back off with a less harsh solution. With the soften solution suggested by Wallis to the strong arguments, Wallis has effectively leave his audience/reader with an open space to thoroughly think through his proposition instead of pressing them against the wall threatening them to take actions. However, I thought Wallis could be more specific on what lesson he wants the college to actually teach their students. For instance, does he want the college to teach the students to dig up all news that they can get their hands on?, or just simply teach them that they should not subjugate to authority too easily?