In the class discussion today, interesting topics were brought up.
Liberty versus Morality, for instance.
The example brought up was lobsters, and how, to eat a lobster, one must boil said lobster. It really does put things into perspective, and leads a person to consider the freedom of being able to do something, to the righteousness of doing that same thing.
Is it right to boil another creature to death, just because it tastes good? Because a person has the ability do something, can it really be said that it is perfectly ok to do that thing? You certainly can't say that that is true for every case, and if you can't, does that make everything true, but only on a selective basis?
If a cow tasted better when boiled, would someone boil a cow alive? What about a dog?
And if the freedom to do any single thing is more important to people than the rightness of that action, where is the line drawn?
That's always seemed to be the case with my view of the NRA. Just because they can, should people own so many guns? Is it really safe for anyone else to have 80-year-olds to 18-year-olds (barring some legal inability that I don't know about) carry firearms around, simply because they can?
Shouldn't there be a better reason than "because"? Has there ever seemed to be the need for one? It seems that it is human nature ( sometimes, at least) to come up with a glib answer for everything, even when there isn't an answer.
"Why?" "Just Because."
I'd imagine that there are many people who never consider changing their eating habits, for instance, simply because that is how their habits are. Just because.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I have no reason to doubt that, for many if not the majority of humans, if a cow tasted better boiled alive, then that's what they would eat.
Which is really a disgusting though, when you think about it. Nothing deserves being boiled alive.
You bring up an interesting point regarding guns... Frankly, I'd never connected these particular thoughts. (I have an avid hatred of guns, personally, because they were designed for one purpose, and one purpose only. But, for the point of discussion, I'll set that aside...)
For self-defense, a gun would be handy. That's not to say that a gun is the *only* line of self-defense, but it is at least the one argument that could be defended. ('leveling the playing field' and all that)
Are the american people that worried about england coming back? I doubt it... But, considering current events, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if someone else decided to invade us. At which point having an 'army' of armed civilians on the defense would be readily available... (again, self-defense)
However, the guns, themselves, are not the problem. In almost all my history classes, I was taught all about our rights.. we have the right to free speech, to bear arms, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, et cetera. One (ONE!) history teacher brought up the other side to having rights: Responsibility.
That, right there, is where I think people are falling off. 'Yah, we've got the right to own a gun, and you can't take it away because the constitution defends my RIGHT...' Many fail to realize the _inherent_ responsibility to *any* right...
Carry this through to animals -- If we consider it our 'right' to eat meat, then we should also be aware of the Responsibility we have to the animals... instead of a 'quality product'...
Furthermore, the Second Ammendment to the Constitution does not clearly support an individual's right to bear arms (independently of an organized militia).
"Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Clearly ambiguous (an oxymoron if I ever wrote one!)
'A well regulated militia ... the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'
Interesting.. not 'and the right..', but rather a separate clause.
If I was better at grammar, I might dissect this sentence and figure out exactly what the subject is, since everything else in the sentence would be related to that; or, where the subject becomes different, and how the two are related. (It's a shame that I'm a senior and have no clue about grammar.. I suppose I ought rectify that...)
However, by the people having arms, doesn't that keep the 'well regulated milia' in check, keeping in line with the checks and balances system? (I.E., If ever the militia tried to take over any given city/town, the people would be able to defend themselves...)
(It's a shame that I'm a senior and have no clue about grammar.. I suppose I ought rectify that...)
***ought _to_ rectify...
sorry!
The finer points of grammar may elude you (and most everyone else) at times; but you clearly have a good intuitive grasp of the language, its rules, and effective use.
Don't worry about the grammar, diseria/ tanya. You write intelligently and coherently, and that's what really counts. You make some very interesting points. I wish I noticed them sooner!
Post a Comment