Grading a Human Life?
It was at the end of the semester when I was behind on my grading and my mother jokingly told me, as I complained to her the amount of papers I had to read to grade, to throw them down the stairs and grade them depending how they fell: A’s to those that made it to the final step, F’s for those that were still on the top step. This surprised me– I secretly wondered if there was a possibility of getting away with it, so to prolong this secret fantasy I approached my husband. He suggested using a dart board; I stupidly thought he meant to affix the papers to the board and never mind the punctures …
We grade papers.
We grade coins.
We grade diamonds.
We grade all gemstones.
We grade eggs: chicken and human. If you don’t believe me, go look up human egg donors.
We grade qualities of meats. Think USDA prime.
We grade things to show a level of competency or their rank. What grade are you currently in? What grade did you achieve?
We are a culture that thrives on grades and grading.
Can we grade human life? Is there something fundamentally wrong, especially in a democratic society, to grade human life? Does it matter if we do this before life is initiated or after birth?
This week we’ve read Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas</em>, Harriet McBryde Johnston’s Unspeakable Conversation, and Michael J. Sandel’s The Case Against Perfection. There are some linked themes here, but I think the one we must first look at is: do we believe that there is a criteria, a check list to grade human life. Is there a check list if you will to decide which person deserves life more than another? Are there criteria that would distinguish one’s life as better? Is someone more human than another?
We then must also consider the element of suffering. Is there a criteria for that? Consider Peter Singer’s position regarding selective infanticide.
Do we, as they did in Omelas (FYI: The author came up with this name by reading a sign for “Salem, Oregon” backwards)? Do we stay in the land of joy purchased through the life of an innocent, or do we walk away?
Can we grade this?
Filed under: Uncategorized | 44 Comments
Tags: grading, human life
OK! So, I have four different posts in process right now, and I have hit a wall: I feel I need to revisit them when I am not focusing on finishing your final essay grades…
So instead, let us go down the “rabbit hole”….
We have been watching the movie :What the Bleep Do We Know?
And I would love to hear your initial impressions….
Pretty wide open topic, huh?
Impress me with your honest thoughts.
Impress me further with these thoughts by drawing parallels to what we’ve been reading and discussing.
Blow me out of the water by drawing these connections to our class and other ideas you’ve been exploring!
Use links, share ideas! And…..GO!
Filed under: critical thinking, thinking, What the Bleep Do We Know | 45 Comments
Limitations Schmimitations.
So this post is to address some of the limitations we face as humans in our pursuit of “The Truth”!
So often we find that people wish to live as Plato’s prisoners: within a lie that their senses provide them. To live with the deception that our senses convince us as truth.
I am reminded of this cartoon that came out in response to the film/ book by Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth.
Cartoon courtesy of http://www.cagle.com/
I am struck by the fact that although we often profess our desire to know the true, we often line up as obsequiously and complacently for a heaped serving of the lie. Why do we humans consistently do this?
Perhaps we are limited by our own very construct or nature that we are not capable to exist with the “Truth”? Perhaps there are other contributing factors to this phenomenon?
We’ve read a number of pieces that address our construct and understanding of our limitations with truth:
Ken Wilber’s chapter from A Brief History of Everything.
The article by Jon Gertner, The Futile Pursuit of Happiness .
And the Dalai Lama’s The Need For Discernment.
Consider how each of these authors might recommend we address or modify our search for truth. You may reference one or more of the authors and you may also refer to earlier reading within your comment.
PS– Should I remind you that I LOVE when you make connections to ideas you are encountering in your life?
PPS– here is a link to a fellow blogger who posted a short story about truth and branding in marketing…
Filed under: Al Gore, Allegory of the Cave, community, Dalai Lama, Discernment, illusion, Inconvenient Truth, Jon Gertner, Ken Wilber, limits, perception, Plato, thinking, truth | 44 Comments
Welcome!
Thank you for being a part of this community.
So far we have read for class: Parker J. Palmer’s Community of Truth, Adrienne Rich’s Claiming an Education, Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, and Plato’s (Allegory of) The Cave.
The ideas we are initially wrestling with are those of education, truth and classic structure of arguments, but specifically what purpose an education provides society and the individuals therein.
What I would like to ask you to contemplate is Palmer’s mention of “the grace of great things.” Do you hold in your heart an affinity for something that may fall under this category? Something that speaks to you to know it further?
I look forward to hearing what inspires you!
Filed under: adrienne rich, Allegory of the Cave, community, ecstasy of thought, grace of great things, inspiration, knowing, Parker J. Palmer, Plato, thinking, truth, Uncategorized | 48 Comments
Verisimilitude?
“Art is the lie that tells the truth.” Pablo Picasso
“We all know that art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.” (The Arts, Picasso Speaks, 1923)
Consider the three portraits and photo that are in your text of Picasso– and or the ones below:
Considering what Picasso has outlined in his essay, and both the essays by Langer and The Royal Bank of Canada, reflect on the above quotation from Picasso and the nature of artistic truth compared to any of the other truths we’ve been discussing. How is that a “lie” can make us realize a truth? Or as he states, “the truth that we are given to understand?”
Filed under: ecstasy of thought, illusion, imagination, knowing, perception, truth, Uncategorized | 9 Comments
I found of one of our classmate’s comments that didn’t post in the site’s spam basket– (as an aside, I would like to remind you that I am relatively new to this blogging technology, and because of that I need you to email me when you are having problems. I might be able to help you! In this student’s case, her comment got posted to the “spam” pile! Can you imagine how surprised I was when I saw that she was not the only one who had tried to post their submission a number of times, but all the copies never got there– and can you imagine how FRUSTRATED they are? — Chrislynn, Rudy, Steepy, and Jamie- the problem has been rectified!)
But as I was reading her response I felt that this might be a nice one to include as a revisit. Remember, we have been using the lens of truth to visit the topics we’ve been reading about in this class. The lens offers us the ability to question what truth is and its meaning, as well as whether there is a truth. It also allows us to look at how different disciplines substantiate and validate the truth their disciplines support. This week’s Stephen W. Hawking’s and Bertrand Russell’s essays are no exception. Here are two writers approaching the topic of science and religion’s relationship to the Universe. We have been discussing the history of the struggle of scientists and religions in answering the questions: When was the Universe created? and How was the Universe created?
What is important to remember is that finding an answer to these monumental questions has been linked to the penultimate question of: What does it all mean? Human kind has been searching for meaning in the universe and in our existence. We have been looking at the postulated theories of why we are here and what meaning that may have.
So what I invite you to do in commenting on this blog is to read through Chrislynn Porta’s response, think over the semester’s reading through to now, pick one of the quotations that she has offered about truth, and relate that quotation to one or more of the reading that we’ve read and of course the topic of truth!
And if you have about six minutes you can watch this!
or if you have about an hour, this!
Credit: NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
I would like to revisit the very first blog on truth (in case you haven’t noticed,
I like that one!) Ever since that blog was posted, I realized just how much of life
is based on truth.This past weekend I attended a leadership/ diversity retreat and one of the
workshops was about truth. Here are a few quotes we briefly discussed ..“There are no whole truths: all truths are half- truths. It is trying to treat them
as whole truths that plays the devil.” – Alfred North Whitehead“Believe those who are seeking truth; doubt those who find it.” – Andre Gide
“We know the the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart.” – Blaise
Pascal“Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry from then and cover them up, at
least a little bit.” – Edward R. Murrow“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to
discover them.” – GalileoI find Murrow’s quote to be very interesting. I think it implies that truth is
always changing. Most people embellish the truth as to protect other’s feeling. When
they embellish the truth, it changes, whether it be a lot or a little. I feel that
when a truth changes, it stops being a truth. There is evidence to support the original
truth, but not this new “truth” a person has come up with.” Chrislynn Porta
Filed under: community, critical thinking, thinking, truth | 10 Comments
So, this weekend I spent some time with a good friend and her sister. I had met my friend’s sister before, but for some reason I didn’t have a recollection of her. The sister was nice, and I enjoy my friendship with my friend, and the evening was enjoyable, a melange of discussion about “deep issues” and Britney Spears’ new hairdo. Needless to say, that is possibly a blog unto itself, and what I am really here to address is a topic that came up in the course of our conversation that was NOT directly related to Britney’s shaved head.
The topic which the three of us bounced back and forth and which inspired today’s blog was that of ignorance. What became apparent in our discussion was that each of us had a different definition of ignorance. So for our purposes I shall define mine.
I am not speaking of stupidity… that is altogether a different topic in my definition of the word, stupidity indicates an inability or an incapacity to attain or retain knowledge…However, ignorance: the quality or state of being ignorant, is really quite different. And that of course really doesn’t clarify the meaning until I address the word ignorant. I do not mean illiterate, or an inability to read or write because might be a lack of training or it might fall into the definition of stupidity. I do not mean unlettered, which implies again a schooled learning or one based on our concept of schooling. Uneducated and untaught describes a lack of “formal” education, which in my view diminishes the ability for a human being to think, so that isn’t quite what I am seeing as ignorance although there are qualities of ignorance. Untutored and unlearned again implies a sort of “formal” education which isn’t what I’m referring to. I realize that by defining what I do not mean, I may not have necessarily clarified what I do mean!
But the main element that I see as a component of ignorance that of choice. To me, ignorance includes an element of choice. There is a choice in ignorance, whether it is fear based, laziness, or comfort levels, one chooses to not think. One chooses to not question or wonder. One chooses to remain confident in not knowing more. And that is a dangerous place to be.
Continue reading ‘Limits, Bounds and Deprivation of the “Glory of Thinking” (week six, blog one)’
Filed under: bounds, brain, Carl Sagan, community, critical thinking, ecstasy of thought, ignorance, imagination, limits, Parker J. Palmer, Scott Russel Sanders, thinking | 14 Comments
A post by Brian Polashuk (italicized additions by Kelly Lake)
a photo from the original production, hopefully to be replaced by one from Rider University’s!
The play Gross Indecency: The Three Trials of Oscar Wilde, performed at Rider University’s Yvonne Theater this past weekend, puts the choices and moral preferences of Oscar Wilde on the line. While sitting there, I could not help but relate several themes of this play to themes we have discussed in class.
The first theme that struck my mind was hate. (Think: Andrew Sullivan’s essay, What’s so Bad about Hate.) In past blogs, I think a majority of us agreed that the strength of the word was immeasurable and often over used; although, a few of us believed that there were different kinds of hate that differed in meaning. In the play there were several situations that some may refer to as “hate” related. You had the conflicts between Lord Alfred Douglas and his father and also the conflicts between society and Oscar Wilde. How do these conflicts differ? Are these signs of hate?
While watching the play I could not help, but feel uncomfortable watching two men show such affection towards one another. I do not consider myself homophobic, nor do I go out of my way to show signs of disapproval or crack jokes. However, I do not feel it is right. Does this qualify as hate? I do not think so. I think morals, culture, and time has constantly changed our view on things. How do your morals and culture shape the way you feel on matters? Culture changes over time. Trials like this would no longer take place. How can one thing be so negatively viewed at one time and accepted years later?
The second theme that struck my mind was heroism. (Or Goodall’s example of altruistic reciprocity) Heroism is so often looked at as a good thing, something that brings on glory and prestige. However, Oscar Wilde by standing up for his love, Lord Alfred Douglas, starts a series of court hearings that eventually leads to his sentence. Do you feel Oscar Wilde was naturally born with that hero instinct, or was he influenced by outside factors? Why do you think heroism is so widely promoted in our community? (Community of truth? People relying on each other?)
Like Goodall’s aforementioned idea of altruistic reciprocity, Gould explains how animals relate and are connected to humans in some ways. What Gould is concerned by is that humans impose their morals on a world that is not instructed in or operating from a “human moral base;” animals do not have a moral view. Some behaviors are frowned upon in life, sometimes referred to as “animal like” or “not human like”. Homosexuality is often referred to as un-human-like. Why do we make these distinctions? Why are only “unacceptable” behaviors looked upon as “animal like”?
I’d like to piggyback on what Brian has begun here. I think that if we look specifically at the essays that we have read this semester, and apply the challenges that those authors have given us to ponder, we have an excellent basis to discuss this topic.
Some people have responded to the idea of the source of Wilde’s tragedy “was that he tried to turn morality into art during an age that preferred art to be an extension of morality. That his real crime wasn’t the love he had for a man BUT his writing” (Robert Brustein, The New Republic). Others feel that, “the perversion pumping through Gross Indecency is not homosexuality, but Wilde’s refusal to save himself. Kaufman contemplates the lengths people think they have to go to get love, love that feels like a devotion to the other but gets played out more like devotion to devotion–or frustration” (Laurie Stone, The Nation). Do you feel these ideas fit into your experience of the material of the play? How?
I am further reminded of Sulllivan’s statement, “A free country will always mean a hateful country… Tolerance is the eradication of hate; toleration is co-existence despite it. We might do better as a culture and as a polity if we concentrated more on achieving the latter rather than the former.”
FOR THIS BLOG YOU MUST:
— refer to specific examples from the production
— relate the ideas you respond to to at least one of the essays we have read. BE SPECIFIC!
— If you use personal example, please provide a context to both the issues of the play and the essays.
— I will delete any post that is offensive in nature and not in keeping with the above mentioned “rules.”
Filed under: community, Gross Indecency, hate, heroism, Jane Goodall, love, Oscar Wilde, Reciprocal altruism, Stephen Jay Gould, Uncategorized | 3 Comments
Gary Larson Evolution
Today we began discussing Jane Goodall’s essay Love and Compassion. The first concept that was brought to our attention was the idea of altruism. In her case: how a chimpanzee may have an unselfish concern for another chimpanzee who is not of their immediate family or gene pool, or in our case: how a human might exhibit that same quality towards a stranger and in some cases behave heroically. Jane has chosen to illuminate an aspect of humanity through her observations of chimpanzees.
What is it that make humans and animals share this quality? Is it a form of love? Or is it a form of social evolution? If it is a product of our evolution (remember, Ms. Goodall points out that, “humans are capable of performing acts of self-sacrifice with full knowledge of the costs we may have to bear, not only at the time, but at some future date.”) What makes this issue resonate is the fact that we live in societies where we are required to do smaller acts of self-sacrifice on a daily basis to ensure smooth functioning.
We often take the successful functioning of our “society“– the fact that we as humans are living in cities, towns, and communities– for granted. We tend to ignore the oddity that humans have organized in massive cooperative groups of unrelated individuals (a.k.a. societies!) Very few organisms create or function in societies, in fact if memory serves, I believe only insects do this with any amount of success… which may be why Stephen Jay Gould, in his essay Nonmoral Nature focused on the ichneumon wasps, beyond his use of them as an example of what the 19th century theologians were struggling with: “If God is benevolent and the Creation displays his “power, wisdom and goodness,” then why are we surrounded with pain, suffering, and apparently senseless cruelty.”
Gould cautions us to not measure the animal world by our moral yard stick. That we anthropomorphize the behavior of animals when we see them in terms of our values of good and evil. That, “Morality is a subject for philosophers, theologians, students of the humanities, indeed for all thinking people,” but not to be applied to the world of animals.
What is by far the most bizarre footnote to add to this discussion is that we, at various points in a not too distant history, put animals on trial (animal trials) — Yes, we dressed them in clothing, trotted or paced them into a court of law, and with a jury not of their peers in a species sense, we judged and convicted them of crimes! The list includes pigs, donkeys, and termites. So we have tried animals in the courts: various species, in various countries, and for various crimes.
How do you feel about how we relate to animals? Is there merit to observing their behavior and applying it to observations of human behavior as Goodall does? How about the observations that Darwin makes in The Evidence of the Descent of Man from Some Lower Form?
Perhaps we should approach our understanding of animal relationships with the following quote in mind?
“Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do).” — Stephen Jay Gould
Filed under: altruism, animal trials, community, darwin, evolution, heroism, Jane Goodall, love, morals, society, Stephen Jay Gould, Uncategorized | 16 Comments
Why do we study history? Why do we spend so much time going over past events? I believe we do this as humans because we look for the meaning of those events, or we try to understand why, how, or what caused things to happen. Sometimes we do this so that we can relive pleasurable moments, we reminisce.
OK, this blog is an asynchronous dialogue between us. It doesn’t happen immediately. It needs to be revisited and re-evaluated, which means you don’t comment and run like a drive by!
I would like you to go back to the blogs and read through them again; respond to what has been commented on. See what others have said, read what I’ve said, see where the dialogue has gone, and comment again. Respond to the other writers– bring new insight to the thread! See if your ideas are the same, if as you’ve read if they’ve changed. Feel free to make connections, as chrislynn did early in the first blog, to other class experiences!
I look forward to your thinking!
Filed under: communion, community, critical thinking | 7 Comments
CMP120 Spring 2007 
You must be logged in to post a comment.