In the story, “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson; the author believes that following traditions and rituals blindly can lead to bad results. First of all, the disadvantage of following a tradition is that it can create violence and unknowingly distribute the thought of guilt between the people of society. For example, when a person’s name is picked out from the raffle, it’s in their tradition to start throwing stones at the unlucky person thoughtlessly. This also generates the eagerness to hurt the individual. Besides, the family members of the victim are not allowed to defy the society and dispute.
While war can be seen as a way to gain land, wealth, and power, it ends up not benefiting either side. The inhumanity found in humans that is shown in war, changes both the aggressors and the victims’ lives in a negative way. Humans often lose sight of what is most important in life: survival; therefore some focus all of their attention towards what is needed to make them “fulfilled”, and sometimes have to take down others in order to get their way. Hitler was enraged that the Germans lost WWI, and blamed the loss of the war on the citizens of Germany being unpatriotic and
Danglers went as far as to leave his wife over a payment he did not want to pay the next day. “I am leaving today in order to avoid that tomorrow which would be unbearably disagreeable to me” (Dumas 454). Both men let greed fill their hearts to the bitter end. They did not love money, they worshiped it. The love of money, the root of all wickedness, has transformed our earth into a corrupt nation, a people without a moral sense, and a society of very chaotic and greedy human beings.
The Austrian state was not pleased with this sudden change. Their task was to halt the cultural development of the peoples, so they went after individuals on a lower footing that were easier targets. The lack of ornament was apparent to the state, which was then subsidized with state funds. Loos sees ornament as a crime against the national economy by wasting human labor, money, and materials. There is need for a cultural evolution, only to be slowed down by stragglers who are still in support of ornament due to monetary ties.
Reason being is that we would be bankrupting farmers for example because they can’t compete with the price of zero. The farmers would not be able to sell their goods to the people because the other people would not want to buy the farmers goods because they can get food for free with the foreign aid that's being sent over. Another reason why we shouldn’t send foreign aid is because it becomes tempting for governments to specifically screw over their own economies in return for large sums of foreign aid in return. There has been certain countries that have done this to their own country such as Egypt and Sudan. These countries thought it would be better to destroy their own economy instead of actually working for themselves and becoming a better country on it’s own.
We need to stop makeup, cleaning products, medicine and all other chemical based products being tested on animals not only because it is horrendously cruel but there is also a huge amount of money that is wasted in the process of testing. According to most statistics, human results only agree 5-25 percent of the time which means that the process of animal testing is practically pointless as the results hardly ever benefit our knowledge of how to improve the products
I think that making the process shorter would make it more tolerable for potential donors. I suppose to be an organ donor you cannot have a history of drug or alcohol abuse, as these factors can cause damage to the organs that will be donated, which may be hard for some people. I need to learn about any issues organ donating may cause for the government. I would research if organ donning could be considered an unethical process and cause friction between the government and the public. I also need to look at the economic effects of the transplant operations.
Hammond does not believe that what he’s doing could be understood or recognized as an ethical issue. I sincerely believe that Hammond’s proposal is unjust and irresponsible. This plan to open a park with prehistoric animals presents a moral issue to society. His greed influences his judgment in his entirety, which impacts his thinking in a way that can only possibly have catastrophic effects for the park and everyone involved. Throughout the book, he chooses to ignore Malcolm’s sensible and practical judgment, which I do not deem as acceptable.
In the book, money represents a social evil as it destroys lives of people corrupted by wealth. Many characters in The Great Gatsby experienced having greed and wanting what someone else had material wise and relationship wise. Jay Gatsby was greedy in the way he wanted Daisy all to himself, and he thought by gaining more money it would make Daisy want him. Daisy however showed greed throughout the book when she chooses money over real love and security. She couldn’t marry Gatsby, because he wasn’t wealthy enough for her to live comfortably.
He vehemently declares that the paper cannot be released to the public because it is brimming with ideas that “might easily decondition the more unsettled minds among the higher castes” (Huxley 162). This is a perfect example of the World State regulating what ideas the public has access to. Mond fears that exposing unpopular thoughts to the people, especially to the higher castes who are more capable of critical thinking since they were not poisoned during Bokanovsky’s Process, will tear apart the fabric of society. This paper is a threat to stability and therefore it forbidden to be released. Although many similarities can be drawn between the suppression of speech in Brave New World and the suppression of speech in today’s society, there’s one thing that Huxley was wrong about.
Personally, I believe that the way Henrietta’s cells were collected was a violation, however destroying all of the findings from it would be more detrimental to society than beneficial. The field of medicine has come this far and to take it all back could be everyone at risk. However, I don’t believe a violation to the medical code of ethics should be okay. Any research from the present, or in other words, any research that has not changed modern medicine enormously, like HeLa, should be destroyed. Almost every single person on the face of the earth has been affected by HeLa cells in some way.
Besides, profit-driven health care system can lead to unequal access to medication. On the other hand, the unintended consequence would be “…patients blocking the progress of science by holding out for excessive profits” (Skloot, 2010, p. 147)
She believes the growing political correctness in our country and government censorship solves nothing and actually causes more problems than it solves (660). She claims that such actions “selectively [erase] history” (660). Reynolds claims that political correctness and censorship are actually hurting efforts to overcome racism and other acceptance issues. She states not being able to freely discuss issues such as “race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation” is harming the efforts for understanding and acceptance because individuals are not discussing them at all and therefore it hinders them from gaining new perspectives (660). She finishes her argument by stating that the bill will smother our freedom and ability to have productive conversations about Native American history in our culture (660).
In order for civilizations to thrive, they must have some sort of system in place in order to maintain stability amongst the populace. Without any societal order, anarchy runs rampant, and that is the bane of any civilization. This is so because humanity, despite having all the correct faculties, inherently does what comes easiest to them, and often times, the easiest thing to do is not the right thing. Why work in order to receive a salary to use to purchase things, when you can just steal them from others? Why try to create a committed relationship of your own, when you can just take someone else’s significant other through less than savory means?