“On The Tragedy Of Woman’s Emancipation, And Marriage And Love” By Emma Goldman

 

On the Tragedy of Woman’s Emancipation, and Marriage and Love by Emma Goldman. Is about how women were not seen as equivalent to men. Women were inferior to men on certain points such as job field, the right to vote, or etc. Man during earlier times (early 19^th century) viewed women as a housewife. Goldman on other hand describes it as “surpasses her sister of past generations in knowledge of the world and human nature” and that she is both “self-supporting” and “economically free” (paragraph 3, page 205).Goldman does a great job showcasing to the readers women of those time were not dreaming high to reach certain goals as men and thrive on husband’s income. An example can best relate is sitcom of 1950s known as Father knows Best. The mother is a housewife, always happy doing the chores and tending the children. Whence, the father is the decision maker in the house. By watching this sitcom it leaves of expression emancipation women of those time were like puppets controlled by the significant other.

This control can also be solidifying in marriages. Emma Goldman states, ““the institution of marriage makes a parasite of a woman, an absolute dependent” (paragraph 2, page 212). Women are not sharp to realize husband manages to play with her emotions through wealth. Only money can buy happiness or for women of those time jewelry, clothing or ornaments. Due to their lack of realization, sadly wife’s are like dolls to their husbands. This best relates to a literary example of Nora from “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen conveys Goldman’s view about marriage (paragraph 6, page 209). Her husband treated her as his trophy wife and is ignorant of his wife wants. Toward the end of the play, Nora leaves Torvalds, sacrifice her reputation, and save her individuality.

Emma Goldman gives good examples on the tragedy of woman’s emancipation, marriage and love. If I were to compare Goldman to Punzo there would be disagreement on having sex before marriage on certain biases, honestly women have the right to express intrinsic value. An aspect can derive from their intrinsic value is passion, because women emotional gratification is extremely diverse. Man has to understand cannot limit their wife expectation. It is important to realize women are also not perfect but is important that man honor them in society. For sure the only way to achieve an stable connection; is when there is a proper understanding in the couples and when there are reflection in marriage. Sadly that is not the case that is why the rates of divorce is skyrocketing.

Plain Sex by Alan H. Goldman Sex

 

Sex is universal term and it all agreed upon that it is sense of unity between two bonds. Interestingly questions are brought forth to question if sexes have to deal with commitment? Philosopher Alan H. Goldman believes there “isn’t morality intrinsic to sex.”(pg. 134, #1) he argues that based on our definition of sexual behavior and desires is our perspective on disagreements toward sexual behavior. Alan H. Goldman believes commitment is not important. Sex is a plain practice, but those who tie sex and love together are those who hold a conserve values to casual sex. Sexual desires in humans are naturally to seek a certain fulfillment, “humans naturally seek variety” (page 132 paragraphs 3) that there are different meaning of sex but some value body over emotions.

Alan H Goldman stated,” By contrast, what I term “Means-end analyses position ends which I take to be extraneous to be plain sex.”(Page 131 # 4) It means Intrinsic sex can’t be seen bad because it now common in modern days is not really entitled to be sacred, because relationship commonly deals with sex, pleasure and desire.

I disagree on idea of plain sex because I felt if sex should be saved, because if you keep having sex with multiple partners. The enjoyment and modesty will be removed. An example, can be compared to someone who smokes the first time.At first, the individual will be hype up but eventually after a couple of times. The hype will die out and it will be common practice.It all goes back Alan H. Goldman if a man or woman is too patient they wouldn’t last long anyway because the gazing and discussion will end up to it’s ultimate goal. I disagree with having sex earlier before marriage, because just like Kant’s view on lying. If everyone were to lie then nobody would not be trusted. Same can apply for sex, if everyone were to have ” plain sex” then there wouldn’t be any relationship.  

Must Sex Involve Commitment? By Vincent C Punzo

 

“Question as to whether sexual intercourse is a type of activity that is similar to choosing a dinner from a menu.”(pg.124, paragraph 1) Vincent does not approve the fact to be in sex for pleasure and fulfillment. He in fact thinks otherwise believes a key conduct of sex is commitment. Commitment should instill trust, love and value between two partners. Argues that “How many times and how casually are you willing to invest a portion of your total self, and to be a custodian of a like investment from the other person, without the sureness of knowing of these investments are being made for keeps?” (pg.126, paragraph 2) Between two partners simply can’t like individual other just simply because of their looks, need to also accept the value that are inside too. Simply take control to layout ideas to throw other partner into your sexual demises. If that, were the case shouldn’t be with him/her in the first place, because before sex you need love in your life.

Prefer method Punzo, defines commitment is to get married he states “Which partners make to each other to join their lives “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us apart” (pg128.paragraph 1). Marriage is the union between two people it is the highest level of relationship or others mention god loving relationship. Punzo is recommending everyone to be married rather committing to adultery. Having sex before marriage the other partner will not remain by your side and it is momentary.

Sex is advertised through modern day culture. It is normal to go to the malls and see wall papers of naked woman and man. It already infiltrated in the youth mind thus hormones level are not stable. Punzo stated, “Society sexuality is used to sell everything from shave cream to underarm deodorants, to soap, to mouthwash, to cigarettes, and to automobiles.”(pg. 126, paragraph 1) Even media does a swell job of promoting sex and if you don’t jump on the bandwagon you’re missing out.

 Punzo dislike advertisement because modesty in sex is decreasing. Value of sex is seen as normal everyday routine, guys or girls do it for living and get money out of it too. It is damaging the moralities of tons of relationship and divorce is being enforce because of these such actions. Punzo again claims commitment is the answer to all problems, “a total commitment to another means a commitment to him in his historical existence. Such a commitment is not simply a matter of words or feelings, however strong. It involves a full existential sharing on the part of two beings of the burdens, opportunities and challenges of their historical existence.”(pg. 128, paragraph 2) In order to deal with Love, sex, and marriage. Both partners need to put something on the table, value good and the bad of each other and stay truthful.  

Foot Notes:

Must Sex Involve Commitment? by Vincent C. Punzo

http://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMi1jNTAwOGVmZDUyNTlhZWUy

Aristotle on Friendship : Nicomachean ethics Book VIII

    Aristotle’s idea is that friendship implies virtue and it is part of one’s life. Friendship brings forth teamwork, trust, help in mental support, gives advice and help build memories. Without friendship you’re losing a huge part of life.

Aristotle mentions three aspects of friendships. He states, “For not everything seems to be loved but only lovable, and this is good, pleasant, or utility.”(pg. 2, #1) First aspect is known as utility, Aristotle mentions it as “those who love each other for utility do not love each other for themselves.”(pg. 3. #1) Basically a friend makes friendship with another individual just to derive some benefits. For example, in a classroom there is a kid who is failing and wants to make friendship with A+ student so he can cheat of him/her to get better scores on exams or projects. Second aspect is known as pleasure, Aristotle mentions it as “those who love for the sake of pleasure / but love for the sake what is good for themselves.”(pg. 3. #1) Both people are drawn to other’s wit, good looks or other pleasant qualities. An example, a girl makes friends with a good looking guy just to make other girls jealous and making friendship just for personal gain. Aristotle combine these two aspects and refer it as incidental” friendship. “Friendship is dissolved, in as much as it existed only for the ends in question.”(pg. 3: #2) Utility and pleasure tend to change over time and thus this type of friendship does not last very long. To attain a virtuous friendship this is third aspect known as good. Aristotle stated, “But to those who thus wish well we ascribe only good will.”(pg. 2. #3)  Both individuals admire the others goodness and help one another to strive for goodness. Tend to remain long and this friend would be there for the good and bad times. Bad friends can take a role as friend only for utility and pleasure, but a good friend will put their life on the line to protect their friend. Friendships with good will are hard to find and Aristotle calls it a “complete sort of friendship between people who are good and alike in virtue…” (pg6. #1) Friend instill good in others are striving to have virtuous friendship because amount of time he/she invest with each other.

Aristotle relates justice to friendship. He points to the fact those who are rulers and have a great deal of power needs friends. He discusses that those who are in power are in extreme need to take friendship more seriously than justice. Aristotle stated that “friendship and justice exist between the same persons and have an equal extension.”(pg. 9. #2) He argues love in friendship is higher than honor. No man or woman can live a complete life without benefits of friends. Another example, I myself when I’m at college being loner is depressing, but when you have friends the fact they notice you is a great honor and blessing.

Aristotle claimed there are three kinds of constitutions. The three constitutions are monarchy, aristocracy and timocracy. best of the three is monarchy and the worst is timocracy. Aristotle gives an example when a father is with his sons he is refer as the monarch, since the father cares for his children, other hand you tyrants who uses their sons as slaves. Another example is relationship with brothers refer as democracy there are equal in status. Basically each form dealt with friendship involves justice. Aristotle backs this up by stating, “The friendship between a king and his subjects depends on an excess of benefits conferred; for he confers benefits on his subjects if being a good man he cares of them with a view to their well-being.” (pg. 10, #5) Friendship in brothers are comrades, because they watch each other’s back. Aristotle clearly believes that the product of good relationships are what keeps communities stable and that virtuous friendships must be able to value loving over being loved.

 Footnotes: 

Aristotle on Friendship:”Nicomachean ethics Book VIII

http://sf.densilporteous.com/?p=3289

Response to “Reasonable Partiality and Animal Ethics” by Bernard E. Rollin

Bernard E Rollin is an animal welfare advocate because he approaches the issue of moral psychology in relationship to our dealing of animals. He states, “It seemed reasonable to expect society would demand rights for animals” (Para 3, pg. 109). “Can animals fall within the sphere of reasonable partially for humans?”(Para 4, pg111). Rollin explains the treatment to animals being poor but as time goes on laws started to accommodate for animals rights.

Rollin shows certain examples where animal ethics were originated. Thomas Aquinas and influential advocated stated, “people who behave cruelly towards animals will likely graduate to similar behaviors to humans (paragraph 2, page 112). I agree because more torture toward animals the less emotional you are. By mistake you hurt an individual you wouldn’t feel as sorry because of the constant repetition of agony and distress of what animals are being through. Although, animal farms (killer farms), labs and other facilities are being exposed to shown an awareness. Hence for example, “The 1966 was passed because of well-documented stories of dogs being kidnapped and sold to research laboratories and because of striking photos published in Life magazine.” This act of exposure shows a sense of humanity trying to increase moral sensitivity toward animals and gradually there will be a greater change in the way we treat them.

A term that is used abundantly is the term philia, and it was way to stop animals suffering. The term was promoted by Aristotle, accepting the fact that animals are alive; they have emotions and can sense humans. I believe all of these arguments really can take a toll on decreasing animal abuse.Bernard emphasizes the facts,rather opening up to audience for their ideas, because it is concise to see study of how humans acting toward their morality.So it will give a sense of sadness by looking at the treatment and understanding the pros and cons of why animals being used in labs. However, it is sad to say we can’t stop corrupt companies, manufacturers, or selfish people taking animals from their habitat, but more awareness it will lead to legal actions. Thus,it will help shape our intuition and have better ethical behavior towards animals.

Beyond Compassion and Humanity by Martha C Nussbaum

In this passage, “Beyond compassion and Humanity” by Martha C. Nussbaum, it discusses how animals are treated in situation of hardship and distress. She states, “ we hold that circus animals are housed in cramped cages, subjected to fear, hunger, pain, not to mention the undignified way of life they have to live, with no respire and the impugned notification.”(pg299, Para 2) I agree imagine humans behind a cell for rest of their live deprive from food and not bathe for weeks. Just the thinking of it is scary and unsanitary. Understand business makers use animals to acquire some sort of money, but give rights to these poor animals. John Rawls takes the similar concept and further investigates animal should be entitled to some type of right. “We humans share a world and its scarce resource with other intelligent creatures.”(Page 300, Para 1) To some extent it is true, entirely there are not intelligent because animals don’t own business; learn in education system or work. If animals were similar then animals would be wearing clothes. Therefore, animals will always be on lower level than humans.

Kant has a phenomenon idea viewing on animals. He argues that cruelty and bad treatment have similar functions towards humans. I disagree humans are on another level.  When human are punish they feel resentment and solidify their emotions. Besides, animals do not think for themselves, or can stand up for their rights.

Utilitarianism is shared by many philosophers and contributed in many ethical theories. In this article three important parts are mention and are credited to Bernard William and Amartya Sen. the three elements are consequentialism, sum-ranking and hedonism. Consequentialism depends on whether act is morally right depends on consequence of that act. Sum-Ranking one or more people come up with an outcome of justice and to measure outcome of what is produce. Hedonism pleasure is the only intrinsic good. Unitarianism can debate that animals should have less suffering and achieve more happiness.

Animals should have some protection especially in the farms, because living conditions are far by worst day by day. At the same time not all animals are manifest in human diet, but there should be a balance. Killing an animal are not all shared equally for example, “Killing a mosquito is not the same sort of thing as killing a chimpanzee.” Like human being suffering is more didactic then an animal. “When a child is born with Down syndrome, it is crucial that the political culture in which he lives makes a big effort to extend to him the fullest benefit of citizenship, education/ chimpanzee takes more effort to teach language.” Again humans and animals are not intellectually the same, all though both have unique capabilities.

“They are not merely objects for humans” (pg313, last paragraph) I agree different species hold different values, but we as humans can’t ignore the fact humans were born on tradition with meat.On other hand, it does not mean to go on wild rampage to kill animals that humans normally don’t eat. Must Differentiate animals normally are part of the food diet and animals that are not. In addition,show proper treatment toward these animals, and not massacre them in a ruthless way. 

FootNotes:

http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/keep-calm-and-respect-the-animals/

Article:Beyond Compassion and Humanity by Martha C Nussbaum

John Mizzoni” Against Rolston’s defense of eating animals: the Nutritional factor in the Arguments for Vegerarianism

In this passage, John Mizzoni argues with Holmes Rolston III about why it is not morally allowed to eat meat. He makes an opposition stating fact of eating animals is not nutritionally required to be part of the human life. Another key point John stated eating meat is more of cultural aspect rather nature aspect. 

            The term nutritional factor is the central support for his debate. Mizzoni emphasize this idea by four main reasons. First reason eating meat goes along with status also known as (meat mystique). Second reason the taste of meat is irresistible. Third reason meat contains protein. Last reason pure convenience many people were brought out of traditions of eating meat.

            Mizzoni mentions, “Since eating animals is not required for nutrition, then it would count as luxury, a non-basic need.” I disagree with this statement like it or not, plants are also living organisms that responding to stimuli like touch. Thus killing plants is also destructive demise of destroying a huge part of the ecosystem. In like manner, Mizzoni stated, “20,000 birds of paradise, 40,000 hummingbirds, and 30,000 of other species were slaughtered for feathers.” Although this may be true, same argument can go for plants. Similarity, plants are being used in leather, glue, and gelatin. It’s not only animals that are the means of pain, but plants as well.

            In the passage Mizzoni points are well supported by certain claims. For instance, “Eating animal is a luxury in which our non-basic needs are prioritized over the basic needs of animals.” Honestly speaking it will take a lot more to change my eating habit. I give respect to animals, but humans will always be dominant. If vegetables were the world diet, many people will lose jobs, and there will be over populations of animals. I agree there shouldn’t be over-hunting and abusing of animals, instead there should be balance at the same time. 

 

-Animals aren’t aware they will die
-Humans separate our instinct from obligations
-Eating animals doesn’t interrupt Culture
-Animals don’t speak the human language
-Humans have to keep the ecosystem stable.

C-There is a moral difference between eating humans and animals.

FootNotes:

https://www.tumblr.com/consultinginvestigator/22830565213/fuck-yeah-vegetarian

Passage:Against rolston Defense of Eating Animals by John Mizzoni

“UTILITARIANISM” by John Stuart Mill

In the passage “Utilitarianism”, by John Stuart Mill emphasize  understanding of ” greatest happiness” should be valued in our lives. He uses the word utility to make an attempt to have a greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. He compares/contrast his studies with his former teacher Jeremy Bentham the “father” of Utilitarianism. I agree with John Stuart Mill besides Bentham, because Mill looks more of a deeper insight of the quality of pleasure rather quantity.

Mill’s perspective of pleasure is distinguished between higher human pleasure from the lower human pleasure.” Better to be Socrates dissatisfied fool”, stated by  John Stuart Mill. The message trying convey many of the time human nature is to go for a lower pleasure because human’s drawback’s such as laziness, not a go getter, or etc tends to keep them in place.  Stuart Mill’s uses more of an eudaimonistic utilitarianism( a greek word for ” happiness) as medicine to recover from these glob of diseases.

Mill’s argues that some people choose lower pleasures over high pleasures.”Men lose their high aspiration as they lose their intellectual tastes/they addict themselves to inferior pleasures.” I agree with this quote,because when there blocking force which stops an individual to further their interest in particular subject, it is hard for that individual to categorize his/her effort or time.  Hence, let’s say young nba basketball has an major injury, it will be hard for him to continue his path as a professional player rather stay on bed rather going to a therapist for recommendations.

What restricts us from acquiring happiness? “the occasion on which any person (except one in a thousand) has it in his power to do this on an extended scale,” I stay true with this statement. For instance, to become a millionaire you really have to think on a wide range of thoughts to develop a strategy to have a source of income. It doesn’t take a day or two days to be rewarded. It comes with tons of effort and high pleasure. At last, after receiving your hefty cash you will be happy because he/she did not remain complacent.

“A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering” i agree with statement, like example when your sick on bed. There are tons of pain such as coughing, runny nose, sore throat, fever, chest pain and many more. If an individual do not take stand for his sickness he can severily injure his body or even die, it is urgent to call doctor right away so you can ease some of those pain.

Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Mill argues that happiness is the sole basis of morality, and that people never desire anything but happiness. He supports this claim by showing that all objects, and esires become part of happiness.In addition, having high pleasure at times will not give you the results you wanted, but it will get you closer to your goal. Without happiness there is no base in life, and you will be entrapped with pain and misery.

FootNotes
“Utilitarianism” by John Stuart Mill
phil152.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/balance.<

The Four Noble Truths- The Buddha

        In the passage The Buddha explains in details about the four Noble Truths. I found it rather interesting these similar principles are found in many customs as well. A first truth deal with existence is suffering. For instance, climbing a mountain it takes a lot of patience and energy to make it to the top of the mountain. While climbing you worry about falling down, and your bare hands touching rigid marks on the rocks. Both of these aspects can lead to a mental suffering and physical suffering. Buddha states, any mean of life has positive and negative effects.

        Second truth deals is that cause of suffering is craving. Do you have something you love like for example your favorite show, person, fruit, and etc.? Well I can relate I was so into playing video games, I spent so much money and forgot to prioritize the money for the necessary things. It was torture for me and the problem was I wanted to always buy latest game so I can seem cool in class. I realize I wasn’t content and felt miserable because after beating each game, there was nothing to do. Parents were mad and I had to do chores for next month to learn a lesson. In addition to craving there are “five aggregates” that make up a human being, according to Buddha. Hence, have a balance in loving material objects, and always list your pros and con for any action.

          Third truth is that the cessation of suffering is attainable. I agree removing the cause can help lessen your suffering but not completely. Relation with cancer having chemotherapy can erase most of the cells, but can still leave traces of hairline of misinterpret cells. To remove a cause finding a solution at times can be mental suffering because there are different approaches to correct a situation. Thus, creates a dispute between two sufferings can sometimes lead to a happiness or sadness. Yeah removing the cause decrease suffering, but there will always be obstacles hitting an individual from different angles.

          Last truth describes the path to the cessation of suffering. Buddha adds on a term known as eightfold path, leads to cessation of delusion, ignorance, craving and the cycle of rebirth. Thus, all of these truths and eightfold path will end all suffering.

            Suffering is a worldwide symptom and I acknowledge that.  Buddha path lead to cessation of suffering? Frankly I disagree, because suffering doesn’t come to us in a text book interpretation.  It depends more of your experiences and how you incorporate it in your life. Buddhist believe suffering is caused by humans because we have Greed and covet in our hearts after materialistic things such as money, clothes, jewelry etc. a lavish lifestyle. So in order to live a happy life free from suffering we must put out wants and Greed aside. We need these material items to live a normal life; we cannot just simply move out of our surroundings and live as an outcast. Can you ignore money? How will you get bread on the table?

“Nicomachean Ethics” by Aristotle

  In the passage, “Nicomachean Ethics”, by Aristotle, he explains about good and evil are the main contributions to our happiness, it crafts our character, and our virtues. I totally agree with his concept, because our virtues can help distinguish other relationships, and help relate to other people’s intention and emotions.

       

         Aristotle described of three kinds of good that leads to happiness. Three kinds of goods are worldly good, bodily good and goods of soul. Many folks believed in the first two aspects, but tend to forget about nurturing the soul. Like for instance, a married couple might have good jobs, but what keeps their relationship for a long time is to have a certain belief in a religion, which gives them contentment, because they belief their creator will protect their love from sinful acts. The highest reward that God gives us for good work is the ability to do better work. (Elbert Hubbard) 

          “ For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them, e.g., men become builders by building and lyre players by playing the lyre,”  stated in the passage of Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. Is this a general concept? Ideally it is because we were not born to be genius in that very instance. That leads to point what is Aristotle trying to convey on the topic on virtue? Virtue is define as a behavior showing high moral standards. Aristotle breaks down virtue in two categories which are intellectual virtue and moral virtue. Moral virtues are shown by courage, temperance, and liberality; the key intellectual virtues are wisdom, which helps represents ethical behavior.

 

             Aristotle also explain further about soul of good into three categories passion, faculty and state of character. Passion is the drive for the human system, it alters emotions from being angry, happy, lament, worries, anxiety and etc., and thus these emotions really influence the actions we make. All of this combine it really focuses on state of character, because it is pointless to express the emotions if we can’t relate the identity of an individual. ( Epictetus).

 

             Aristotle stated, “The mean is hard to attain, and is grasped by perception, not by reasoning.” Over here he is talking about some act of behavior becoming an excess or being deficient. Like for example, I can be in a discussion and teacher is trying to ask me define an apple, I describe it’s a fruit, then all of sudden I gave description of color, variety, shape, countries which sis unnecessary. On other hand I only describe it to her a fruit, and I tend to know nothing else about it.  I believe using all these aspects will help creating a better virtues. Hence, extra training in certain criteria, subject, and field will help fascinate your character and help you achieve some sort of happiness.