Response t o Sarah

Children can have a huge impact on their parents, which in turn, often impacts them.  It is called bidirectionally.  Child-parent relationships are actually a lot more complicated than they are commonly believed to be.  Many people think that the parent influences the development of the child and it is as simple as that.  However, the child, the way the child interacts with his or her siblings, and the way the child interacts with his or her parents affects the way the  parent raises the child.

For example, if a parent's child is difficult and hard to take care of, the parent may be worn down, but be able to endure more.  If the child is easy to take care of, than the parent may be easy going and happier, but unable to handle more difficult situations with the child because they are not used to it.  Also, if a parent's first born child was difficult to care for, than their attitudes towards their second or third born child will be affected by his or her relationship with his/her first child.  The parent may be more strict simply because he/she had to be with the first child.

Question:  Is it possible for a parent to remain unaffected by their children?  Is it possible for children to remain unaffected by their parents- or overcome the effect their parents have had on them?

Response to Betsy

I don't believe that it is ethical to seek to eliminate a species because they have the potential to harm us.  It's ethical to kill a mosquito that is biting you, because they are causing you harm.  It is a sort of self defense.  Eliminating a whole species is a bit drastic and harmful to the natural environment.  Our natural instinct when another living thing is harming us is to harm it back.  Animals do this to other animals, and we naturally do it as well.  But does the fact that something is natural justify it?  Or can it still be considered unethical?

It is natural to favor aesthetically pleasing animals over less attractive animals, but that doesn't mean it's ethical.  Perhaps it is a part of human nature to prefer "cute" things over "ugly" things.  Some people argue that babies make cute sounds so that they're parents will be more inclined to take care of them.  Does this suggest that we wouldn't want to take care of our own offspring if they weren't cute?  Is there possibly an evolutionary purpose for our preference to cute things?

(There are a few different questions in this post; you can just answer one if you'd like to)

Pleasure in Pain

In class, we talked about how people listen to sad music, not just because they "have to" in order to fully appreciate music, but because they want to.  People seek out sad songs.  People also love to watch "tearjerker" movies. Why is it that people want to be saddened by a song or other work of art, but not by real life experiences?  After all, we tend to avoid most negative situations.  Davies briefly mentioned the theory that people use negative art as a way to purge their own negative feelings.  I agree with this.  This reminds me of what Freud said about art.  He said that it's easier to view something painful or sad or disturbing in a work of art and appreciate it as something separate from yourself, than to admit that you have those negative feelings too.  Negative art allows people to feel pain without admitting their own pain.  It serves as a distraction from their own problems.

People voluntarily engage in all sorts of painful activities such as body piercing, tattoos, sadomasochism, or other forms of self harm.  One reason people may do this is simply for the thrill.  It could be exciting and adventurous to hurt yourself.  It could also be used as an escape from reality, the way people listen to sad music as an escape from reality.  

Music as Language (Response to Amy Rosvally)

I believe that music is capable of being used as a language.  If the definition of a language is the use of voice or symbols to intellectually and linguistically communicate, than why can't this include music?  Sound can be a symbol.  I agree with you that usually, music is only used to express general emotions, not specific messages.  But that doesn't mean it can't express specific emotions.  For example, the sound of a bell signals the end of a class period in high school.  A firm alarm signals danger.  The sound of crying represents sadness.  We have learned to associate certain sounds with specific meanings.  This is how language works too.  And, if we are defining music as organized sound, then music can be used to communicate specific messages.  

Question:  What if human beings were born with out the ability to speak verbally?  How would we communicate?

Another Response to Christina

  You're right; the threat of the mother's life is a circumstance.  I should have made my point a little clearer.  In the rare case of having to choose between the mother's life and the fetus's life, I believe that abortion is justified because, either way, someone has to die.  I don't think that any other conditions can justify abortion because they are merely inconveniences to the mother.  Basically, I oppose abortion because I think everyone has a right to life.  However, this means that the mother has a right to life and if her fetus is going to kill her than it should be terminated.  Any other circumstance, no matter how traumatic (rape, incest, etc), does no justify abortion.

Response to Christina Porter

Christina asked if abortion is okay circumstantially.  She lists a few hypothetical situations (rape, incest, etc) and wonders how someone could expect a woman to abort her fetus in these circumstances.  I think that if you are morally opposed to abortion, there should be no exceptions (unless the pregnancy is  threat to the mother's life).  So, abortion is morally wrong no matter what the circumstance is- unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother.  Like I have stated previously in my blog entries, I believe that a fetus is a person.  It is morally wrong to kill a person no matter how inconvenient they might be.  A pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest is a horrible situation, but the fetus is still a person with rights.  

Christina also asks if it is ethical to bring a baby into the world just so they can suffer the hardships of being an orphan.  Nobody can decide for somebody else what life is worth living and what life isn't.  I'm positive that there are many people who grew up without parents who are happy and grateful for their life.  No person should have that much power- that they can decide who lives and who doesn't based on how glamourous the life ahead of them is.  

For me personally, abortion is not an issue of circumstance.  You can't allow for some abortions but not others based on how bad you feel for the mother's situation.  That is subjective; you can't base a decision as serious as this on it.  If you consider a fetus a person, than abortion is always murder, and always morally wrong.  

Question:  If you think abortion is okay in cases of rape or incest, in what other circumstances would you allow abortion?  Where do you draw the line?

Response to Amy Rosvally

Amy asked if abortion can be considered murder if it is performed before the fetus has any brain activity.  If murder is defined as killing a person, then we are back to the question "How do we define a 'person'"?  I have already stated my views on personhood; I believe that all humans are persons, no matter what their mental capabilities are.  A fertilized egg may not yet have brain activity, but neither does a person (that is, if you still consider them a person) who has been declared brain dead.  I'm wondering why we determine personhood based on brain activity.  Does having higher levels of brain function make someone more of a person?  Does a mental handicap detract from someone's personhood?  Or is it more black and white: having any brain activity, no matter how limited, makes one a person?

I think it is important to regard a fetus as a person because although it doesn't have brain activity at first, it will.  It is a growing person.  Just because it is in a very early stage of development doesn't make it insignificant.  I'd also like to point out that brain activity begins very early in the fetus's development; abortions are performed on fetus's who have brains.   Someone used to term "potential person" in class today, which I like.  Even if you don't see a fetus as a person, it is undeniable that it is a potential person.  This is more significant than "honorary personhood" because, by terminating a fetus, you are ending the development of a human.  A honorary person, on the other hand, will never actually be a person.  

(My questions are at the end of the first paragraph.)

Ownership, Creation, and Personhood

When trying to determine the criteria for "personhood", people seem to place a lot of- and, in my opinion, too much- emphasis on the creator and/or owner of the person.  As Davies points out, we cringe at the sight of an instrument being destroyed, not solely because of the craftsmanship involved in making it or our respect for the owner, but because they have a certain status of importance which may or not be considered honorary personhood.  It's not about offending the person who created it or the person who paid good money for it and now owns it.  If an instrument is an honorary person, it is because it has value that is independent from it's relationship with a human.  Similarly, a person in a vegetative state has value regardless of whether or not he or she has any living relatives that care about him or her. 

Today in class I brought up the hypocritical stance many people take on the issue of abortion.  People think that a woman should be allowed to choose to terminate her fetus, but if someone murders her and her fetus, it is considered double homicide.  Our society and our laws place more emphasis on ownership of the fetus than the fetus' status as a person.  If a woman should have the right to abort her fetus simply because she created it, then shouldn't she also have the right to kill her newborn infant?  What about her teenage son or daughter?  She still created him or her.  Obviously, this emphasis on ownership and creation cannot be applied to all stages of human life.  To me, the abortion issue is about the value of life and the value of a person- not the right to choose, a woman's right to privacy, or women's ownership of their body.  Interestingly enough, I identify as a feminist and feel extremely passionate about women's rights.  I do not, however, feel that abortion is a women's rights issue.  To regard abortion as simply "a woman's choice" undermines and even insults the fetus' value and importance.  A woman and a man (men are so disregarded in the abortion debate and it really saddens me) create a child, and according to the law they do own it.  But that isn't what makes it valuable.  The fetus still has an identity separate from it's parents, whether or not it is aware of that.  

I agree with Davies that personhood is a degree of importance and value separate from human relationships and attachments.  Sure, a musician will feel upset when they see an instrument destroyed or abused- but not because it's a waste of money or because they are deeply concerned with respecting the person who made it.  If a musical instrument is an honorary person, then it has a special, independent significance.  Similarly, a human fetus has personhood regardless of it's creators'/owners' relationship to it.  The abortion debate has been turned into something it's not- an issue of choice and feminism.  To make it into a women's issue takes away from the real issue- the fetus and it's status as a person. 

Question:  Do non musicians tend to regard musical instruments in the same way musicians do?  If not, than are musical instruments only honorary persons to musicians?  Shouldn't an honorary person be universal and not specific to individuals?

Who-or what- is a person?

The term "person" is commonly used synonymously with the term "human", but should other forms of life be granted personhood?  My initial response was "no".  I believe that all forms of human life (ranging from fertilized eggs to people in a vegetative state) are all equally deserving of personhood.  But there are many legitimate arguments that say animals are also persons.  They have cognitive thought processes and some are aware of their own existence.  If we allow animals into personhood (not to say that we, as humans, can really determine who does and doesn't have personhood), then we must allow other forms of life into it as well, such as artificial life, artificial intelligence, aliens, and more.  What about a human who has an artificial limb?  What about multiple artificial parts?  At what point does a human being loose it's personhood?  

I believe that all human beings-no matter what stage of life or what physical, mental, or emotional deficiency they may have- retain personhood.  Although a zygote may not yet be considered a "person" by some people, it will be in time.  And although a person in a vegetative state may not be considered a "person" by some people, it once was a person.  Personhood is not something you gain and loose;  it is something constant throughout all stages of life.  A fertilized egg is no different (in regards to personhood) than a fully developed fetus, or a newborn, or a teenager, or an elderly person.  It's all about stages of life.  Partial birth abortion, a procedure that is actually supported by a lot of people- is actually more like infanticide than abortion.  It involves delivering the fetuses entire body except for the head, and vacuuming out it's brain, with the fetus' head still inside the woman.  It seems completely ridiculous to me that people would deny this living being the rights of personhood simply because it is not fully outside of the mother's body yet.  We must accept people all different phases of life as a legitimate person; it is too confusing and morally vague if you set specific conditions for "personhood" in human beings.

Animals, on the other hand, are a different story.  I was a vegetarian for four years, and a very strong supporter of animal rights.  I understand the point of view of animal activists who claim that animals deserve "personhood".  However, I personally view animals as inferior to human beings.  I know this is probably an extremely unpopular view, and I don't intend to offend anyone.  I am not in favor of the mistreatment or abuse of animals, but it is natural to consume them for food.  Animals consume other animals, too.  It's part of the circle of life.  I still oppose killing animals for unnecessary things such as clothing or, even worse, for sport, if it can be avoided.  But I don't think animal life should be valued on quite the same level human life is valued.  Animals deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and maybe they should be considered honorary persons.  But they are not equal to humans.  

Speaking of honorary persons, how can we establish who-or what- does or doesn't deserve honorary personhood?  Davies argues that musical instruments are, in some aspect, honorary persons, because we don't like to see them physically harmed.  Are books honorary persons as well?  I know that the burning of books would be hard to watch for many people.  It's not only the physical item that people are so concerned about, it's the idea of knowledge and the spreading of ideas that people value so much.  The same thing can be said for musical instruments.  Part of what makes them so special might be the things we associate with them.  In class, it was mentioned that a certain philosopher (whose name I forget) regards humans in vegetative states as honorary persons- not actual persons.  I have already stated why I don't agree with this.  It is a little disturbing to think that a person in a vegetative state would be considered on the same level of personhood as a musical instrument.  Maybe I'm just being to narrow-minded, but I really have a hard time accepting anything other than a human being into "personhood".  Things like animals and musical instruments should be handled with care and respect.  And maybe animals should even be given the same rights as human beings, but that doesn't mean they are persons.  It just means they have the same rights as persons.

It becomes very tricky when you start to accept other forms of life into "personhood".  Although all living beings should be treated with appreciation and dignity, it is actually unnatural to treat anything other than a human being as a person.  A human being, regardless of their physical condition, age, or mental state, should never be denied personhood.  Human life is valuable and important; it seems wrong to give it to other living things- or even objects- just because they are extremely special to us.  Even if you believe that all animals should be treated equally to human beings, that would not make us equal.  It would mean we have the same rights, but an animal is still not a person.  A musical instrument is also not a person, no matter how precious it is to it's owner.

Question:  If you think animals are "persons", do you also consider human fetuses "persons"?  What about animal eggs?  Where do you draw the line?

Response to Krystal Maynard

Question:  Is there any justification for a musician who destroys their own instrument?

Assuming that the destruction is intentional, I don't think there is any justification- although there may be a somewhat reasonable explanation for why a musician would destroy his/her own instrument.  I was always under the impression that when a band smashes their guitars at the end of a show, it was because they were so overwhelmed with the energy and emotion of the performance that it was a sort of expression of their feelings.  I guess I was naive to assume that, because Krystal mentioned that Nirvana would destroy their instruments to ensure they wouldn't have to play an encore.  This is incredibly selfish.  They obviously don't care much about their fans or their music if they would destroy an expensive instrument just to make sure they got off stage as quickly as possible.  Artists (and musicians) are often very eccentric, overly passionate, and compulsive people.  This might be why they would do something so drastic on stage.  Davies cites a few examples of instrument abuse, such as a score that calls for a person from the audience to throw darts at the back of the piano.  This just seems pointless to me.  I can't understand why a musician would include that in the piece (although, I couldn't understand why John Cage would sit on stage for 4 minutes and 33 seconds in silence and call it music until I read more about it, so maybe there is an artistic reason for doing something so bizarre, and I just don't understand it).  I think there are two kinds of instrument abuse: the kind that is done spontaneously, and it is separate from the actual music, and the kind that is supposed to be a part of the music.  I can understand the spontaneous instrument abuse better than the planned kind, although I am not a fan of either.

Question:  Has anyone ever destroyed an instrument?  For what purpose?

Music in Context

Some people argue that a song cannot be fully appreciated unless you know the historical and social context of it.  I've noticed that when I talk to people of different generations about music, they tend to assume that I wont understand the music they grew up with.  They assume that, since I didn't live through it, I can't fully appreciate it.   But I don't believe that I should have to research the historical context of the song, or read an autobiography of the musician to understand the song.  Call me lazy, but I don't think the audience should have to do homework just to be able to appreciate a song.  A great song is one that resonates to people of all generations.  One that addresses general themes of life that never become irrelevant.  In Clive Bell's essay, "Art", he says "The ideas of men go buzz and die like gnats; men change their institutions and their customs as they change theirs coats; the intellectual triumphs of one age are the follies of another; only great art remains stable and unobscure.  Great art remains stable and unobscure because the feelings that it awakens are independent of time and place, because its kingdom is not of this world."  This can be applied to music as well, especially if you consider music to be art.  It is something that transcends circumstance.  It shouldn't matter what the musician was going through in his or her life when he/she wrote the song.  It shouldn't matter what the political conditions of the world were.  It should only matter how the song moves people regardless of when they were born and how much they know.