“Unspeakable Conversations” by Harriet McBryde Johnson and “An Animal's Place” by Michael Pollan are both amazing stories about life and death. With the question, to what extent is it possible to define what makes a “good life” for humans and other animals, it’s difficult to find the right answer if there is one. There is no doubt that animals don’t have rights in the traditional sense, or in any other sense. Should we live with the same concept for humans born with mental illnesses? Singer’s arguments are strong but though some illnesses may lead to a person being stuck in a vegetable state of mind, we must understand that anything is possible in this day and time. With a great deal of effort and support, their lives may change but who are
…show more content…
Since they lack the ability to reason, they can’t have rights so they aren’t responsible. Does that make it acceptable to treats animals badly? Of course not; but animals can’t decide their fate so the humans must decide for them. In "An Animal's Place," Michael Pollan introduces Peter Singer's argument, which is both difficult, and simple to argue against. Based on equality, people realize they aren’t equal at all: "Some are smarter than others, more gifted, and better looking.” The point is that "…everyone's interests should receive equal consideration, regardless of what abilities they may possess” (Pollan). This is where the problems and questions actually begin. If one person is smarter than the others and uses another person for his own cause, then how can we avoid using animals for the exact same …show more content…
Bewildered and rather defensive, Beth attempts to figure out why she chose to handle herself the way she did. When Beth refers to Singer advocating genocide and her panic towards the thought of his philosophy being correct, Johnson states that “his talk won't matter in the end”. Johnson then states that Singer “doesn’t propose killing anyone who prefers to live.” Beth replies by saying, “So what if that view wins out, but you can’t break disability prejudice? What if you wind up in a world where the disabled person’s ‘irrational’ preference to live must yield to society’s ‘rational’ interest in reducing the incidence of disability? Doesn’t horror kick in somewhere? Maybe as you watch the door close behind whoever has wheeled you into the gas chamber?” Johnson, being very well aware that this has happened in the past, is left with nothing but her belief. She questions if she’s clinging to foolish hope and “that the tragic protagonist, this one time, will shift course before it's too late” (Johnson), knowing that belief and hope would not do much justice.
In conclusion, death is final. For some it’s a natural and peaceful, while others have to put up with an immense amount of pain to get there. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. There’s many arguments supporting it such as letting people die with dignity
Since they lack the ability to reason, they can’t have rights so they aren’t responsible. Does that make it acceptable to treats animals badly? Of course not; but animals can’t decide their fate so the humans must decide for them. In "An Animal's Place," Michael Pollan introduces Peter Singer's argument, which is both difficult, and simple to argue against. Based on equality, people realize they aren’t equal at all: "Some are smarter than others, more gifted, and better looking.” The point is that "…everyone's interests should receive equal consideration, regardless of what abilities they may possess” (Pollan). This is where the problems and questions actually begin. If one person is smarter than the others and uses another person for his own cause, then how can we avoid using animals for the exact same …show more content…
Bewildered and rather defensive, Beth attempts to figure out why she chose to handle herself the way she did. When Beth refers to Singer advocating genocide and her panic towards the thought of his philosophy being correct, Johnson states that “his talk won't matter in the end”. Johnson then states that Singer “doesn’t propose killing anyone who prefers to live.” Beth replies by saying, “So what if that view wins out, but you can’t break disability prejudice? What if you wind up in a world where the disabled person’s ‘irrational’ preference to live must yield to society’s ‘rational’ interest in reducing the incidence of disability? Doesn’t horror kick in somewhere? Maybe as you watch the door close behind whoever has wheeled you into the gas chamber?” Johnson, being very well aware that this has happened in the past, is left with nothing but her belief. She questions if she’s clinging to foolish hope and “that the tragic protagonist, this one time, will shift course before it's too late” (Johnson), knowing that belief and hope would not do much justice.
In conclusion, death is final. For some it’s a natural and peaceful, while others have to put up with an immense amount of pain to get there. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. There’s many arguments supporting it such as letting people die with dignity