The pleasure in the Kill

Recently, their has been great outrage over the killing of a lion called Cecil outside one of Zimbabwe's national parks by an American dentist. According to officials, the hunt was illegal and Cecil the lion was one of the park's and the nation's most treasured protected lions. We often observe farm animals being kept in much worse conditions than the huge national park that Cecil lived in and they are often subject to even more gruesome deaths than Cecil was. So, why is the outrage so great?

It seems the reason is that instead of being done out of necessity or for some justifiable purpose, it was done purely for sport; it was done purely to give this dentist an adrenaline rush and make him feel more powerful than the "King of the Jungle". The killing was not done for any other reason than to give this man an experience, an experience which he paid over $50,000 USD for. The article linked below, continues the discussion on the outrage and echoes many of the points made in this posting.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/30/the-guardian-view-on-cecil-the-lion-the-immorality-is-in-the-pleasure-of-the-kill

Physician-Assisted Death

It is a topic often discussed with opinions being highly polarized. It's either you support it or are against and rarely do you fin any middle ground. This is the topic of Euthanasia or, in a more politically correct sense, physician-assisted death. Proponents of Euthanasia often favour it because it allows an individual ,who is almost always diagnosed with a non-treatable terminal illness, to choose where there die, who is with them when they die and the most peaceful and pain-free manner in which they may pass. Opponents to Euthanasia almost always use the religious justification that it is wrong because it violates the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill" and they view it as a form of murder/suicide.

With all that being said, I am in favour of physician-assisted dying as it allows a person to pass on with as much dignity as possible. It allows them to leave this plain of existence as a favorable version of themselves rather than a shadow and empty shell of a person dying on a hospital bed after months, if not of years, of painful and unsuccessful treatment, It seems as my view is also shared by the state of California as a bill recently passed titled, "The California End-of-Life Options Act" which would legalize physician-assisted dying allows for exactly this. The link below delves more into the proposed law and it's ramifications.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-heilig/physicianassisted-dying-h_b_7736606.html

Should I Point out and Respond to another's Prejudice?

It is often said, "Know your place". What exactly is one's "place" when it come to noticing, point out and responding to another individuals prejudice. The article posted below this post speaks of mechanic shop where the owner has a provocative and racially oriented poster displayed on his walls. He may not be completely aware that the poster carries racial undertones but the fact that he sees it as acceptable displays that he carries some prejudice. Is it your place as a customer to point it out? Is it your place to say that you find it offensive? Is it your place to say that it should be taken down? These are all important ethical questions which must be discussed.

This concept has further relevance in the recent debate concerning the confederate flag in the US. The people who fly it may not understand the racial undertones associated with it but at the same time, by flying the flag, they put forward the message that they have no problems with what the flag represents. Who's place is it to say if the flag is offensive and if it should be taken down?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/magazine/can-i-post-a-photo-of-a-bad-driver.html?ref=topics&_r=0

Life After Death

Is it possible to continue to give life after your own death? Can you still have children even after you're long gone? A recent case in the UK dealt with the mother of a deceased female acting as a surrogate for her unborn children through the use of in vitro fertilization and frozen eggs from her daughter. The mother claims that the last dying wish of her daughter was to have her "children" born through her mother as she herself would not be around. The daugheter did not have any partner and hoped to see the eggs fertalized through an anonymous sperm donor. However, this case was rejected by the courts and the mother was not allowed to act as a surrogate due to the courts being unable to establish that this was the daughter's actual wish.

In my opinion, I believe it would be unethical and immoral to allow this procedure to take place. The children would be born to an elderly mother, who would legally be their mother but not biologically. Also, they will grow up only hearing stories of their mother and not knowing who their actual father is. I beleive it would be selfish on the part of the mother to bring the children into to the world simply because that was her daughter's wish.