Auction to Kill

(Photo taken from USAToday.com Karl Stromayer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife service via AP)

A Texas man won an auction to hunt and kill a black rhino in Namibia. Corey Knowlton, a professional hunter from Dallas, successfully killed and imported a black rhino, and had to dish out $350, 000 to do so. In an ironic twist, Knowlton has received death threats from those supporting the life of the Rhino, so it is Knowlton who may now be hunted. The rhino has more value placed on it than human life, apparently. Knowlton says that the money paid will go to fund that aid in conservation of the animal. Knowlton justifies his killing due to the fact that the rhino was no longer contributing to increasing the population of rhinos, and may have endangered younger male rhinos. Comparatively, female babies in old Eskimo culture were killed out of necessity because there may have otherwise been a shortage of food (Rosenstand, 2013). Both examples rationalize one of the universal values: A policy of caring for enough infants to ensure the continuation of a group. So is Knowlton a murderer? Is he ethically wrong for paying to kill a rhino? In the usual public fashion, People are overreacting. Knowlton has actual logic in his decision to kill the animal, and it actually makes sense. I'm not surprised, logic isn't really a consideration, emotion rules in most cases. 



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/05/20/dallas-safari-club-texan-kills-black-rhino/27639801/

Watch What You Say...

This weeks article is of an employee of a national sandwich shop chain, Subway, who was fired for remarks made on social media. Sierra McCurdy celebrated the death of two police officers that were shot and killed in Mississippi, following a traffic stop. First, I need to rant about the fact that people are getting a bit carried away with their right to "the freedom of speech". The First Amendment is not a pass to say vile things without consequence. It also does not protect the way others perceive you based on your opinion. In an attempt to objectively understand why this young lady made her remark, I consider the state of current police/public relations. This woman obviously feels betrayed by the police. The police are her enemy, and as such she feels that we are better off without them. It is an unfortunate consequence of the negative portrayal of police in media, they are such brave public servants. In this situation, Sierra is not necessarily evil, as her post would suggest; she is merely voicing an opinion based on environmental stimulus. She should have considered the consequence of her actions. Several recent instances of police injustice include the Baltimore shooting of Freddie Gray, and the North Charleston, South Carolina shooting of Walter Scott, among other such cases. The expression pioneered by German philosopher Hanna Arendt, the banality of evil, provides theory to Sierras statement. Sierra's employment was terminated from Subway. It is important to understand that  people must consider who they represent at that present moment before voicing an opinion. Subway responds, "This kind of behavior is unacceptable and does not represent the values and ethics of our brand."

Read News Article Here

What's Yours Is MINE!

Alas! The time has come again for me to spread my wisdom across the web. I actually enjoy writing my opinion in this format, and may continue to do so even after the conclusion of my course. After a weeklong vacation, cruising in Europe, I am ready to tackle another post. This weeks article, taken from The Guardian, is of a couple that utilized a fertility treatment to preserve embryos, and the ensuing battle for disposition after the couple split. You'll shortly understand why this article is relevant, in the meantime I will summarize a couple of key points in bullet format.

• Man claims to consider himself Catholic
• Couple agreed to bring embryos to term with mutual consent
• Catholic church forbids unnatural conception
• Pope Benedict..."IVF embryos have right to life even before implantation"
• Man wants the contract voided so that he may take possession of embryos 

So you see the ethical dilemma here? There is none. Issues of morality prevail. Philosopher Immanuel Kant defines evil as a self-serving choice that individuals make freely, even when they know fill well the moral law they ought to be following (Rosenstand, 2013). Let's be clear, I am not calling this man evil. I am, however, curious about what his intentions were for making such a private matter public. Previously, I mentioned that the man considers himself catholic. So why would he engage in practices that the religion frowns upon? The answer is simple. People are sometimes inclined to disregard morality on the basis of personal satisfaction. As a predominately self-serving body, we tend to do the thing that will cause us the greatest amount of satisfaction. What rationale guided this mans decision? Does he desire the ability to create the "perfect child"? Perhaps he wanted to embarrass his former partner. Nonetheless, this article highlights a person who appears to desire public persuasion to achieve his desired outcome. He seems concerned with his own motives, with no regard to anyone else. 

Rosenstand, N. (2013). The Moral of the Story: An Introduction to Ethics (7th Edition ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Read Original Article Here