Love?

Love, what is it? Just the word love will doubtless draw some in and simultaneously repulse others. Love encompasses a myriad of meanings and commands a multitude of emotions. But perhaps the most commonly regarded setting in which love reigns supreme would be in the lovely context of relationships in particular romantic relationships (whatever that means).

There appear to be two major reasons why people marry; for love or for money. Perhaps these two reasons are inextricably synonymous and one no more noble than the next, because after all are not the reasons for such unions love at its core; love of love or love of money. However, such motives seem not to be prompted by love but rather by selfishness and greed. So, because both motivators driving individuals into the marriage vows are at their core egocentric how can those marriages possibly be successful, lasting or happy? One might say that these marriages will work because both parties are getting what they want; love or money. However, love grows cold and money loses its value so in the end the very foundation upon which these unions were formed decays and dwindles away leaving in its wake the shards of broken marriages and scared and jaded lovers.

I do not believe in love, I believe in friendship. What is often interpreted as love are merely feelings and emotions in a word, infatuation. Because love (or shall we rename infatuation, desire, etc.) and money alike fail to serve as strong foundations for a relationships because both are rooted in personal desires and egotism we must therefore build a foundation or relationship devoid of such motives, one which seeks not personal gain from the relationship but rather communal harmony, reciprocation, and unconditional companionship.

But why friendship? Because when the flames of desire and passion flicker down or out with age, hardship and time the relationship is supported by the strong foundation of friendship, of general liking for one another and of a secure happy companionship. Love, or passion as is a more apropos name lacks substance and quickly disintegrates away leaving little trace of its existence, but on the contrary a deep friendship lasts because it is founded in affection, in genuine liking for one another, in honesty and in accepting and appreciating every aspect of the other whether good or bad for what is is and how it lends to making up that particular individual.

This is not to say marriages with friendship as the core foundation of the relationship are lackluster and dull, completely devoid infatuation, attraction, and passionate nights. In fact such relationships enjoy such pleasures and to their fullest only when these couples awake in the morning they look into the eyes of both their lover and friend. One’s lover quickly finds another object for their affection but one’s friend does not so bore of you and move on because friendship continues to grow, mature and deepen with age rather than get wrinkles, grey hair and ill humor.

Language’s Enemy

Undoubtedly, every one of us as humans has experienced barriers to our communication or expression in some way. Such barriers could be; a disability or a social detriment. But, perhaps your political correctness could serve as a social barrier. Political correctness which demands far beyond the confines of decent respectful behavior and speech, but rather seeks to inhibit our free exercise of communication. This kind of political correctness restrains and controls a society; in fact, “until recently, only Nazis and Stalinists spoke of “political correctness”(Drucker 380). Political Correctness is a word our society today is quite familiar with. Political correctness has become the bar by which our language is judged and hence our culture and ourselves as individuals. Could our culture be suppressed by this standard? Today I want to dig deeper into the effects political correctness has had on our society and ourselves as individuals, and our language.

Our language in today’s culture must be filtered through the sieve of political correctness before encoded to the rest of society. Unfortunately, in the process of eliminating from our language those ideas or views which do not meet the criteria of political correctness, vital facts and knowledge are lost. The repercussions from this weeding out of knowledge are reflected in education, our schools and literature. Our Universities have suffered a great deal from this new rise in political correctness because, “today’s political correctness is not at all interested in academicians. It ignores them as long as they keep their mouths shut. But it is making a determined effort to gain control of the institution, the university, and of higher learning altogether” (Drucker 383-384).

Fear from the oppressive force of political correctness has infiltrated our universities.

The students fear to contribute their feelings and thoughts lest they feel the penalty in some way. For example, perhaps a group of students have mixed feelings about a racial issue. Many productive discussions might be forgone due to the potential danger to the student of stating an opposing opinion. Thus, our schools forgo necessary elements of reasoning and philosophy generated by the young minds of students stimulated by their curiosity. Curiosity is what has created our education system and ultimately our language.

Due to the fear generated by political correctness, establishments for higher learning or any learning have been compromised and “it is no exaggeration to suggest that the legitimate concerns of the purveyors of political correctness have run amok and threaten to replace the open and free discussion of ideas in the pursuit of truth with constricted dialogue and suffocating censorship” (Curtler 275). Contributions of past generations unhindered by the shackles of political correctness have formed the knowledge of today, this present generation and their influence on the world’s fabric of information has been stifled. Today’s learning will greatly be hindered if such suppression of knowledge continues to pervade our “school of thought.”

Not only have the students in our educational institutions felt the winds of suppression from political correctness, but the teachers have especially. This perhaps is the most detrimental to our educational advance as a society. Professors feel every day the fatal breath of the beast of political correctness. In fear of losing their position or good standing in the institution’s eyes, professors avoid certain topics or completely delete from their curriculum valid facts which, although perhaps uncomfortable, are crucial to the advancement of learning. For example, perhaps in a literature class the professor decides not to examine an excerpt from “Tom Sawyer” because of the potential controversy which might arise, thus students miss out on one of the great classic works in American literature. Also, in the pursuit of teaching from a purely objective standpoint, students are bereaved of the opportunity to glean from the personal experience and knowledge of a highly intellectual and learned professor.

Political correctness has already banished from our libraries and classrooms some of the greatest works in literature. As “one of the abominations of our day, and there are many, is the beast of political correctness that has been turned loose on the world. Born of genuine humanitarian impulses, it threatens to now devour much of what is greatest in our literature and forever separate the children of our culture from what is essential to their humanity” (Curtler 272). The loss of information from past generations will affect our generation adversely because the applicable pieces of thought and study which enriched past generations will be lost to us in the present.

The effect of political correctness on our education today is just as dangerous as was the suppression of knowledge to the common people during the time when the Catholic church was the dominating power. Knowledge was done away with in past ages through book burnings or conquering powers who upon conquering destroyed. Even as bigots and conquerors of old rooted out knowledge even so political correctness in our age threatens the learning and knowledge of both our past and present curious scholars.

Another effect of political correctness to ourselves and society is to our language directly. Political correctness affects our thoughts and whether we choose to communicate them and how we go about the channeling our thoughts to fit the politically correct mold. The danger in so conforming our ideas to fit a set mold, is that our true meanings are inevitably lost, and no new contribution is made to the development of our generation’s advancement in learning. But why has political correctness taken such a root in our society, why do we all inevitably fear and submit to it?

We as humans instinctively seek after the approval of others and ultimately of our society. Political correctness has become a rule book which we must abide by if we are to be accepted or even tolerated. Both the “risk of negative reactions from superiors, along with the risk of surveillance, appear to be potentially strong reasons for refraining from expressing oneself” (Steen-Johnsen, Enjolras, 358). Thus, political correctness has through the power of fear has infiltrated and suppressed the “marketplace of ideas.” Great revolutions of the mind and breakthroughs in new knowledge has been possible because of a gathering together of great and small minds alike in the “marketplace of ideas.”

Consider what would be the outcome be if the great channel of human communication where both theories and fact intermingle is exterminated from our society? Our culture will most certainly decline into a robotic and useless hoard which knows, communicates and obeys only that which is deemed tolerable under the dictatorship of political correctness.

Political correctness coerces our very language, threatening to exterminate out of our vocabulary certain words or even phrases which are not amicable by its standards. Some such words which are threatened by political correctness are “forefathers” or “sportsmanship.” Language being the very extract of a people and the essence of their country, can be a looking glass to our country’s past generation, their ideas, struggles, mistakes and merit. Instead of weeding out phrases or words from our language deeming them as politically incorrect we should embrace these words or phrases in their original context and use them as examples to better understand ourselves and our culture’s present controversies.

Political correctness has become a great barrier to great communication. In our attempts as a culture to become more progressive and inclusive we blindly under the leadership of political correctness have through the coercion of communication and expression become a more close minded and unfair society. If our we wish to advance as a civilization, we must reopen the “market of ideas,” only then will advances be made: advances in learning and harmony amongst our companions.

A Case For Life: Euthanasia

Human life in most cultures is sacred and protected. What separates humans from animals, and why should our species be protected if we are not considered qualitatively distinct? In secular culture, humans are viewed as a “plague species” because of the environmental degradation that we are causing through overpopulation. If such is true of human life, then our species should be eradicated to protect the environment and our planet by those persons who assume the duty of protecting the environment at whatever cost.

Human life however is different and superior from animals. According to the Christian perspective, humans were created in the image of God and therefore possess traits that animals do not have: rationality, creativity, love, compassion. Humans are not only created in the image of God, but are also created equal, eliminating ideas that categorize some people as sub-human. Even from a non-Christian perspective, humans are in many ways superior creatures to animals because of our ability to reason, articulate thoughts and create. Considering some individuals to be less human than others is a dangerous ideology, which enable the exploitation, disregard, and in some cases annihilation of human life. Since humans are fundamentally unique and equal, life must be protected, and laws established that follow an ethical code safeguarding the lives of every person.

Physician assisted suicide is currently illegal in most of our states, but there is an effort to legalize the practice completely in America. Physician assisted suicide enables anyone to request a physician to administer a lethal injection that would end that person’s life. The legalization of physician assisted suicide in this country could corrupt our culture and enable such practices to materialize and therefore should remain illegal. The practice of physician assisted suicide is an unethical and dangerous practice because first, it erodes the value of human life and could expose vulnerable groups to non-voluntary assisted suicide. Second most patients requesting euthanasia are in too poor of physiological and psychological conditions to make such a decision. Finally, it violates the ethical standards of both this country and the medical field.

Those who argue for the legalization of euthanasia https://everipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia/ do so under the pretense that such an action would ensure dignity for patients by controlling how they die. Some argue that physician assisted suicide enables patients to die unobtrusively in their sleep. Yet this is not the preservation of human dignity. The sanctity of human life and the dignity of life is directly compromised when a patient’s decision to live or die is based on the quality or kind of life the patient would or would not have. If human life is only as good as its performance, then humanity has no dignity. Dignity and human life through the lens of life- ending procedures becomes optional and therefore void of those qualities which make human life sacred. The respect of human life is truly the basis of dignity. Dignity is not defined by social norms or the way death comes to each one of us, but rather in the life we lead as human beings. Euthanasia therefore corrupts the dignity and sanctity of human life. Euthanasia dehumanizes and distorts how we perceive humanity by making human life optional and consequently void of intrinsic value.

Euthanasia poses a threat to the respect and protection of both individuals and governing powers for humanity. Euthanasia is merely a beginning platform for a movement much like the one witnessed in Nazi Germany, where human beings were labeled, placed in categories and exploited. The perspective of humanity which views life as meaningless and certain groups or all people as merely another species to be dealt with accordingly has a very grim outlook for humans. Dehumanization enables some humans to exploit or exterminate their fellow man because if indeed human life is not special, there are no boundaries, no standards to follow. But how could euthanasia cause dehumanization or threaten certain groups in our world? When a physician terminates the life of a voluntary patient the physician, patient, and anyone else involved become party to an action which violates human life. Some patients however could be suffering excruciating pain or solely dependent on life support. In such cases some form of physician assisted suicide are often considered as a humane measure. When life is taken for granted and become optional humanity is being directly attacked. The mindset behind physician assisted suicide sees humans as disposable and therefore of little intrinsic value. Humans seen through this perspective are no better than animals to be disposed of or machines to be exploited.

Those persons who do not contribute and are rather considered a detriment could be at a risk of being removed because according to Rocio Martinez, “If certain people are not perceived as being human– or as being totally human–any behavior towards them might be justified, no matter how negative it is” (Martínez et al 1111) When “human” is removed from “humanity” tragedies can be carried out unhampered by human standards. The danger would be extremely relevant to those patients who suffer from dementia because in their helpless and psychologically impaired state physician assisted suicide could be implemented involuntarily to rid families and the state of the burden of taking care of the seemingly worthless individual.

One of the problems is that when human life is valued only by its material value or by the amount of contribution it can give, humans can be regarded as disposable and discardable creatures based on their performance and capabilities. Euthanasia is based on the idea that human life is worth preserving only while it is fully functional and productive. Therefore assisted suicide would usher in an age in which humans are viewed as merely machines and not the unique beings we really are.

Another reason why euthanasia should remain illegal in this country is because patients seeking this option are often in a poor condition to make such a decision. When individuals find themselves battling a terminal illness or a psychological disease they often become quite depressed and feel suicidal. Were euthanasia to be legalized, any patient regardless of their state of mind could request physician-assisted-suicide on the pretext that life was not worth living or that they were destined to die anyway. Suicidal thoughts are not rational, they stem entirely from a turbulent and distressed mind. Patients suffering from disease or depression often make rash decisions based on how they feel at that moment rather than a thoughtful consideration for the future.

A life ending decision piloted by a patient’s irrational emotions and encouraged by the option of assisted suicide could result in increasing numbers of voluntary or involuntary death. Patients in a weak state of mind and body would more likely choose physician-assisted-suicide as a comfortable alternative to physiological or psychological treatment. The factors which lead people all over our country to commit suicide are similar to those which lead others to seek euthanasia thus Euthanasia and suicide are parallel paths because they both seek the termination of life.

The reasons which drive patients to make the decision to end life either at their own hands or by that of a physician are much the same. One factor that is at the core of both suicide and euthanasia is hopelessness. According to Aaron Beck, those persons who experience hopelessness or sever pain often have limited expectations for the future and therefore believe that suicide or euthanasia is the only way to escape their seemingly unsolvable problems (Beck et al 2).

Euthanasia is a form of suicide https://everipedia.org/wiki/Suicide/. Patients who request this procedure usually are in a dysfunctional psychological state of mind which blinds their thinking and prompts them to take grievous actions. The decision of euthanasia rather than treating patients underlying problems or helping them find meaning through the dying process instead encourages them to take the step that ultimately will take their lives. Many patients with terminal illnesses, mental or physical disabilities, or severe depression might consider the option of euthanasia to that of treatment were the practice to be legalized. When life becomes optional, its responsibilities, possibilities, and sacredness decrease and people ultimately despair which in this case would result in their voluntary death. Were euthanasia to be legalized, many more patients who suffer from depression or illness would choose to die rather than seek treatment or find meaning in the life they have.

Euthanasia should ultimately remain illegal because of its violation of ethical and moral standards. Modern medicine was founded on the principle of preserving, protecting, and improving human life. Modern medicine however found its beginnings thousands of years prior to our age. The art of medical treatment and medicine was quite prevalent in ancient Rome and Greece as it is in our day. The Hippocratic oath https://everipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath/ is an ancient code of ethics pertaining to medical treatment which to this day new physicians swear to abide by. One excerpt from the Harvard Classics Translation of the Hippocratic oath states, “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel” (vol. 38). Euthanasia violates this ethical principle completely. According to this statement no physician shall administer a fatal medicine that would signify euthanasia. Therefore, if modern medicine today is to remain lawful and trustworthy, any other form of physician aided fatality should never be legalized in a country that supposedly upholds ethics and morality.

Furthermore, were euthanasia to be legalized, the rights and personal convictions of all medical personnel could be infringed. Physicians and nurses could be required to take part either directly or indirectly in the procedure of euthanasia. Medical staff would be faced with the dilemma of either sacrificing their jobs or complying with the requirements as Molly Sullivan in her article “Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia” wrote, “I have a right to conscientious objection; no nurse who feels an ethical or religious conflict should feel pressured to clinically participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide” (31). Such is the perspective of many persons who have made a career out of serving and helping patients.

The morality of a society would become adulterated if euthanasia were to be legalized and implemented in the medical world. A society would decay because legalization of euthanasia would infiltrate the culture with a disregard for the sanctity of human life even if that life is only a mere ember of the original. Ethical and moral boundaries would no longer guide the culture because life itself, which is at the foundation of ethics would have been trampled upon and violated. And when a culture loses respect and ceases to abide by certain ethical and moral critera, that culture will quickly corrupt. Euthanasia could bring about such a downfall because it completely violates the ethical code of medicine and ultimately the respect of human life.

Euthanasia is a lethal injection of a drug to those patients who do not wish to fulfil their lives but rather seek premature death and release from their problems although in many cases the practice is resorted to in the case of patients suffering severe pain or those who are dependent upon life support to preserve their lives. A form of Euthanasia is legal in some of our states in that physicians can remove a patient from life support or cease administering drugs which could preserve life. Physician assisted suicide has not yet been completely legalized in that anyone could receive the procedure upon request. Physician assisted suicide is a danger our society and the world because it not only violates ethical standards, initiates dehumanizing and the disregard for human life, but also could enable unscrupulous people to exploit or exterminate certain vulnerable groups within our society.

Human life and flourishing is a beautiful thing and a gift to be treasured and protected. It should never be viewed as disposable with no more value than by what it is capable of. Life is worth living, and the dignity of human life is worth fighting for.

Works Cited

Beck, Aaron T., et al. “Suicide Ideation at its Worst Point: A Predictor of Eventual Suicide in Psychiatric Outpatients.” Suicide & Life – Threatening Behavior, vol. 29, no. 1, 1999, pp. 1-9, ProQuest, http://nclive.org/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/224888213?accountid=14197.

Martínez, Rocío, Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón, and Miguel Moya. “Are they Animals Or Machines? Measuring Dehumanization.” The Spanish Journal of Psychology, vol. 15, no. 3, 2012, pp. 1110-22, ProQuest, http://nclive.org/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1439791143?accountid=14197.

Sullivan, Molly. “Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.” Nursing Management, vol. 30, no. 3, Mar. 1999, pp. 31-33. EBSCOhost, login.proxy168.nclive.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hch&AN=1728381&site=ehost-live.