AP Synthesis Prompt In-class Practice (03-21-11)

Write an essay in which you develop a position on the effects of advertising. Synthesize at least three of the sources for support.

             From the start of ‘modern days,’ when the birth and development of mass media occurred, the formats of advertisement had been improved together. As the capitalism society encouraged more and more competitions between companies, the companies began to find the way to make people attracted by their own products-and eventually consume their goods. However, more and more advertisements don’t seem to make the overall society healthier today. They might improve the income of certain companies and give economy health by increased consumption, but don’t contribute much on the well-being of social individuals. Indeed, they even harm average people’s life under the name of free market economy.

             One of the most important features of the advertisements is that their initial purpose is to let people buy or do something which certain organizations or companies want. People may become more satisfied with a new high-quality shampoo, or more comfortable with a newly developed robot home cleaner. Also, people might get proud of themselves after donating their own precious blood to volunteering organization. And the most important point is the fact that most of our consumptions are based on such advertisements in these days. Perhaps it’s very natural phenomenon since our lives are saturated with ads today. However, in other words this means advertisements seriously interfere in our way of life. Like the dandruff shampoo, which nobody cared at all before advertisers mentioned.(# D) The advertisements, even more as the media around us developed, set the standard of our lives without our consent. It should be us who decide what we need, not the advertisements.

             In addition, today’s advertisers focus more on the profits of their companies or organization than on the general well-being of the consumers. Why people buy or do something after all? It’s because they want to be happier and more comfortable, more satisfied by those actions. If smoking cigarettes cannot do any good for the smokers, they would quit it as soon as possible. However, although there are piles of reports on the physical, social and other risks of smoking, the smokers don’t quit. Because they believe there are still some positive sides of cigarettes, for example looking cool. Then who, at the very first, set such social images of smoking? It was cigarette advertisers. I strongly doubt that they didn’t notice the possible danger of smoking cigarettes in old days. However, they made advertisements which emphasize some good images of smoking to sell their products.(# B) Although it’s bad for people’s health, they recommended cigarettes through their ads-indirectly and immorally-to make money. This is one example which shows how the desire for profit ruined the reasonable and moral role of producers, under the name of healthy and free market economy.(# F)

             There may be some positive side effects of advertisements in society, like informing people some up-to-date data(# C) and encouraging them to do social good.(# A) However, considering the most initial background for the birth of advertisements, and the advertising itself, they exist for the benefit of producers, not for the bigger social good. In present age, with the appearance of more effective media like internet, the means of ads armed themselves with more powerful accessibility and come into our lives unconsciously. And they set the shape of ‘desirable life’ regardless of our opinions, sometimes even against moral common senses. This is why the advertisements have more bad side effects than good ones. 

03 21 2011 Chang Woo Jung

AP Lang @ KMLA

Future of Education / Rough Ideas and Sources

“What is the purpose of education?”

In my opinion, the recent educational issues can be compacted into these two disputable arguments

“One genius supports one 10 thousands normal people. (Lee Kun-hee)”

-“Upbringing of gifted students” in Nation-scale

vs.

“Everybody should get the same educational opportunity”

-Removing educational polarization

What’s happening in South Korea?

1. The “highest quality” education : KMLA / Science schools in Korea

http://kimss58.cafe24.com/zero/zboard.php?id=kssline01&page=8&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=subject&desc=desc&no=928&PHPSESSID=57e97f973ddcde05e4b0deaa90d83bec This article talks about the importance of supporting and raising genius. After all, those gifted children will be the precious national resources-the resources which produce amazing ideas among each of their team.

2. Alternative education : E-woo school in Korea

http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201007152056341&code=940401

This school talks about “total education reform” in Korea. It picks its new students not based on the grades, but depends on everything about the students, even including family environment. The fundamental purpose of this school is to let every normal student know their own possibilities and abilities, and produce the students with talent of cooperation.

3. Abroad institutions, famous for the quality of education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandes_%C3%89coles

This Wikipedia article briefly introduces the Grand ecoles, which are higher education establishments outside the main framework of the French university system. They traditionally produce most of France's high-ranking civil servants, politicians and executives as well as many scientists and philosophers.

http://www.understandfrance.org/France/Education.html

This article talks about the overall educational system in France, which concentrates on producing students with one specialty-which is one difference from Korea’s newly rising educational trend, which emphasizes the education for one student’s all-sides.

Personally I stand for the first argument: if there should be any ignition for not only education but also broader society, the answer will be prodigies. But then, we would confront with one serious question: “Who do we call as a ‘genius’?”

Here is a video clip for Taylor Mali’s “What teachers make,” which lets us think about the true meaning of education. What is education? How can we define “educating a child?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsOVK4syxU&feature=related

What teachers make / Taylor Mali

He says the problem with teachers is, "What's a kid going to learn 
from someone who decided his best option in life was to become a teacher?" 
He reminds the other dinner guests that it's true what they say about teachers: 
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

I decide to bite my tongue instead of his 
and resist the temptation to remind the other dinner guests 
that it's also true what they say about lawyers.
Because we're eating, after all, and this is polite company.
"I mean, you¹re a teacher, Taylor," he says. 
"Be honest. What do you make?"
And I wish he hadn't done that 
(asked me to be honest) 
because, you see, I have a policy 
about honesty and ass-kicking: 
if you ask for it, I have to let you have it.
You want to know what I make?
I make kids work harder than they ever thought they could. 
I can make a C+ feel like a Congressional medal of honor 
and an A- feel like a slap in the face. 
How dare you waste my time with anything less than your very best.
I make kids sit through 40 minutes of study hall 
in absolute silence. No, you may not work in groups. 
No, you may not ask a question. 
Why won't I let you get a drink of water? 
Because you're not thirsty, you're bored, that's why.
I make parents tremble in fear when I call home: 
I hope I haven't called at a bad time, 
I just wanted to talk to you about something Billy said today. 
Billy said, "Leave the kid alone. I still cry sometimes, don't you?" 
And it was the noblest act of courage I have ever seen.
I make parents see their children for who they are 
and what they can be.
You want to know what I make?
I make kids wonder, 
I make them question. 
I make them criticize. 
I make them apologize and mean it. 
I make them write, write, write. 
And then I make them read. 
I make them spell definitely beautiful, definitely beautiful, definitely beautiful 
over and over and over again until they will never misspell 
either one of those words again. 
I make them show all their work in math. 
And hide it on their final drafts in English. 
I make them understand that if you got this (brains) 
then you follow this (heart) and if someone ever tries to judge you 
by what you make, you give them this (the finger).
Let me break it down for you, so you know what I say is true: 
I make a goddamn difference! What about you


03 14 2011 Chang Woo Jung
AP Lang @ KMLA

Pink Plastic Flamingo

          After the fierce and long-lasting WWII had been gone, Americans could enjoy the sense of freedom from the pressure of wartime experience. With the recovery of economic abundance in domestic level, the American 50s are now remembered as the time of flourishing. Price, in her recent essay, took her peculiar approach to this era of productive social atmosphere with the figure of pink plastic flamingo, especially in cultural context. Using proper diction to draw the lively sketch of 50s and hiring apt examples for the detailed images of the period, Price tried to explain the meaning of pink plastic flamingo in the writing. Moreover, she also pointed out the ironical etymology of the term to catch the impact and meaning of it, which eventually supports her idea quite efficiently.

           The first important feature of Price’s writing is the usage of appropriate dictions. From the very start, she used “splashed” and “boldness,” in which contain the remarkable impact of pink plastic flamingo. Through this terminology, her essay gives the hint of what this newly rising trend in 50s influenced on the American society-she is indirectly saying the huge impact of pink flamingo. Also, at the example of Miami beach’s Flamingo hotel in 1910s and 1920s, Price mentions “wealth and pizzazz” as the example of pink flamingo’s popular social image in old America. While the Miami beach story focus on the meaning of flamingo itself, the quote from Tom Wolfe effectively conveys the nuance of “pink” to the readers. The “sassy pink” color was one of the ‘electrochemical pastel’ hues produced under the idea of forward-looking, rather than old-fashioned. Together, these dictions she used imply the background atmosphere of 50s, when there was a compensation psychology of Americans about terrible wartime experiences through the fashioning of pink flamingo.

           While Price’s vocabularies give readers the social nuance of pink plastic flamingo, the anecdotes she quoted produce the minute phase of American 50s. She wrote about the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas, in 1946. It says, when the pink flamingo was located in the middle of desert, the impact of this ‘sassy’ symbol became even more striking. Furthermore, Price wrote about the motels, restaurants, lounges and other building with the pink flamingo concept. These examples show the reason behind such great popularity: pink flamingo was the symbol of brightness and freshness after hard war, and American people in 50s already accepted it as an emblem of productivity and wealth. The most fundamental question under her anecdotes and examples is nothing but straightforward. “Why pink plastic flamingo became the symbol of American 50s?” And Price answered to the question by herself, providing the significant social evidences from history. She took some historical images of flamingo as the sun God Ra of Egypt, and flamingo in Mexico and Caribbean. Emphasizing the specialty of flamingo itself, there are enough examples in her essay which support socioeconomic trend of flamingo in American 50s.

           Lastly, Price questioned the irony of the terminology itself. “Why it’s ‘pink’ flamingo, as if they could be blue or green?” This is very curious point indeed, since every flamingo is pink naturally. Additionally, she focused on the fact that plastic flamingo products are even more pinkish than the actual one, while the real flamingo itself is already quite noticeable in color. Through this ironical situation, Price emphatically conveying the meaning of pink to Americans in 50s. As she mentioned, the bright sassy pink became popular trend for the Americans who experienced Depression and WWII. Maybe the hard times they went through are the strongest reason for putting ‘pink’ in front of the word ‘flamingo’, which is already pink-so to produce brighter image from it. By pointing out the etymology, Price explained why the richness and ampleness of pink color had such huge social context in 50s, like Elvis Presley buying a pink Cadillac, not blue or green ones.

           In conclusion, we can understand from Price’s writing that social atmosphere of 50s created the tempting image of pink flamingo, and brought the syndrome all over the States. Through the usage of diction, examples, and question to basic etymology, Price successfully crafted her essay, making her readers notice the social relationship between American 50s and pink plastic flamingo.

03 08 2011 Chang Woo Jung
AP Lang @ KMLA

Be a “muckraker,” and become proud complainant of society (Second Draft)

                It is true that when U.S president Theodore Roosevelt firstly used the terminology “muckraker” in his speech, this newly appeared word seemed a bit negative. The etymology of this term supports the bad nuance the word conveys to the listeners. It consists of “muck” and “raker,” which suggests a person who rakes dirty things endlessly. And it is truly an endless task for muckrakers to collect the corrupted images and hidden facts of our society’s business and politics. Muckraker journalists often unmask the truth, and it seems some of them, including Jessica Mitfold, are even proud of being called as one. From broad perspective, the muckraking should be recognized as an indispensible factor to make cleaner and healthier society and better world. Muckrakers do one of the most courageous things in society: they expose the corruption, and to eradicate the unreasonableness.

                  The best way for us to find the needs of muckraking journalists is to figure out certain periods when people of ‘power’ initially banned the activity of any muckrakers. As we can see from the history, almost every society without muckrakers was usually governed by authoritarian regime, where its business and politics didn’t have the duty to keep transparency and so even ‘muckraking’ was expelled. The military regime of South Korea from 1970 to 1980 is a precise example from a certain period. During this era, there was a coup by Jeon, who was just a military official in that time. Unfortunately, this coup succeeded along the dazed and confused political chaos of South Korea, and Jeon became the most powerful authority in South Korean political society. He became president using unfair, hidden methods in the election process, and then the military regime, which ironically advertised itself as a ‘republic’ through national propaganda, started to rule the southern Korean peninsula. Every critical and negative newspaper that criticized Jeon’s regime was forced to close its door, and similar policies were applied to individual column and report writers. Anyone who spoke the truth was arrested by national police, and perhaps even tortured. The fundamental purpose of Jeon’s regime was simple and straightforward: eliminate all bad images of the political elite and military regime. Koreans couldn’t properly resist Jeon at that time, because they couldn’t access information about their country easily. In the public market there were only the Jeon-friendly newspapers which faked the truth, praising the justness and ‘divinity’ of Jeon as president. Although this period ended with the bloody demonstrations on a national scale, the lesson it gives is obvious. Without muckraking politics can allow itself to be fabricated, and it only makes more social confusion which is connected to civilian abuse.

                  The same story can be applied to the field of business. All the more, we can say the muckrakers are more necessary in this area, since every business profits from the earnings of common people. Because of this, we can say the businesses also have a serious duty to keep their transparency, the same as politics does. One of the popular examples is the documentary-style movie “Supersize Me,” directed by Morgan Spurlock. Figuring out the uncomfortable parts of American fast foods in 2004, he showed people the serious problem of obesity in U.S by eating only the McDonald’s super-large size hamburgers for 1 month. The result of his “muckraking experiment” was strong enough to shock the public. In addition to extra 11kg he gained, Morgan had to suffer from sexual dysfunction, accumulation of fat in his liver, and other serious symptoms like mood swing. Through this movie, Morgan succeeded to wake up the public and McDonald’s, too. As the result, all the super-size hamburgers were removed from the McDonald’s menu and the company opened every ingredient of hamburgers to public, to improve its public image. In this sense, muckraking is helpful either for common costumers, who are the base of companies’ wealth, and the company itself. The shocking reports about unreasonableness inside certain domain of business will embarrass people at first, but it will let common people to have more objective eyes on analyzing those businesses. Muckrakers are the people who questioned to the fixation of the public, and they take the risks to be socially attacked by those business authorities only to find out the truth.

                  From the examples of political and economical fields, the necessity of muckraking and also enough number of muckrakers seems to get plausible reason. What muckrakers do is cleaning our society, so taking care of negative parts of important social figures and groups. In this sense, muckraker can have the same meaning with “social complainant.” They find the problems, dig it to utmost level they can reach and then speak ‘uncomfortable truth’ to the public. This truth is what the common people should realize fully to get and keep the civil society. Muckrakers complain about the irrationalities at every corner of society, and convey them through bitter tone of writing. This is why the word “muckraker” does not actually have negative connotation. The journalists and any others who are called as “muckrakers” should be proud of themselves, as honorable complainant in our world.

02 28 2011 Chang Woo Jung
AP Lang @ KMLA

Be a “Muckraker,” and Become Proud Complainant of Society

                          

        

                           It is true that when U.S president Theodore Roosevelt firstly used the terminology “muckraker” in his speech, this newly appeared word seemed a bit negative. The etymology of this term supports the bad nuance the word conveys to the listeners. It is consists of muck and raker, which means a person who rakes dirty things endlessly. And it is truly an endless task for muckrakers to collect the corrupted images and hidden facts in our society, so the public can figure out what is going wrong now in the politics and businesses. Muckraker journalists try to unmask the dirtiest parts of our society, and it seems some of them including Jessica Mitfold are even proud of being called as muckraker. In fact, these kinds of situations are hard to understand directly, since the word “muckraker” itself sounds dirty, and also there are lots of opinions which believe muckraking is not an healthy thing to do, like that of president Roosevelt. However, from much broader perspective the muckraking should be recognized as an indispensible factor to make cleaner and healthier society, and better world for all of us. What muckrakers do is maybe one of the most courageous ways to expose the corruption, and to eradicate the unreasonableness in politics and businesses, where the people with ‘power’ frequently cheat and squeeze the public for their own profits.

                  Ironically, the best way for us to desperately feel the needs of social muckraking journalists is to figure out certain periods when people of ‘power’ initially banned the activity of any muckrakers. In these cases, almost every society with no muckraking was controlled by authoritarian regime or totalitarian rules. As the history teaches us, those political backgrounds harm the transparency of politics and business, and restrain the most basic freedoms of civilians. Then, together with other rights in common civil society, reporting the wrong and even tragically designed parts of political organization, or easily ‘muckraking,’ is also expelled from society. The military regime of South Korea from 1970 to 1980 is a precise example of certain period. During this era, there was a coup by Jeon, who was just a military official in that time. Unfortunately this coup succeeded along the dazed and confused political chaos of South Korea, and Jeon became the most powerful authority in South Korean political society. He became president using unfair, hidden methods in election process, and then military regime which ironically advertised itself as a ‘republic’ by national propaganda started to rule the southern Korean peninsula. Every critical and negative newspaper toward Jeon’s regime was forced to close its door, and similar policy was applied to individual column and report writers. Anyone who said the truth was arrested by national police, and tortured. The fundamental purpose of Jeon’s regime was simple and straightforward: eliminate any bad images of the political elites and the regime originated from military. Koreans couldn’t resist properly to Jeon at that time, because they couldn’t access to the information about their country easily. In public market there were only the Jeon-friendly newspapers which faked the truth, and only the news which broadcasted the justness and ‘divinity’ of Jeon as being president. Although this period ended with the bloody demonstrations in national scale, the lesson it gives is obvious. No muckraking means the fabrication of political images, and it only makes more social confusions which are connected to civilian abuse.

                  Same story can be applied to the field of business. All the more, we can say the muckrakers are more necessary in this area, since every business has its base on the money from common people. So the corruption of certain companies means the unwanted disadvantages for normal people who are related to those businesses directly or indirectly, financially or physically. Because of this, we can say the businesses also have serious duty to keep their transparency, the same as politics do. The examples which support this argument are literally ‘numerous,’ just as many as the number of every individual companies in the world. If one got lots of money, there’s no doubt that his greed would be stimulated. Once stimulated, the greed of human began its endless circle to be satisfied-but it can’t be satisfied eternally, because more money (and thus higher social position with more power) stimulates the greed again and again. Although this argument is not scientifically proved, we can say most of the corruptions in any profit-making group follow similar process. In this situation, muckraking is helpful either for common costumers and corrupted company itself. The shocking reports about unreasonableness inside certain domain of business will embarrass people at first, but it will let common people to have more objective eyes on analyzing the truthfulness of those ‘unmasked’ businesses, and prevent more enormous corruption. If we put this in smaller scale, it’ll be easier to understand the positive effect of muckraking. In my school, there are lots of student clubs which were supported by school administration without uncovering the specific records of money use. The important thing was that those supports for clubs are originated from the regular fees from other students. At first no one had doubted, and followed the policy of club support. We paid what clubs said they need, although sometimes the reason for such huge amount of money requirement was vague. One day, student reporters from official school newspaper secretly observed the use of supporting money by every single club. And the result was very shocking. There were almost no club which spent money only for the proper purpose of club, but many of them just used the money for additional entertainments. The school newspaper reported this on the first page, and everything changed. Now the school administration strictly judges the transparency of student clubs, and provides money based on the specified plan and purpose. Thanks to those student muckrakers, the school could prevent more serious situation. Simply put, we can speak the same thing for bigger scale, international companies. Muckrakers are the people who questioned to the fixation of the public, and they take the risks to be socially attacked by those business authorities only to find out the truth.

                  From the examples of political and economical fields, the necessity of muckraking and also enough number of muckrakers seems to get plausible reason. What muckrakers do is cleaning our society, so taking care of negative parts of important social figures and groups. In this sense, muckraker can have the same meaning with “social complainant.” They find the problems, dig it to utmost level they can reach and then speak ‘uncomfortable truth’ to the public. This truth is what the common people should realize fully to get and keep the civil society. Muckrakers complain about the irrationalities at every corner of society, and convey them through bitter tone. This is why the word “muckraker” does not actually have negative connotation, and the journalists and any others who are called as “muckrakers” should be proud of themselves, as honorable complainant in our world.

02 21 2011 Chang Woo Jung
AP Lang @ KMLA

Radiohead - Killer Cars

One of my favorite B-sides from beautifully aged English Rock band.



Lyrics :

too hard on the breaks again
what if these breaks just give in?
what if they don't get out of the way?
what if there's someone overtaking?
i'm going out for a little drive
it could be the last time you see me alive
there could be an idiot on the road
the only kick in life is pumping his steel

they wrap me up in the back of the trunk
packed with foam and blind drunk
they won't ever take me alive
cause they all drive killer cars

don't die on the motorway
the moon would freeze
the plants would die
i couldn't cope if you crashed today
all the things i forgot to say
i'm going out for a little drive
could be the last time you see me alive
what if the car loses control
what if there's someone overtaking?

Review for "The Earthlings"

*Video URL (Google video) : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142#

                  How much do humans owe animals? Some might say “very much.” Perhaps, some others might say life without animal is impossible. However, the truth beyond this question is more serious than we usually think. It is pretty implausible to imagine our life without the products made out of animal skin. Moreover, it is difficult for average people to accept vegetarian life.

Literally, humans have defined animals as friends from the ancient times. Dogs were friendly companions, and courageous hunters. Today, annually 50,000 dogs are abandoned in the U.S alone. Dolphins were respected for their intelligence and wisdom for a long time, but the fishing industry in Japan kill them for meet and skin, without any merci. The animals with “good quality” furs are captured in massive number, and slaughtered. Cows provide milk for humans, but now humans ‘extract’ milk from them, locking them up in cages. Similarly, numerous species are suffering since human need has altered into greed. With advanced technologies, humans started to utilize animals for their desire, over the reasonable need.

                  However, how many of us fully understand this situation? People don’t care where the meats on the dinner table came from, and what kinds of animals were used for their fur coat. What we only see are products: the final results. No one of us wants to know about animal murder scenes, where an uncomfortable truth is prevalent. It’s too easy to overlook human cruelty towards animals. However, we should recognize animals as same, respected creatures on the earth. People should make efforts to view animals not as property, but as dignified beings the same as humans. In the documentary “Earthlings,” there are several cases where animals are treated as no more than commodities.

                  “The Earthlings” introduces the real scenes of animal ‘utilization’ by human. The film is started with one impressive, strong argument: all men are Nazis toward animals. The first part is about pets. The documentary asks us how owning and being companions can be same. It shows the pet stores and puppy mills, where dogs, cats, and other pet animals are locked in filthy, overcrowd cages. The film also talks about the euthanasia matter: do we really address animal’s need by so-called ‘comfortable death’? Animals are also lively beings, precious creatures, the same earthlings as humans. We don’t have the right to own animals, and judge their death.

                  In the second food section, the documentary directly shows the slaughterhouse scenes which were recorded by hidden camera. It says: “we would all be vegetarians if we had to kill our own meet.” In the slaughterhouse, humans decide everything over animals. The branding, dehorning, transporting, milking, bleeding, poultry, debeaking… in every process, animals don’t have any voice. Animals cannot resist to humans. Humans force animals, threaten them with electric shock, steel stick, and others. Surely, these processes cause serious problem for animals. In the slaughterhouse, they can’t even fulfill natural instincts, sometimes suffer from mental disorder, live in harsh, dirty environments, and are later slaughtered. The film says: “slaughterhouses have opaque architecture, designed to insure that we’ll not see even if we wanted to look. And who wants to look inside?”

                  In the next segment, the documentary illuminates the clothes making process, where animals die for their skin. There is one thing people forget too often: leather is dead skin. After the animals are skinned, then their meet becomes food for other animals, which are destined to be sacrificed for leather and furs. This is an endless vicious circle that consists of human greed. The next segment is about entertainment. In this section, the documentary reminds us of one important, but not a nice fact: humans are often most detestable creatures, which often enjoy the pain of other creatures. The video introduces bullfighting and circuses. At stadiums for entertainment, the animals suffer from human’s greed. They are forced to do unnatural behaviors, like jumping into the fire ring. In the case of bullfighting, they should die at the end of the show, just for human entertainment. The animals which are ‘used’ for human entertainment, shackled in chains for 95% of their whole life.

                  In the last part which covers the animal experiences in science, the documentary shows images of medical experiments and vivisections on animals. Through these five sections, “The Earthlings” conveys one essential message: treating animals as property is the same as biting the hand which feed us. What goes around comes around. If we don’t feel the problem of mass slaughter and owning of pets, someday we will be the only, lonely beings on the earth. The film argues the dignity of animals with vivid video clips of maltreatment by humans. Especially, the film stimulates our pathos by showing uncensored images of slaughtering, animal experiments, skinning, and other terrible animal abuse. Looking at the animals which mourn in pain and despair, we understand the bloody greed of humans. Moreover, the film used dark, gloomy background music and serene narrative voice tone to amplify the effect of the video.

While “The Earthlings” focuses itself on the transmission of pathos, its logic is also very strong. How can humans decide the fate of other creatures, since human beings are also one part of the creatures on the earth? The ability of thinking doesn’t symbolize the superiority of humans over animals. Rather, we should use our ability to preserve animal species. Animals also have the right to live freely, not to be owned by anyone else. This logical appeal is on the prolongation of abolitionist’s opinion on animal rights. The abolitionist approach to animal rights maintains that all sentient beings, humans or nonhumans, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others. [1] The abolitionists called animal rights groups as "new welfarist," arguing that their intervention related to various animal rights risks making the public feel more comfortable about its use of animals, because they think owing animals and treating them properly doesn’t make sense. [2]

Animal rights expert, Tom Regan also argues the dignity of animals. He introduced “Subject-of-a-life” concept for every creature, claiming ‘inherent value.’ If this is the true basis for ascribing inherent value to individuals, to be consistent we must ascribe inherent value, and hence moral rights, to all subjects-of-a-life, whether human or non-human. According to him, humans should treat animals in a proper way: like they do to infants, who are no more than animals. The basic right of all who possess inherent value have, he argues, is the right never to be treated merely as a means to the ends of others. [3]

                  Lastly, we should seriously consider whether we really need animals for our life. The development of synthetic fiber, and other alternatives for the animal products enabled us a life without slaughtering animals. Owning and killing of animals for human need was excusable in the past, when human’s technology was not fully developed to replace animal products. Now farmers use machines instead of cows, clothing companies invented numerous synthetic fibers, and veganism has proven not harmful. Since humans accomplished the techniques which enable the life without animals possible, using animals for their fur or meat is no more than greed.

                  In conclusion, human should learn to treat animals more respectfully. Although the life without animals and animal products is hard to be imagined, logically there is no right for humans to own animals. “The Earthlings” shows how our greed completely destroyed the rights and life of animals. And the abolitionist’s view and Tom Regan’s perspective represent the animal’s right not to be owned by anyone. Plus, we should learn a way of life without animals, since human technologies overcame the need of animals in human life. We should remember, from these various examples, that there is no reasonable excuse for humans to ‘own’ animals.

Bibliography

1. Animal rights: abolitionist’s approach URL http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/about/
2. Wikipedia Article: “Abolitionism (animal rights)” URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_(animal_rights)
3. Wikipedia Article: “Tom Regan” URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Regan

02 15 2011 Chag Woo Jung
AP Lang @ KMLA