“‘There’s no good reason to kill someone. The act of taking away life is equally evil.’” (Ishida 78.8). This value-shattering quote given by Kuzen Yoshimura from Sui Ishida’s Tokyo Ghoul (2011-2014) gives quite the weight to the value of a sentient being’s life. A ghoul and a human can enjoy life, such as reading a book with a steaming cup of coffee, to the same extent. However, who deserves this luxury of life is decided by the opinions of everyone. Humans prattle on about the monstrosity of ghouls and their diets, yet kill other organisms and themselves to defeat their fears and preserve their lives. Ghouls, on the other hand, have to survive under the human 's’ assumed “supremacy,” either by trying to blend in with humans, thus risking their …show more content…
Nishiki Nishio’s sister explains that ghouls eating human flesh is just the same as humans eating livestock (Ishida 43.4). From a ghoul’s point of view, they are just taking their role in the food chain and eating the food provided to them. Humans would never agree with that statement, though, as their false sense of supremacy makes them think that they get their own throne outside of the food chain. As an example of human’s irrational fear lies within the Kirishima family trying to blend in with human society. Before the villagers knew the Kirishima’s secret, they all got along. Touka and Ayato would take care of the local wildlife and have meals with the locals. On top of that, their father, Arata, even went fishing and sold his catches to the villagers. Despite all of that, once their ghoul identities were revealed, Arata was killed and the siblings were chased out of town (Ishida 71.9) The villagers rashly assumed that all ghouls are mindless killers and thus threw out all of the Kirishima’s past interactions with them. If the villagers had been able to put aside their ingrained fears and remember that the Kirishima family was still the same even with the label “ghoul” now blaring to the public, they might have been able to co-exist. On top of that, the humans could also have learned more about why ghouls have to eat human meat and …show more content…
Stable-minded ghoul parents show the same amount of love and affection to their children as stable-minded human parents do. Instead doing something atrocious like using her daughter as a distraction so that she could run away, Ryouko Fueguchi creates a barrier with her kagune, allowing Hinami to escape at the cost of herself having to stay behind. Hinami also does not reluctantly run away so save her own life. She starts to cry and only runs away when her mother yells at her to do so (Ishida 15.7). The same parental protection occurred within the Kirishima family. Arata Kirishima became a kakuja, a ghoul who eats other ghouls, so that he would not attract unwanted CCG attention to himself by killing humans and, thus, keep his children out of the CCG’s harm (Ishida 104.15). However, Arata was forced to withstand the burden of the mental deterioration caused by kakujazation. Someone who gave no regard to life would never risk their sanity to protect two defenseless children. Even though this parental love is a huge sign of how ghouls value life, the biggest example yet is expressed by Touka when she is asked “why in the world do you all still try to survive even while committing such sins?” by Kureo. By asking this, Kureo brings about the question of why ghouls that actually value human life do not just throw their own away to protect those other lives. Touka gives the perfect answer,
In his second premise Marquis expands on the idea that the killing of an adult human is a serious moral wrong because by killing them you deprive them of future experiences. He believes that by killing someone you cause “the greatest possible losses on the victim” and supports this idea with the example of terminally ill patients who feel their they are being robbed because their premature death prevents them from enjoying their future (190). Additionally, Marquis challenges the idea that killing someone simply because they are biologically human with the example of intelligent aliens (191).
Unlike in the past century, both views have finally reached an agreement in this debate: as of now, a limited amount of rodents, or primates, such as white mice and rhesus monkeys can be tested in the laboratory. Which begs the question, why are these selected fews continue to be subject in gruesome experiment unlike their brethren? Additionally, is their moral status is lesser than others fauna, and shouldn’t they instead receives the same respect as well ? In contrast, does the respect is mutual toward non-animal being, such as bacteria, or virus? Subsequently, these particular question acknowledges the weaknesses in the new conclusion of the debate. From the vast species of the animal kingdom, few primates and rodents species are chosen because these creatures are not domesticated by human. Evidently, it means that society does not have any cultural attachment to them, unlike others animal. As such, there isn’t any incentive to protect their rights. Likewise, microscopic organism, such as bacteria or virus are demonized as a pest, thus their moral rights are not values as well. However, it is far from the truth. Knowing the ongoing directions of the debate, it is imperative to better define the moral status of not only animal, but any living being altogether in order to establish a general code of conduct for future
People get scared of their own thoughts and paranoia, as seen in House Taken Over. People’s imagination overpower what’s actually happening most of the time in real life. This is caused by scary movies, books, and television shows. When people don’t think before they do things because of fear, it often leads to worse situations. Therefore, I believe that our own mindset and imagination is what leads to fear and bad
Every natural instinct of survival, for both animals and humans, is evil. According to the paradigm of our society, it is immoral to be selfish, to steal, to feel empathy only for your kin and apathy for everyone else, and to kill for personal gain. On the contrary, according to the natural instincts followed by all of the animal kingdom, you are to insure your own and your pack’s own survival, no matter the cost, disregarding all others; to steal, to feel apathy for other groups, and to kill for power and personal gain are all common practices that animals do in nature without the bat of an eye. These instincts do not only apply to lesser animals, but humans share them as well, for we are animals like all the others. There are no morals
The two extremes of our behavior, in which we may self-sacrifice, but may also take the lives of others, demonstrate our highly mixed nature. However, with the exception of “moral monsters”, most of our sinfulness rests on “unchosen evil” facilitated precisely by our human nature (Kekes 84; 66). Philosopher David Livingstone Smith identities authorization as a necessary condition for behavior contrary to our need for cooperation (127-26). When “persons in positions of authority endorse acts of violence, the perpetrator is less inclined to feel personally responsible, and therefore less guilty in performing them” (Smith 127). Stanley Milgram’s “Obedience to Authority” experiment, in which subjects delivered shocks to another person despite hearing and even seeing the suffering they were inflicting, confirms this phenomenon. When interviewed afterwards, Milgram’s subjects expressed sentiment that they did not want to continue with the experiment, but they firmly believed such decision was not up to them (Lecture 9.28.2016). Participants’ autonomy became corrupted acted in response to the powerful cultural values of loyalty, “obedience, and discipline” which often “count for more […] than individual conscience and private morality” (Gray
... by Thomas Hobbes, man is brutal. He is at war with other men to gather as much liberty as he can. He has little or no value to other human life as long as he achieves his selfish gains.
siblings, "creature features" and "slashers," both terrify and fascinate us with their ghoulish brand of
We live in a society where a life of another human being is losing value by the minute, murder is almost more common than marriage, and monsters no longer lurk under our beds but inside us. Even sadder, this is acceptable; this is our normal. When we are children, we have an indescribable innocence; we are invincible. As we grow up, life happens, and we go through hardships that break us. Stephen King says it best with the words “sometimes inhuman places create human monsters” (Stephen King, The Shining) It is in the battle of finding ourselves in the process of trying to pick up the broken pieces. We tend to feel our losses more intensely than our gains- the exact reason we often see the walls we build from our past and not the strength gained in our experiences that aid us in our futures. We all have both good and evil in us, and we become the one we choose to act on. The majority of us choose to represent our good side, the more socially acceptable choice, but some fall victim to their darkest self. However, in order to survive in our society, we generally act on the good in us, and in order to maintain the good, we must feed the bad sometimes. This Is why I agree with Stephen king on his view of why people like horror movies?
The author realizes the wrongfulness in killing someone who’s living a healthy life, we see this when the author states, “I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide.” Even though he does not object to these actions he does not agree with them.
We all have cravings, be it for snacks or sweets, there is always something we desire. We crave horror in the same way. In Stephen King’s essay, “Why We Crave Horror Movies,” he argues that people need to watch horror films in order to release the negative emotions within us. King believes that people feel enjoyment while watching others be terrorized or killed in horror movies. King’s argument has elements that are both agreeable and disagreeable. On one hand he is acceptable when claiming we like the thrill and excitement that comes from watching horror movies; however, his views regarding that the fun comes from seeing others suffer cannot be agreed with because the human condition is not as immoral as he claims it to be.
The idea of a zombie is made up and it comes from nzambi, the Kongo word for the spirit of a dead person. In states such as Louisiana, or the Creole culture they believe zombies represent a person who has dies and brought back to life with no speech. Kings psychological argument on how we have an urge to watch horror movies because it helps to re-establish our feelings and feel natural again. Klusterman’s sociological essay helped us see the comparison of zombies and humans in real life. In conclusion zombies are not real, they are make believe but help bring a sense of normality to
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that their treatment has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."(Schopenhauer). I always wondered why some people are not so drawn to the consumption of meat and fed up with only one thought about it. Why do so many people loathe blood, and why can so few people easily kill and slaughter animals, until they just get used to it? This reaction should say something about the most important moments in the code, which was programmed in the human psyche.
Any rational human being will act only in accordance to reflectivity, which is binding to all humans who identify themselves as being human beings. Therefore, there is a collective identity that defines basic boundaries for the type of decisions we construct, which encompasses the other types of identities we accept. For instance, since it would be hostile to our dedication to humanity to torment small babies, in that case, it would be immoral to torment kids. Since I have to obligate to being a human being prior to obligating myself to any other identity, I cannot just do whatever thing that identity needs of me. This is because my identity as a human being, that is, a reflective agent, obliges of me to value all human beings above all other contemplation, and that means abstaining from a monstrous act like tormenting little
Horror movies bring out the worst in us and for all the right reasons. King’s big idea suggests that by watching our mad, deranged role models slaughter one another, is actually keep us in line mentally. It allows us to stay sane and untroubled. Watching others do the dirty work gives us a sense of relief. Even though watching horror movies are filled with basic reasons of having fun, there is a deeper, psychological level of human emotions that is essential to our mental
Through Hobbes’s writing we can determine his views on humans are rather pessimistic; humans according to him are naturally evil. Hobbes states that humans in their essence seek their own self-interest; as well as that humans are not guided by reason but by passion. In a state of nature, humans are licensed to do and take as they yearn or need, depending on each individual self-interest; thus natural law, which is regarded as a constant state of conflict and war. Humans in a state of nature are inclined to see each other as potential inflictor of pain—each is seen as a potential murderer, in extreme cases. That been the case, each individual seeks more power, this is their self-interest, out of fear of each other; this then leads to the surrounding individuals to seek more power themselves, again, concerning their self-interest, for their own salvation. The mightiest of the passion’s embraced by humans are the fear of death and the desire for power. So the contest for power that was mentioned ultimately leads to death—warfare—because it is impossible to establish a harmonious permanence. This leads to the cycle and struggle for ...