Rhinoceros
The human race has advanced over many years, and during this time, moral standards have developed. These moral standards, distinctively different from the laws of nature, are standards set specifically for humans. The play Rhinoceros, written by playwright Eugene Ionesco, associates this difference in moral standards and laws of nature. Ionesco uses Jean, a French businessman, to display the differences between these two ways of life.
In Act I, Jean believes in the values of the society, moral standards, but as he changes into a beastly rhinoceros in Act II, his beliefs begin to change; the dramatic transformation of Jean displays the difference in the laws of man and the laws of beast.
The laws of man contain society values such as manners and friendship. In Act I, Jean abides these values absolutely, and this is reflected in his personality and physical qualities such as his way of dress. Jean enters the first scene, “fastidiously dressed in a brown suit, red tie, stiff collar and a brown hat…his shoes are yellow and well polished. He wears gloves and carries a cane” (6). Jean, in this case, is a typical example of today’s society and how people care too much about his/her appearance.
Appearance determines class, and Jean follows these society values to show that he has class. In addition to this, he attempts to show that he has class and is manly by persistently explaining that “[he is] strong,” and “[he is] strong for several reasons.
In the first place [he is] strong because [he is] naturally strong – and secondly…because [he has] moral strength” (23). Once more Jean displays a belief in moral standards, the belief that strength is an attribute that determines the difference between a deserving or undeserving person. These beliefs, on the other hand, are incredibly different from those of nature.
In the world of Mother Nature’s, animals do not follow moral standards, but believe in the survival of the fittest. Amazingly, Jean begins to completely alter his beliefs as he changes into a rhinoceros. In Act I, Jean enjoyed his success in society and his position to criticize and label others less stable than he. I n Act II, however, Jean shows animal-like characteristics more than this. As the second act begins, the audience notices that Jean is still in bed, untidy, instead of at the office where he should be.
This immediately shows that Jean is not the same man who used to believe that “the superior man is the man who fulfills his duty” (9).
...ndicates a level of justification each felt in their actions. These actions, immortalized in two of the most widely read classics of all time, even today call into question the values each society held so dear, and led the modern reader to explore what honor and traditional gendered values mean both in these societies and our own.
As I have progressed through this class, my already strong interest in animal ethics has grown substantially. The animal narratives that we have read for this course and their discussion have prompted me to think more deeply about mankind’s treatment of our fellow animals, including how my actions impact Earth’s countless other creatures. It is all too easy to separate one’s ethical perspective and personal philosophy from one’s actions, and so after coming to the conclusion that meat was not something that was worth killing for to me, I became a vegetarian. The trigger for this change (one that I had attempted before, I might add) was in the many stories of animal narratives and their inseparable discussion of the morality in how we treat animals. I will discuss the messages and lessons that the readings have presented on animal ethics, particularly in The Island of Doctor Moreau, The Dead Body and the Living Brain, Rachel in Love, My Friend the Pig, and It Was a Different Day When They Killed the Pig. These stories are particularly relevant to the topic of animal ethics and what constitutes moral treatment of animals, each carrying important lessons on different facets the vast subject of animal ethics.
Regan begins the essay by stating that " Not a few of people regard the animal rights position as extreme, calling, as it does, for the abolition of certain well-entrenched social practices rather than for their “humane” reform " ( Regan 619 ) . The writer also compares animal rights with humans based on extreme moral positions, such as rape, child pornography and racial discrimination, claiming that “. . . when an injustice is absolute, as is true of each of the example just cited, then one must oppose it absolute. It is not reformed, more humane child pornography than an enlightened ethic calls for: it is abolition that is required “(Regan 620). The writing is totally against hunting animals for sport, dressing in animal skins, and breeding of animals for slaughter. In his view any animal sacrifice is no different from a crime perpetuated a human being. Sacrifice any animal should stimulate the same emotional reaction that a crime a human being. This belief is considered by many as a vision "extremist” of animal rights and generally not widely accepted.
The last decade of the twentieth century in America saw a rise in programs for human’s “self betterment.” A popular form of betterment is that of the inner animal. Interest in Native American animal mysticism, vision quests, and totem animals have increased dramatically in the past few years. No forms of media have been spared; Calvin Klein’s supermodels come on during sitcom commercials to tell viewers they need to be a beast, or to get in touch with their animal within. In the last decade of the nineteenth century, however, animalism was viewed not as a method of self-improvement but as the reprehensible side of humanity that lingered beneath the surface, waiting for an opportune time to come out and play. In Frank Norris’ novel McTeague, humans are no better than the beasts they claim to control. They cage and torment defenseless creatures, but cage and torment themselves far, far, worse. McTeague, Trina, Zerkow, and Marcus are animals in thin human’s clothing, walking the forests of McTeague, waiting for the opportunity to shed their skin and tear each other apart, while the real animals of the world continue leading lives far superior to their human counterparts.
Style is something that comes from within. If there’s anything absolute about style it’s that it holds you accountable to yourself at every moment. People understand that what they put on in the morning is the first thing that people notice about them (Garcia 6). The clothing you wear affects how you feel about yourself throughout the whole day. In fact clothing is the most principal means for identifying oneself in a public space (Crane 9). Clothes are supposed to give us a sense of security in presenting ourselves to society. Our personal identities focus on our own beliefs, goals and value systems, and our fashion comes in all forms. This form of identity can be expressed when people wear whatever they like because it makes them feel good about themselves and makes them feel happy, confident, less self-conscious and free from social expectations and
The creature’s personality, or actions toward society, was displayed as being very calm and compassionate in the novel. He made many attempts to converse with society, but society feared and mistreated...
struggle, the idea of nature versus nurture is illustrated throughout the film. Through his human nature,
Singer, Peter. “All Animals Are Equal” in Environmental Ethics edited by David Schmidtz and Elizabeth Willott. Oxford University Press, New York. 2002. p. 17-27.
Another key point is the dejection these characters face when pursuing their eccentric interests. Joan lives within a time period in which wanting to be anything else but a mother is considered obscene and unimaginable. Her ambition to acquire new knowledge is looked down upon and viewed as a sin, “ I read by night so no one would know. I knew you would not approve “ (Cross 57). Due to the constant reprimands she receives she is left to fight her inner struggles of self-worth and deal with rejection from her family and society. This rejection underlines how she is an outcast within her own time period. As for The Creature he aspires to be a friend to society,yet he is constantly leered at for believing it would ever happen. His belief that
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s natural man is a creature characterized by self-pity and self-preservation. Rousseau speaks towards his natural man’s kind and virtuous being, but also makes mention of his need for survival. While Rousseau expresses a clear and firm sensitivity toward animals in his text, in his Second Discourse he does not make a solid case for vegetarianism.
Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing is, on the surface, a typical romantic comedy with a love-plot that ends in reconciliation and marriage. This surface level conformity to the conventions of the genre, however, conceals a deeper difference that sets Much Ado apart. Unlike Shakespeare’s other romantic comedies, Much Ado about Nothing does not mask class divisions by incorporating them into an idealized community. Instead of concealing or obscuring the problem of social status, the play brings it up explicitly through a minor but important character, Margaret, Hero’s “waiting gentlewoman.” Shakespeare suggests that Margaret is an embodiment of the realistic nature of social class. Despite her ambition, she is unable to move up in hierarchy due to her identity as a maid. Her status, foiling Hero’s rich, protected upbringing, reveals that characters in the play, as well as global citizens, are ultimately oppressed by social relations and social norms despite any ambition to get out.
The play Rhinoceros follows a single day as experienced by a few different people as they are to a conversion of sorts. They were convinced to convert to leaving the human life and becoming a rhinoceros. In all aspects of themselves, they did become rhinoceroses. In mind, emotion, physicality, demeanor, and communication, the characters of the play became a rhinoceros. They actually left their human body and were going to turn into a rhinoceros . Sounds absurd, and that is basically the whole point. The play was interpreted as a reaction to the fascism post - World War II. Rhinoceroses arrive in France, and of course the people of the French town want nothing to do with them. But as the day goes on, the
...d of the play who goes against order, or their given role of society is deemed unnatural. This becomes problematic because of the constraints it places on the acceptable of any change in society. Forgiveness and love are not attainable within this worldview.
In the play, A Doll’s House portrays the fixation to keep up with appearances through the main characters’ actions and words. A Doll’s House creates a statement about the gender roles and social norms in the nineteenth century. Ibsen argues that individual tend to get sidetracked due to appearances, especially in an effort to please society. Individuals tend to focus on the opinions of others, therefore they believe that keeping up with appearance is important. Appearances can be used to masks or deflect various hardships and issues of reality. A Doll’s House depicts that not everything is how it appears. Appearance are not necessary, if fact they only hold people back from doing what is important and distorts reality.
The authors' relations to us on the characters' places in society help us to relate to and comprehend their actions. If Meursault hadn't been so detached from society, Noboru so discontented with society, and Medea so vengeful toward society, we wouldn't have half of the justification needed to understand the murders that took place in the works. Given the presented material about conformity, I conclude that the stories' plots indeed grow around the unique attributes of the non-conformers, and as result, spark the reader's imagination to the fullest.