Philosophy

    After studying Henry David Thoreau s book Walden, or Life in the Woods (1995), I have acquired a number of significant concepts that have greatly enlightened me. Moreover, the author presents the relevant argument that humans do not essentially benefit from killing wildlife.

For example, in the chapter titled Economy, the author criticizes humanity s inclination to always be concerned about everyday activities and chores. To this end, Thoreau argues that by being inseparably entangled by life s cares, humanity essentially makes themselves slaves to such daily chores. The author especially shows that the wealthy are particularly burdened by always being obliged to tend to various life issues. He thus suggests that the poor are better off since they are not compelled by their social and economic situations to always be worried about taking care of many issues. Explaining that he obtained such insights while living in Concord s Walden Pond area, Thoreau urges people to shun the habit of always being virtual slaves to societal obligations. Such advice has greatly enlightened me because it shows that humanity s exaggerated preoccupation with maintaining economic and social order is essentially a futile affair. This is because after toiling very hard to maintain such systems, humans eventually die and are buried. Worse still, all humans are buried in the earth, whether poor or rich. All the material entities that people have spent their lifetimes working for are thus left behind. This argument therefore makes me espouse an attitude of moderation in all my affairs.  

        In addition, the chapter titled Higher Laws in Thoreau s book has also greatly enlightened me owing to its candid denunciation of humanity s deliberate violence against wildlife. In this chapter, the author presents several arguments that seek to dissuade mankind from hunting down, killing, and eating wildlife. As an illustration, Thoreau holds that human beings have been benevolently bequeathed their life by a higher Being the same way wildlife has. In addition, the author explains that wildlife, such as fish, are physically unclean and that humans should avoid eating them. Thoreau also posits that humans do not really derive sufficient benefits that justify the killing of wildlife, from eating wildlife. Finally, the author cites humanity s need to be accountable to a higher Being   the Giver of Life   as an aspect that should make humanity shun eating animal products (Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library). From the foregoing discussion, I have been enlightened regarding proper man-wildlife interactions. 

Studying Thoreau s arguments has broadened my scope of understanding regarding the debate on whether humans are justified in killing and eating wildlife. Specifically, the argument posed by the author to the effect that humans do not really benefit from eating animal products is very significant. This is because Thoreau aptly demonstrates that humanity s egoism as well as their desire to demonstrate power and control over wildlife pushes them to track down and murder animals for food. I have properly appreciated this primal urge to exhibit control over wildlife by mankind after studying Thoreau s book. Moreover, I have carefully considered the wider ramifications of the author s admonition to humanity that wildlife enjoys the same life that humans enjoy. Consequently, I have reflected on the moral stance regarding killing wildlife. Related to this concept is the fact that humans demonstrate condescension and selfishness when they kill and eat wildlife. This is because humans essentially deny wildlife a right to a life that humans did not in the first place confer onto the animals. Human beings thus commit a moral wrong against two entities by killing animals for food. First, the rights of the Giver of Life to determine when wildlife should die are violated when humanity kills animals. In addition, the animals themselves have their rights to life taken away when humanity murders wildlife for whatever reason. Thoreau s Walden, or Life in the Woods text thus presents very significant insights that widen my comprehension about various philosophical issues.

On the other hand, Simone de Beauvoir s text The Second Sex. Woman as Other (1949) is very significant in today s society as it properly analyses femininity as it is in the present era. For example, Beauvoir comprehensively traces the history of female subjugation under male dominance. Moreover, the author explains the factors that continue to make women socially, economically and psychologically inferior to men. To this end, Beauvoir blames women themselves as maintaining their oppression under men. The men are also cited as aggressively struggling to retain the status quo whereby they rule over women. Conversely, the author presents several strategies that women ought to use to liberate themselves from the yoke of male domination. By addressing issues that are very relevant in today s society, Beauvoir s text is very significant to the current feminism debate.

To begin with, the author cites women s behaviors as serving to accentuate their suffering under male power. As an illustration, she regards females natural inclination to align themselves with preferred male individuals or male groups as hurting women s cause for autonomy. A notable case is Beauvoir s explanation that a female writer once declined to have her photo grouped among photos of fellow female authors while at the same time employing the influence of her husband (Philosophy Archive  Marxists.org). This situation is aptly reflected in today s society whereby women s insecurity prevents them from joining suffering women in agitating for the troubled females  autonomy. By adopting this stance, women play into the machinations of the oppressive males besides consigning their female counterparts to social oblivion. This phenomenon is very rampant in the modern society, thus fully complementing Beauvoir s arguments.

In addition, the author observes that males have historically been opposed to women empowerment as they fear losing their harmful grip on women. Related to this is Beauvoir s complaint that men have consistently been  owners  of the world, meaning that women have always been under men power. In the present society, the push for women to acquire equitable social and economic conditions as men is always met with hostility by men. Modern men, who are wary of losing their control over women, usually put a lot of efforts to counter such drives. The men cite the mythical inherent weaknesses in women as some of their motivations for opposing female emancipation. The explanations presented in Beauvoir s text are thus aptly reflected in the present-day world.

Ultimately, the author argues that women ought to stand up as the suitable mediators in the issue of empowering females. She explains that women are more inclined to be impartial and objective as opposed to women. Female mediators would thus effectively help to settle the debate by ensuring that women and men assume their respective societal positions in a manner that values their individual liberties. For instance, she holds that any inherent principles held by any gender should be discussed in public to ensure mutual understanding. Bearing in mind that in the modern world, women are at the forefront of streamlining male-female relations, Beauvoir s advice should come in as very instrumental in resolving this matter.