Tis My Opinion

S.M. Jones

Professor Lutz

ENGL 2030

12-1-2018

Murder: A Phenomenon 

            To many, the first murder to ever be committed was that of Abel by the hand of his own brother, Cain. As the story goes, both Cain and Abel were commanded by God to give an offering their Creator. Abel offered up the firstlings of his flock for he was a keeper of sheep and the Lord was pleased. Cain, on the other hand, was a tiller of the ground and thus thought the first fruits from the land would be a sufficient offering, to which the Lord had no respect whatsoever. Because of this, Cain hated his brother and promptly killed him. Though there was much hate between Frankenstein and his Creation, the question of whether or not Frankenstein’s hypothetical act of killing his Creature could be considered murder cannot be as easily answered as if one were to pose the same question to the killing of Able by the hand of Cain.

            Murder: 

1      noun

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder, or murder one), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder, or murder two).

2      Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: “That final exam was murder!”

3      a group or flock of crows.

4      verb (used with object)

Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.

to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

5      . verb (used without object)

to commit murder.

The word ‘murder’ has many definitions and connotations. For our discussion, we shall focus on the first and/or fourth/fifth in the process of coming to a coming to a conclusion pertaining to the morality- or lack thereof- of Frankenstein’s desire to extinguish the flame of life he so fervently kindled within the inanimate body of his Creation.

            The first definition of the word ‘murder’, as seen above, is “the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law”. With this definition in mind, as well as the fourth and fifth, we must then contemplate two follow-up questions in order to come to a rational conclusion: “Can Frankenstein’s Creation be considered human?” and if so, “By what law must this Being abide?”

            What does it mean to be human?

adjective

1.     of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty

2.     consisting of people: the human race.

3.     of or relating to the social aspect of people: human affairs

4.     sympathetic; humane: a warmly human understanding

noun

5.     a human being  

When we look up the word ‘human’ in the dictionary, we find that it has more than one definition. To answer the question of the Creature’s classification we need only to consider the physical form of said Creature. Presumably, Frankenstein constructed this Creature’s body from the remains of unburied human corpses. Grotesque though it may be, by the very definition above, this Creature is, in fact, thoroughly human. 

            Okay. You are not convinced. All the more reason for us to dive deeper into what it means to be human. Two synonyms for ‘human’ are sympathetic and humane. The Creature shows evidence of sympathy and humane feelings during the first few days of his observation of a small family of cottagers: “They were not entirely happy. The young man appeared to weep. I saw no cause to their unhappiness; but I was deeply affected by it.” (113, emphasis added) If the origin of the Creature’s physical composition wasn’t enough to establish in you a since of humanity then surely this display of such genuine affection and sympathy will suffice as proper evidence. 

            Having thus classified the Creature as a member of the species Homo-sapiens, let us return to the matter of lawful action. Though it is evident that this Creature is capable of benevolence, we mustn’t forget his immense capacity for malice and destruction. Throughout the novel this Creature commits three separate- but deliberate- murders.  Because of this, one would be correct in accusing the Creature of unlawful activity. In many countries during the time period in which this novel takes place, capital punishment is a just procedure in law. With this in mind, it would be safe to assume that a jury would indeed find it necessary to put this Creature to death for his repeated crimes. Being that Frankenstein is alone in his knowledge of the existence of his abominable Creation, he alone must bear the responsibility of enforcing law as his judge, jury, and executioner. So, in the hypothetical event of Frankenstein’s killing of his Creation, we must consider the fact that, in so doing, Frankenstein is enacting a just punishment and thus cannot be said to have murdered his Creation. 

            So, you have read this far and still disagree with the above argument on the basis that you don’t believe said Creature deserves the right to be called human. There is yet another path of reason we can consider in answering the question of whether or not the action of Frankenstein killing his Creation could be considered murder. 

            As stated above, there is a yet another definition of the word human: “of or relating to the social aspect of people.” By reason of this definition, this Creature himself is painfully aware of his lack of human status. He eventually separates himself from the human race all together: “[F]rom that moment I declared everlasting war against the (human) species…” (138) Thus the Creature himself answers the question of whether or not he belongs to the human race. 

            “So,” you ask, “if the creature is not human, then what would you call the result of his demise by the hand of his Creator? By the hand of Frankenstein?” Frankenstein, in this case, could be considered a nefarious artist who works with human remains as his medium. As an artist dissatisfied with his work might toss the product of hours of intense concentration into a wastebasket without a second though, so too must Frankenstein be allowed- neigh, obliged- to kill hiscreation if it so displeases him. That is if he is, in fact, capable of such a feat. But alas, whether or not he is capable, to find this out you must read the book. 

Until We Burn

Shawn Jones

M.J. Johnson

English 1020 D80

19 February 2018

It Shall Be

All living organisms require water to survive. This is a fact of survival and thus needs no further citation. In the past, the greatest civilizations were built near an abundance of water. In the present, this concept hasn’t changed but the way civilizations propagate water has become more advanced. The United States municipally distributes water to its states. While most people in the US have access to clean drinking water through the use of a tap, billions of dollars are being spent on bottled water and miles upon miles of landfills are being filled with these empty bottles when they no longer provide use. Although there are many benefits of bottled water, such as cleanliness and convenience, these benefits do not outweigh the cost. With that being said, what will be shall be.

Before delving further into the controversial topic of water bottle production, propagation, and pollution, I’d like to take the time to state that my family is made up of bottled water drinkers.  My mother has never been a big fan of municipal tap water. “It tastes nasty,” she replied when I inquired of her adverse opinion towards the tap. After a little further prying, she admitted that the knowledge of recycled sewage water spewing from the sink deterred her from ever taking a sip from the faucet. She knows the water has been treated and purified, but she still avoids drinking tap water at all costs. For this reason alone, my father makes sure that there is always a case of Kroger-brand water in its usual place beside the microwave in the kitchen of our home. Personally, I enjoy cold tap water, but I often find myself grabbing a bottle rather than a cup whenever I get the urge to quench my thirst with some good ol’ H2O. 

In the US, there are many families who have the same mindset as my mother when it comes to the tap. “While a large portion of the world desperately seek clean drinking water, the United States spends billions on bottled water when perfectly clean drinking water is readily available,” (HRF). Why would someone pay so much for water? Convenience, cleanliness, and availability. Over the weekend, I attended a youth evangelism conference in downtown Nashville. The building in which the convention was held was typically used for concerts, so it had a huge auditorium with a big stage in the middle of the floor. Upon arrival and after getting through security, I quickly made my way to my section. After taking my seat, I became aware of my dry throat and that there were a few minutes before the conference began; thus, the search for a water fountain began. After searching for five minutes in vain, it became apparent that whoever designed this building made sure that anyone dying of dehydration would have to purchase a bottle of water from concessions. I trudged in the direction of the popcorn aroma and came upon a line of hungry people waiting to purchase something high in calories and low in nutrients. I searched the menu for ‘bottled water’ and became dismayed upon the sight of the number under the ‘price’ column which read ‘$6’… SIX DOLLARS!! I walked away in a huff, determined not to pat six dollars for liquid that falls from the sky. On the way back to my seat, there was a partially full bottle of water on top of a trashcan. I didn’t think twice before twisting the top and guzzling down the precious fluid.  A man nearby by saw the whole thing and gave me a weird look. “I’m not paying damn-near ten dollars for a bottle of water,” I said before turning toward my seat without waiting for a response.

When the monetary price of water bottles is irrelevant and unnecessary, such as in times of disaster, clean water becomes available to those who otherwise would have none. “After natural disasters, water lines might be affected and disrupted and this may lead to contamination of water supplied to every home,” (HRF). Being that we live in America, it is a commonplace to have a television in the ordinary home. With that being said, no doubt we’ve all seen the aftermath of disasters such as the hurricane in Puerto Rico or Hurricane Harvey on the evening news. The scenes and shots displayed on such news cases consist of mostly people standing in line outside of relief centers. In addition to first aid, these relief centers provide water to those in need, usually contained in plastic bottles. When seen through this perspective, bottled water is quite literally a blessing. While this is an important perspective to have when discussing the pros and cons of bottled water, it clearly isn’t the only one. 

I have a very close friend who is an advocate for recycling. She owns a reusable plastic bottle that she brings to school with her every day. It could hold twenty ounces. On the rare occasion when she is ever seen her with the dreaded plastic at hand, it’s always safe to assume that it would soon find itself surrounded by the darkness of a blue bin. She tells me I should recycle. I acknowledge the dedication it takes to do so but can never bring myself around to making a habit of it. Nevertheless, I feel convicted to do so by the glare she imposes. There are many other reasons to back her up. “Of the 80 million single serve bottles of water consumed daily, 30 million of them end up in land fields. The average world recycle rate on beverages is around 50%. The United States falls behind world average with a rate of only around 20% of beverage containers actually getting recycled,” (Tapped). In my classes at La Vergne High, some of my teachers have admitted that they’ve witnessed janitors put both the ‘recycle only’ and ‘trash only’ cans in the same portable dumpster at the end of the day. That might sound a little conspiracy-theory-ist but that’s not the only source of shady business. Another friend of mine who works at Panera stated that when everyone’s finished cleaning at the end of the day, they throw away all the trash in one dumpster, recyclables and all. Avid recyclers should be wroth at these atrocities, these betrayals! They should cause a ruckus! They should demand word with executives! They should declare injustice upon administration! But alas, what’s the point? What’s the point of getting so worked up about this when there will always be those who, after downing a bottle, instantly throw it in the garbage without even thinking twice of where it would end up, for centuries. Yes, there will always be people who contribute to the plastic polluting our landfills. While there will always be people polluting, there will also be those who profit as well.

There are many companies out there making bottle bucks while they pollute the earth. You got the good ol’ Kroger brand. Nestle and Aquafina are household names. My economics teacher drinks Voss. Voss is considered a “better brand” water bottle. Fiji has also become a ‘better brand’ water bottle. “FIJI Water is regarded as a luxury bottled water product, commanding higher prices on the global market alongside European brands such as Perrier, well above less ‘exotic’ and geographically undefined bulk water products,” (Jones). I don’t see the appeal in a square piece of hollow plastic. To each his own I guess. But I digress. Fiji and companies like it are knowingly polluting this planet…and our bodies. 

Commercials lead us to believe that ‘bottled’ is ‘better’, that ‘plastic’ water is ‘pure’, but the truth is, most water in those bottles are just as good, or worse, when it comes to the contamination factor of water. “Although many water bottles claim to be "purified", independent testing done in 2008 revealed that 10 brands of water bottles contained 38 contaminants!” (Moussavi). With the advancements in modern biology, the human race has become aware of microorganisms- living things that cannot be seen with the naked eye. There are billions of microorganisms out there, some beneficial, others harmful. Those who have the knowledge of what is what when it comes to harmful or beneficial are usually able to take advantage of those who know less, or in other words, the ignorant. And wherever there’s ignorance, fear is never too far off. For example, not many people know what BPA is but it has caused a lot of freight in the water industry. Those who know what BPA is try to keep it under wraps. Those who have an idea of what BPA is freak out about how much they don’t know about it. If you have not heard of this killer, I advise you to do some research. In this scenario, if a company were to put “BPA Free” on their bottles, it would outsell bottles without that label.

Water is essential. Without it, there would be no life. Yes, water is essential, but the plastic we use to contain it is not. Indeed, its convenience and cleanliness are strong incentives to keep it around, but the damage it’s causing, both to the environment and to our bodies heavily outweigh these benefits. With that being said, man, the selfish being he is, will take advantage of this earth as long as he resides within it. What will be shall be.

Work Cited

https://healthresearchfunding.org/bottled-water-pros-cons/

            Bottled Water Pros and Cons

http://www.personal.psu.edu/afr3/blogs/siowfa12/2012/09/why-plastic-water-bottles-are-bad-for-you-1.html

            Why Plastic Water Bottles Are Bad for You, Paulina Moussavi

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apv.12144

            FIJI Water, water everywhere: Global Brands and Democratic and Social Injustice Catherine Jones, Warwick E. Murray, John Overton 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzntuXdE8dY

            Tapped documentary