The Wall

Are ethical decisions possible when your basic necessities are not met?

 There has always been the discussion if it is possible to take ethical decisions when basic necessities are not met. In desesperate situations, the human being has a survival instinct that can lead to break the limit of the ethical. Moreover, cannot that be controlled and come up with other solutions?
 On the one hand, there are people who break the law or do immoral things in order to achieve their purposes of getting, as in the movie Slumdog Millionaire, money or food, because Jamal and Salim's desire of fulfilling their hunger is greater than any other thought, such as if what they are doing is appropiate or not.
 On the other hand, we can see people who in case os needing something. directly ask for it if they cannot get it by their own means because they lack possibilities. They leave the discussion of dignity away and let other people decide wether they are helped or not instead of stealing to satisfy their needs. In my opinion, this way of trying to get what they lack is ethical in every possible way, as they are not harming anyone.
 All in all, my conclusion is that it is possible to take ethical decisions to fulfill your basic necessities but the ones who do not take them cannot be judged, as they find theirselves in a struggle to survive.

“Were women in the 1900 more respected than nowadays?”

Throughout history, the role of women in the society has drastically changed. While in the 18th century their lives were practically decided by men, nowadays they can choose the way they want to live. Then, the question that arises is, where women in the 1900s more respected than women nowadays?

Society was, then; governed by maleness. Above all, economical division was widely highlighted, and so the role of those who had the less was accomplishing with what nobody wanted to. Between those unwanted activities, the more slaughtered ones were left to women. As we can watch in Downton Abbey, the household was made up by both women and men, but the harsh work, such as cleaning, cooking and having things organized for their masters, which whom they couldn't have much contact. This contrasts with activities done by upper class women, who were more likely to be worried just by the handling of their family welfare and the way they were presented to society.

Furthermore, the difference between poor and rich women also comprehend the fact of having a family or not. Referring again to Downton Abbey, we can mention that maids or chambermaids dedicated their whole lives to their work, and had no possibility of starting a family as they had to continue earning their own living. Otherwise, Ms. Crawley’s daughters had to worry about marrying a wealthy man, as if remaining single or falling in love with an ‘ordinary’ men was not a possibility for them. It that happened on those days, society would had judged the woman and who knows in which way, what punishment was applied to her, whether it was moral or it implied an action, but it was something to be despised for.

Nowadays, changes had taken place and women have more rights and they are mostly respected. Today women’s role is not set and they participate in many aspects of life, and not only those ones specifically originally thought for them. Such is the case of house chores which was previously linked to women, and nowadays is shared with males, as mutual respect between genders. We can also experience that women can get jobs and work, when in the past, that was only men’s tasks.

Women have the possibility of choosing, not only in their professional life, but also in their personal lives. They may or may not choose to form a family and that is alright. If they bring a child to the world, their schedules would work (the same for her partner) and she might not want that for her life. So women’s “objective” in life is no more procreating for leaving an heir for her husband. Not to mention that nowadays is also accepted for women to remain single and enjoy lives/life all by themselves.

Moreover, social classes still exist, but that does not affect the role women have in society. They can get a job and decide what they want in their lives. The difference may be that in lower classes, male chauvinism is still ingrained and cases of femicide are most commonly produced, as women are stripped of the rights of being a free human being. The annulment of their rights is also present, in a lower scale, when women are paid less than men for doing the same job, or when they are rejected for taking any job because of the “risk of getting pregnant”

All in all, I personally believe that women have gained a lot of respect among history. They have changed the way they were seen and treated by the whole society, and have now more power over her selves, more self-esteem to succeed as a person. Despite this, I strongly consider that there is still work to do, because beyond being women, they are human beings.

Is travelling to town from Adrogue better by minibus than by train?

For travelling to town from any point of the suburbs such as Adrogué, there are several options to choose, but the most frequently chosen are going by train or by minibus. So if we have to chose, which one is better?

First of all, we have to consider three principal aspects in which both means of transport differ: time, comfort and price. If you are in a hurry and need to reach destination quickly, taking the train is the best option, as it takes nearly 30 minutes from Adrogué to Constitución station. Very different is the case of minibus, which lasts at least one hour and 30 minutes, as it circulates through the road with the heavy traffic.

Secondly, taking into consideration comfort, depending on the time of the day, the train does not provide a great service. Early in the morning when commuters go to town, carriages  are full and it seems as there is not enough air for everyone to breathe. With the combi, instead, you can travel sitting and it has a capacity of 30 people, so there is no way to be uncomfortable. Into the bargain, seats are cushioned for your benefit.

Finally, in terms of price, it is far more viable to travel by train if you have to do this trip every day, as it costs less than four pesos while, in contrast, you have to pay 38 pesos each trip by minibus. However, special discounts are offered for regular passengers.

In conclusion, the better means of transport from Adrogué to town varies depending your necessities and your priorities. Nevertheless, from my point of view, if you are in a hurry, the train is always better. If you do not have much money, you will need to travel by train. If you have enough money and prefer travelling comfortably, then going by minibus a good option to choose.

Dead Man Walking

 The movie "Dead Man Walking" questions the capital punishment from the very beggining to the end and as a spectator, I am sure that capital punishment, although it is said to be a way of justice, is just the idea of it, not the solution.

 Mathew was responsible for killing a couple of teenagers after having raped the girl, and of course the victim´s parents wanted him to pay for that as their son and daughter were taken away from them because of him, so they claimed for execution. The thing is that their child won't be back from death with them whatever desition they make, so taking another life away won't make any difference rather than to calm the desire of releasing pain and anger. Killing him would probably add more pain to them, as they would have to carry the weight of the responsibility of depriving someone from living.

 Parents seem to believe in the Retributive Theory of punishment: as he killed their children, he has to be killed. Does it sounds logical to kill a murderer for that reason and in that way becoming one? If they kill Mathew, they would be now the ones who decided to take someone's life away, leaving aside the fact that they would take that desition because they believed Mathew deserved it while their innocent children don't.

 While the sister was getting to know Mathew and when he was regreting his actions, the victim´s relatives were seeking for revenge demanding the capital punishment on him. Mathew was not going to have the possibility of "paying" for what he has done as he would no longer exist. He would get a punishment that won't be understood by himself as he would be dead.

 The punishment to be applied has to be severe, as he killed a boy and raped a girl who was later killed too, but making him die is not fair and is not punishment enough. He has to live with the guilt and everyday try to compensate for what he did.