In my language class we've just finished reading the book "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keys (the short story, not the novel) and now I'm to give a debate for why I'm against artificial intelligence enhancement. (this is acting in the point of view that the surgery that Charlie had actually exists and also that after he regresses that he does not die as some readers have inferred. Yes, I realize that this is in the Books & Authors section, this is because anyone who may have read the book would understand how my debate should be, and more or less what i'm basing my morals off of. Thanks.
-CayleeJo
2007-10-09 11:51:07 · 5 answers · asked by Bello Stella 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
As discussed in the short story “Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keyes intelligence enhancement is an operation which has in turn produced both pros and cons
How's this for a topic sentence? I need to somehow also say in the topic that I'm on the 'cons' side....
-CayleeJo
2007-10-09 12:48:08 · update #1
My biggest arguement would be that Charlie didn't know what he was missing beforehand, and now he does. He must now live the rest of his life (if he's still alive) with the pain of losing those abilities. "When ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise." (Poet, Thomas Gray)
On the other hand...was it valuable to him? Maybe it was worth it to him, even if it was temporary? Is it his loss or ours on his behalf? From the short story...we don't know.
Also...watch the movies Charlie and Awakenings for more insight.
2007-10-09 11:58:10 · answer #1 · answered by backwardsinheels 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read the novel and I really enjoyed it. I would totally be for it because I think Charlie became a super genius afterwards and if others were given this opportunity, who knows how they would hep the advancement for medical cures and other field.
On the other hand, the people around him would be hurt by seeing the potential that one person had wither away. It would be like creating an alternative person (because the enhanced Charlie was nothing like his former self) and then killing that person. Charlie was left as if nothing had changed for him however, so it wouldn't be too bad for the subject just those around him.
2007-10-09 19:01:54 · answer #2 · answered by samurai_fairy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Having read the novel and seen the movie (Cliff Robertson was awesome), I would believe that one could either be for it or against it. In one way if you are for it, then it would benefit, albeit for a short while, the person who was "dumb" and then grew smart. But on the other hand, when they regress, it hurts to see them do so. As for me, I am for finding a way to keep it there forever. I am sure we could but what about the implications to the person(s) involved. How would they adjust to going from dumb to smart? How would they react to their "dumb" friends when they are now smart?A lot of questions can be raised about this.
2007-10-09 18:59:41 · answer #3 · answered by Herr Oberst 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
his effort to find a cure failed, was the price he paid (heart break) worth it?
the operation performed on him was very limited in success, did the medicial community really learn anything?
would intelligence enhancement really make people happier?he was happy as he was before the operation.
when he made fun at the handicapped person and realized that intelligence dosen't add to a person's humanity.
2007-10-09 19:01:18 · answer #4 · answered by oldguy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
artificial intelligence alters the laws of nature
it is best to try your best at what you can do rather than change the way nature intended for you
2007-10-09 18:55:57 · answer #5 · answered by ask alot 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋