1 Fujimori

Mrs. Housepian
English 2H; Period 5
22 January 2015
Altruism
Altruism is the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the wellbeing of others. Jay Sterling Silver writes an article called, Can the Law Make Us Better. Silver
stands on the matter of punishing those who do not act when theres an emergency. Being a
bystander in a situation, doesnt always mean you need to save the day, it could be the smallest
action such as 911. It is ones ethical responsibility to help those who are in need, and the ones
who dont follow, should be punished to an extent.
Bystanders or who witness an emergency scenario should have or feel the responsibility
to act on the situation. In an article, Bloom and Allred describe the Princess Diana tragedy and
state their point on how the U.S. should help those in need by making some changes: It should
be a call to the U.S. law to require each of us to render at least minimal assistance where
possible to those at risk of suffering grievous injury or death (Allred and Bloom 1 ). Allred and
Bloom state that theretheir should be a law that requires the citizens to help someone whose life
could be in danger by doing even the smallest action. In a situation where bystanders casually
walk by someone who is in great danger, they should be required to help or at least give
reasonable assistance. Like Allred and Blooms point of view, Peter Singer also believes that
bystanders should help those in emergencies. To prove Peter Singers point about altruism, he
presents a gruesome video, and the narrator states, Its a story thats deeply unsettled millions
in China, footage of a 2 year-old girl was hit by a van and left bleeding in the streets by
passersbys (Ted Talk Video). In China, footage caught on tape shows a van who ran a 2 yearold girl over twice, and bled to death went viral. While showing his video, Singer shows how in a
matter of 2 minutes, many people have walked by and/or around her, yet they havent done

2 Fujimori
anything to help. Not one person attempted to help her or at least call 911, and as a result of
this, this 2 year-old girl left laying in the street, bled to death. There is an ethical responsibility
for bystanders or witnesses to help those in an emergency, whether its someone getting hit by
a car, or just someone who is injured. Doing the smallest action, could save a persons life.
In the U.S. people become selfish because of a desire toto either conform to the rest of
society, or because they hold onto a legal system strong on individualism. This allows people
becoming a good samaritan that much harder. In another article, Sjoerdsma describes the
possible reasons why or why not people help, and he states, But our nation is much too
litigious and dangerous...For Americans, moral conscience, not legal duty, remains the best
guide to emergency aid (Sjoerdsma 2). Americans care too much about what might happen to
themselves if they try to help. They follow what they believe is morally correct, rather than just
helping someone. If an individual is in danger, one of the only ways a bystander would help is if
they have a good moral conscience to help, and to not only worry about themselves. In addition
to Sjoerdsma perspective, the Crash Course presented by Hank Green, Agression v. Altruism,
he describes the reasoning for people not helping when around others: If youre around other
people, it's easier to think that someone else is going to pick up the slack (Crash Course). He
also lists that people help others for either self-interest which could possibly make it a cost
benefit situation, or making it a social exchange. If there are many people around an
emergency, bystanders are less likely to help, because they would assume that someone else is
going to help. However, theres a chance that they do decide to help, but its not true altruism.
They could help due to them being interested in whats going on, possible attention, or they
assume that if you help them, now youre obligated to help them. People who take advantage of
these situations should have a punishment. In an emergency, people shouldn't think about
themselves, they should simply just stop for a second, and help the person who needs help.
It is everyones duty to be a good samaritan, whether its an emergency or not. Even if it
doesnt follow your moral conscience, you should look past it and help out. To help someone in

3 Fujimori
need, you dont necessarily need to do something heroic or extravagant, you could simply call
911, and those seconds you use to call, could possibly save that persons life. If there is a law
that requires everyone to pitch a little help in, and those who decide not to, should have a
consequence.

Rubric rating submitted on: 1/29/2016, 12:21:36 PM by c.smart@ggusd.net

Overall
Description of
what each
score looks
like; this row is
for
informational
purposes only.
See YOUR
score below.
Your score:

A 5 essay
demonstrates
a clear
competence in
writing. It may
have some
errors, but they
are not serious
enough to
distract or
confuse the
reader. (A 6
essay is
superior writing
which meets
the criteria of a
Score of 5, and
is especially
distinctive in its
exceptionally
coherent and
well-developed
argument,
thorough
development
of analysis of
specifics
related to the
prompt and
text(s), and
impressive
control of
language.)

A 4 essay
demonstrates
proficient
writing. It may
have some
errors that
distract the
reader, but
they do not
significantly
obscure
meaning.

A 3 essay
demonstrates
developing
competence,
but is flawed in
some
significant
way(s).

A 2 essay is
seriously
flawed.

A 1 essay
demonstrates
fundamental
deficiencies in
writing skills.

4 Fujimori

Statement of
Purpose/Focus
(a-b)
Your score: 3

(a) Claim is
clear, focused,
and
maintained. [if
applicable: (b)
Alternate or
opposing
claim(s) are
adequately
addressed.]

(a) Claim is
clear, and for
the most part
maintained,
though some
loosely
relevant
material may
be present. [if
applicable:
(b)Alternate or
opposing
claim(s) are
introduced.]

(a) Claim may

be clearly
focused, but is
flawed in some
significant
way(s). [if
applicable: (b)
Alternate or
opposing
claim(s) are
unclear or
unfocused.]

(a) Claim is
unfocused
and/or
insufficiently
sustained. [if
applicable:
(b)Alternate or
opposing
claim(s) are
unclear or not
present.]

(a) Claim may

be confusing
or ambiguous.
[if applicable:
(b) Alternate or
opposing
claim(s) are
not present.]

Organization
(c-e)
Your score: 4

(c) Consistent
use of
transitional
strategies. (d)
Logical
progression of
ideas from
beginning to
end. (e)
Effective
introduction
and conclusion
for audience
and purpose.

(c) Adequate
use of
transitional
strategies with
some variety.
(d) Adequate
progression of
ideas from
beginning to
end. (e)
Adequate
introduction
and
conclusion.

(c) Inconsistent
use of basic
transitional
strategies with
little variety.
(d) Uneven
progression of
ideas from
beginning to
end. (e)
Introduction
and conclusion
are present.

(c) Limited use

of basic
transitional
strategies with
little or no
variety. (d)
Unclear
progression of
ideas from
beginning to
end. (e)
Introduction
and conclusion
are attempted
but insufficient.

(c) Few or no
transitional
strategies are
evident. (d)
Has a major
drift in the
progression of
ideas/complete
ly off topic. (e)
Introduction
and/or
conclusion
may not be
present.

Elaboration of
Evidence (f-g)
Your score: 5

(f) Relevant
evidence from
a sufficient
amount of
sources is
effectively
integrated with
appopriate
citation. (g)
Effective use
of elaborative
techniques
("means/matte
rs").

(f) Relevant
evidence from
a sufficent
amount of
sources is
integrated,
though
integration
may be slightly
awkward,
general, or
imprecise. (g)
Adequate use
of some
elaborative
techniques.
("means/matte

(f) Evidence
from sources is
weakly and
awkwardly
integrated and
citations, if
present, are
inconsistent.
(g) Marginal or
inconsistent
use of
elabortive
techniques
("means/matte
rs").

(f) Evidence
from sources,
although
included, is
insufficient and
inappropriately
integrated or
cited. (g)
Elaborative
techniques are
weak.

(f) Use of
evidence from
sources is
minimal,
absent, in
error, or
irrelevant. (g)
Elaborative
techniques are
absent.

5 Fujimori

rs")
Language,
Vocabulary (h)
& Style
Your score: 5

(h) Proper use

of academic
and domainspecific
vocabulary is
appropriate for
the audience
and purpose.
Proper voice,
tone, and
perspective is
used. Distinct
writing style is
used.

(h) Use of
academic and
domainspecific
vocabulary is
generally
appropriate for
the audience
and purpose.
Mostly the
proper voice,
tone, and
perspective is
used. A
distinct writing
style is
attempted.

(h) Use of
academic and
domainspecific
vocabulary
may at times
be
inappropriate
for the
audience and
purpose.
Voice, tone,
and
perspective
may be
inappropriate
or inconsistent.
Writing style is
vague or
overly
simplistic.

(h) Use of
academic and
domainspecific
vocabulary is
largely
inappropriate
for the
audience and
purpose.
Voice, tone,
and
perspective is
inappropriate
or causes
major
inconsistencies
in the paper.
Simplistic
writing style
limits
effectiveness
of paper.

(h) Uses
limited
academic
language or
domainspecific
vocabulary and
has little sense
of audience
and purpose.
Voice, tone,
and/or
perspective is
confusingly
inconsistent or
inappropriate.
Writing style is
unrecognizable
.

Conventions (ij)
Your score: 4

(i)
Demonstrates
some
syntatical
variety, and
has limited or
no errors in
grammar,
usage, and
sentence
formation. (j)
Standard use
of punctuation,
capitalization,
and spelling.

(i) Some errors

in grammar,
usage, and
sentence
formation may
be present, but
no systematic
pattern of
errors is
displayed. (j)
Some errors in
punctuation,
capitalization,
and spelling.

(i) Frequent
errors in
grammar and
usage may
obscure
meaning. (j)
Frequent
errors in
punctuation,
capitalization,
and spelling.

(i) Frequent
errors in
grammar,
usage, and
sentence
formation
obscure
meaning. (j)
Frequent
errors and/or
limited use of
punctuation,
capitalization,
and spelling.

(i) Errors in
grammar,
usage, and
sentence
formation are
frequent and
severe, and
meaning is
often
obscured. (j)
Inappropriate
or incorrect
use of
punctuation,
capitalization,
and spelling.

Comments:
4+