- Do you think Joe Carp and Frank Reilly should be considered Charlie’s friends? Explain why or why not.
Restating the question, I believe Joe Carp and Frank Reilly should not be considered Charlie’s friends. In the story, they often mock and belittle Charlie instead of supporting him. For instance, while they initially include him in their activities, they frequently laugh at him and use him as a source of amusement, calling him "dummy." This behavior shows a lack of true friendship, as they take advantage of his low intelligence rather than trying to help him improve or feel valued. The way they treat Charlie reflects their superficial loyalty, showing that they are more interested in their own entertainment than in being genuine friends. Therefore, their actions reveal that they do not truly care for Charlie’s well-being. In summary, Joe Carp and Frank Reilly should not be considered Charlie’s friends since they exploit his vulnerability for their amusement.
- In what way is Charlie the same at the end of the story as he is at the beginning? In what way is he different?
Restating the question, Charlie is the same at the end of the story in that he continues to seek acceptance and understanding from others. At the beginning, Charlie expresses his desire to be loved and accepted, stating, "I want to be smart and make friends." This longing remains constant throughout the narrative, highlighting his core need for connection. However, Charlie is different in terms of his intellectual capabilities; after the operation, he becomes highly intelligent and aware of the relationships and dynamics around him. His newfound knowledge allows him to reflect critically on his past, including how he was treated by others like Joe and Frank. As a result, he experiences personal growth but becomes disillusioned by the harsh realities of human behavior. In conclusion, while Charlie's longing for acceptance remains unchanged, his awareness and intellectual capacity transform drastically.
- Explain whether you believe it is ethical to use humans as experimental subjects. Use evidence to support your reasoning.
Restating the question, I believe it is unethical to use humans as experimental subjects, especially without their full understanding and consent. In "Flowers for Algernon," Charlie is subjected to an experimental procedure to increase his intelligence without being fully informed of the potential risks and the nature of the study. For instance, he states, “They told me it was for my own good, that they wouldn't let me be hurt.” This indicates that he was not fully aware of the possible consequences of the experiment, which ultimately leads to his tragic decline. Ethical treatment in research requires informed consent and the safeguarding of participants' rights and well-being. Charlie’s suffering and eventual regression serve to underscore the dangers of exploiting vulnerable individuals for experimentation. In summary, the ethical implications of using humans as experimental subjects highlight the necessity of consent and respect for human dignity in research practices.