In her article, Keisha Ray argues that “as a moral requirement we ought to explore whether stimulants could be a means of remedying underprivileged children’s experiences of social inequalities that are borne from inadequate schools for the sake of increasing their chances for opportunities and wellbeing.” (1) She seeks not to draw the line between treatment and enhancement, and instead proposes the term “opportunity enhancement”: the chance to use stimulants as a social tools. Her proposition of this term I believe this term is very appropriate and reasonable for our day and age. In addition to opportunity maintenance and as a result of it, Ray also proposes that as a moral requirement we ought to explore whether stimulants could be a means
…show more content…
(3) I agree completely. She identifies the problem of improperly educated children as the result of a socio-political problem, yet she proposes a solution that solves the problem at an individual level. She says that stimulants may be a better practical and just solution in our current unjust situation. (3) I don’t believe that giving children in inadequate schools stimulants will allow them to reap all the possible benefits of the situation they’re in, especially when there are no benefits to reap. Stimulants will not fix the education system, sure it’ll allow students to focus more and be more productive, but what’s the point of improving or better yet building upon their abilities when the education system is still not up to par? Ray acknowledges this and suggests that stimulants can contribute the best well-being by being part of a bigger social reform. In addition, she points out that as a society we have decided we are unwilling to pursue the traditional ways to improve these underprivileged children’s situations and that we are ignoring the problem. (11) However, I still believe that providing these children with stimulants is also ignoring the problem. I don’t even believe it can be part of a bigger solution. It’s a ridiculous solution. If I have a headache and you give me pills to help my digestive system sure I’ll, in theory, be healthier (wellbeing) but I’ll still have a headache. Stimulants don’t solve the problem. Nor do they do not contribute to the
(3) I agree completely. She identifies the problem of improperly educated children as the result of a socio-political problem, yet she proposes a solution that solves the problem at an individual level. She says that stimulants may be a better practical and just solution in our current unjust situation. (3) I don’t believe that giving children in inadequate schools stimulants will allow them to reap all the possible benefits of the situation they’re in, especially when there are no benefits to reap. Stimulants will not fix the education system, sure it’ll allow students to focus more and be more productive, but what’s the point of improving or better yet building upon their abilities when the education system is still not up to par? Ray acknowledges this and suggests that stimulants can contribute the best well-being by being part of a bigger social reform. In addition, she points out that as a society we have decided we are unwilling to pursue the traditional ways to improve these underprivileged children’s situations and that we are ignoring the problem. (11) However, I still believe that providing these children with stimulants is also ignoring the problem. I don’t even believe it can be part of a bigger solution. It’s a ridiculous solution. If I have a headache and you give me pills to help my digestive system sure I’ll, in theory, be healthier (wellbeing) but I’ll still have a headache. Stimulants don’t solve the problem. Nor do they do not contribute to the