The Elephant Man

1(A) John Merrick is a monster in the sense that he is a hideous sight, so in the more traditional sense of the word; a hideous creature, then he is. And the mutation had altered his genes so he is a monster in the sense that he has a hideous mutation. But in the more human sense of the word John Merrick is no more a monster than you or I. He has the ability to be socially active, to communicate and to think, and his braind is completely human. He experiences all the same emotions as humans, uses reason as we do, and can communicate through language. Also, he has the ability to create art, as all humans can, which is a skill uniqu to humans.

1(B) A counterclaim to each of these would be the fact that just because he looks hideous, it doesn't mean he is a monster, or because he has a mutation, and that the ability to function in society does not mean he isn't a monster, because their are examples of people that are considered monsters who can function in society; Radavan Keridic for example.

2. John Merrick means that he is not a monster, and that he is one of them; he may be different but he feels just like they do. He knows this because it is his body and his life and he knows how he feels.

3. Dr. Treves means that is he a good man for doing what he has done to Merrick or is what he's done bad. He doesn't know, but can't figure out if what he's done is good or bad and if that makes him good or bad.

Plato, Karadzic and Milosovic

1. After learning about how the Bosnian War began and the role of Karadzic and Milosovic, was it fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster"?
I believe it was fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster." There really was no question that Karadzic was behind these crimes, and there are a great many eyewitnesses to justify that his forces committed these atrocites, and thereby it goes along that he knew about these occurances which is easily justified by reason.

2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
The phrase itself is hard to justify the phrase itself because monster can mean many things, so it depends on the meaning you're trying for. If you mean someone who's doen horrible things then Plato would be able to justify it through Reason, Authority and Empiricism for some.

3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means?
Someone who's done, or order horrible things to be done. Someone who's actions are terrible enough to be percieved by humanity as a whole as wrong and inhuman.

The Monster Karadzic (FIRST 2009/2010 post)

The first article presents their knowledge that Karadzic is a monster through presenting "facts" that Karadzic is behind countless atrocities in Serbia, yet they present little justification for this. There is suggestions that their knowledge is justified through Knowledge by Authority; that they have aquired this knowledge from reliable sources.
The second article on the other hand doesn't even mention Karadzic, though he visited camps in Karadzic's area of "influence," and using logic you could deduce that Karadzic is a monster due to the condition of the camps; justified by Knowledge by Deduction. The whole article, on the other hand, is justified through Knowledge by Empiricism on his part and Authority on our part.