Secretary Clinton’s Address on the Human Rights of LGBT People

Social Construction of Killing

I would like to further expand upon the thought process I was trying to articulate today in class about what I consider to be the social construction of our understanding of "killing." When I shoot someone in Memphis, that is "murder." When I pull the same trigger in Iraq (iffy example, I realize), it's an "act of war." The same action goes by two different names, and the same action receives two different reactions from both the public arena and from the judicial system. I can receive a death sentence for one and I can receive a medal for the other. I understand that these two scenarios fall under different legal categories based on the definitions we have constructed of what constitutes "murder" qua "murder," but viewing the action through a Kantian lens, it seems as though the actions are not so different. We cannot say that as a universal maxim, killing is to be praised. Therefore, it cannot be. Regardless of whether it's Osama bin Laden or whoever we deem to be the manifestation of pure evil or whatever, we cannot celebrate death as a universal maxim. I think this is what Dr. Krog was talking about, in a way, because when we begin to permit or even celebrate some murders, where is the line? When does it stop?

Our discussion on torture made me think of this movie I saw called "Unthinkable" with Samuel L. Jackson which I'm sure some of you have seen. If not here's a link to the movie trailer.

The movie is an example of our "ticking time bomb" scenario in which there are 3 bombs in 3 different locations and only one man knows the location of those bombs. Jackson plays the torturer who goes to any lengths to get the information out, from beatings to cutting off fingers. He even brings in the man's wife and children and ends up slitting his wife's throat, killing her. In the end, the terrorist gives up the location but in the end we find out there was a 4th bomb that he did not tell us about. Although this is just a movie, I think it is a pretty realistic situation in which we see how torture does not work. The man was willing to undergo any form of pain and suffering and even admitted that he deserved it. In the end, many people were saved but innocent people still died and even in the hands of those who were sent there to help. This just goes to show how inhumane torture really is.

Back to Nozick

This is a video of Elizabeth Warren, who is the Democrat running against Scott Brown in the Massachusetts senate race next year. She's a lawyer who specializes in bankruptcy and has worked for the Obama administration.

The part that I want to focus on is her discussion of the social contract. She notes that when a major corporation makes money, they should absolutely keep a large chunk, but they should also pay some forward in the form of taxes. Her logic is this: A company makes its own product BUT that product is transported on roads built by taxpayer money, protected by public police and fire forces, and is made by workers educated by the public school system. In this way, the public contributes to the production, safekeeping, and distribution of goods and deserve to benefit from the success of that. Taxes also help produce similar successes in other companies.

I bring this up because I think maybe it can apply to our Wilt situation. Let's say Wilt learned to play basketball in public elementary school, practiced on city parks, and was given money to play for a public college (KU). Doesn't the same pay it forward system apply? Wilt absolutely deserves to benefit from his natural talent and from the freely given money of those who want to watch him play. Given Warren's logic (and if you can't tell, I'm totally on board with it), he also has a responsibility to the community that helped him along. Additionally, taxing the inheritance that he transfers to his children makes more sense because the community ought also to inherit as a result of their own contribution, although that inheritance may be in the form of taxation.

What do y'all think of this situation?

Senate Votes to Continue Controversial Detention Policies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html

If I recall correctly, this was one of the provisions put forth by the Patriot Act - that the military can indefinitely detain anyone, including American citizens, on suspicion of terrorism without trial. Unfortunately, the bill itself is over 600 pages, so I am only able to go on what other people say is in this bill rather than report on what exactly is in it. But my main question here is why anyone would/could support something like this? We've brought up in class the idea of the State of Exception, but what exactly is the appeal? Certainly it can't be security, because the person is endangered now only only by whatever is threatening the nation, but also the nation itself. Back when the Patriot Act was a new thing, a lot of people were arguing if you weren't doing anything wrong, then there was nothing to worry about. However, you don't have to be doing anything wrong just be suspected of doing something wrong. So the American citizens are not made safer by such laws. Personal anecdote, in my High School had the scare of a school shooting. What happened was two students (Let's call them One and Two) were supposedly going to, according to police reports, "Snipe students from the trees with shotguns" and/or "Run through the school in a Nazi formation shooting students." If you have questions after reading that, you should. Student One and Two were the "scary goth" type, wearing chains and writing bad poetry, etc, etc. And apparently, Student Two told a student that he and Student One were plotting to shoot the school. All those who knew Student Two said he was a notorious liar. Anyway, the cops were involved and put Student One on house arrest while they searched for evidence (Reasonable.) However, after two years their lead piece of evidence was a drawing done by Student One of "two people standing back to back, shooting aliens," which the police deducted represented students. Student One was an amateur director and claimed that the picture was based on a film of his called Octoalien or something along that line. The Nazi running/shotgun sniping ws a speculation by the police. Was a two year detention (before any trial) while the police looked for evidence justified? Were we made safer or was this a gross example of someone's rights being trampled?

Kant in Three

I think he is a bit hard on Kant but its still very informative and entertaining :)

A look in the mirror?

        For the majority of the semester we have attempted to dissect and rationalize the arguments of many. Some of us have agreed with many of these arguments, while others have not. All of them pertaining to what is just and what is justice and how do we as a society deal with moments of injustice. I found it very intriguing however, that during class, there was no opposition to whether or not torture was unjust. Maybe, no one was willing to speak up in support of it, but it appeared that we all agreed that it was unjust. We discussed how to handle it , and differences arose there , but that was understood. My question is, how can we, as such a diverse group of people, understand that torture is unjust, and still have a national debate over the topic. The "bottom line" is without regard to political , religious, or personal views, none of us are wiling to will hurting another human to attain information as a universal maxim. I believe this was Dershowitz's plan, to illustrate that we all understand the torture is unjust, which is why it is a secret action. He offered the torture warrants as a means of assigning responsibility. However assuming responsibility for torture makes it appears as though you are pro torture, which also means you  would be understanding if another person chose to torture you. I don't think there are many who are okay with that. I believe Dershowitz was also attempting a sort of forced self reflection, making us analyze what we truly were allowing to happen as a country -what do you think ?

On "Tortured Reasoning"

In his essay "Tortured Reasoning," Alan Dershowitz calls for the requirement of torutre warrants. Requiring torture warrants holds someone accountable for the torture, which is a responsibility that no one is morally willing to accept; however, the majority supports torturing in specific situations (i.e. the ticking time bomb).
In "Tortured Reasoning" Alan Dershowitz asserts that he believes that torturing is bad, but because people do it anyway he wants it to become more public by issuing torture warrants. In order to issue torture warrants, toroture would have to be legalized, which is impossible. To legalize torture, it would first have to be justified. But how do you justify something that is irrational? Torturing has been proven to be an unreliable method of obtaining information. When under duress the tortured will be willing to say anything for alleviation; therefore any information they give will be unreliable, and the practice of torture will have been irrational. Moral reasons will also prevent people from legalizing warrants. Do you think that it was Dershowitz plan to actually create torture warrants? -- which would be flawed by this logic that was presented today in class. Or do you think he suggested it with this falw in mind to emphaisize how torture is unjust?

It seems to me that in our discussion of interrogational torture there is really only one fact you need to know, this being that it does not work. If it does not work then nothing else matters. Sure its immoral and illegal but even if you were willing to look past that in a situation of necessity nothing can change the fact that it does not work. I guess people have a hard time accepting this because given a "ticking time bomb" type situation they want to think that there is something they can do. Even the chance that there might be a person who might have the information that might be useful and he might give it up if he is tortured seems to be enough for people to justify the use of torture. But this just is not logical. Torture does not work, so why do it? Why violate someones rights and humanity for false or no information? Earlier in the semester we discussed the scenario of a train that will hit three people unless someone flips a switch in which case it will hit only one. In this scenario we discussed peoples inclination to remain passive and allow the larger number of people to die. This is the same idea with torture except when given the situation we do not want to be passive, we want to flip the switch. Maybe this is because with torture we see the tortured as being unequal to those we want to save. We assume that the tortured is the bad guy and does know the information and therefore we justify torturing him to save others, something we would not do in the case of the assumed equally innocent train victims. The truth is though that we do not know this and in fact all we do know is that torture is proven to be ineffective.

More on the State of Exception

An excerpt from Giorgio Agamben's State of Exception.

The merits of a discussion about Torture

I would like to bring up for our online discussion, what I already mentioned in class today. Personally, I have a really hard time understanding the merit of a discussion about torture after we learned that interrogational torture does not work. Of course, we can get engaged in a discussion about the morality and legality of torture, but I don‘t see the sense of it. Maybe, this is my fault and if so, please correct me. Nevertheless, it is a dictate of logic that a conclusion always has to be wrong if the premisses from which it was derived are wrong. In order to point that out clearly, I would like to give an example from our daily lives. In the last couple of weeks, I saw you guys working on your schedules for the spring semester. You decide what classes you want to take on the base of your interests and of what your major tells you to choose. Hence, there has to be some kind of information about the content of the classes and how you can count them. Based on these information, you finally choose your classes and with a little help of luck, you get them. But what if these information that you needed to make your decision were just wrong? Let‘s imagine, the syllabus of a class will be changed dramatically so that you cannot count that class anymore as the one that you need. Clearly, it makes no sense anymore to take that class.

Talking about the morality of torture by using the argument of necessity is analog to this example, because it is simply a logic fallacy to use a technique that causes wrong information (if it causes information at all) in order to get right information.

Additionally, Dershowitz‘ argument that we have to legalize it in order to make people aware of the immorality of torture does not convince me as well. Granted, it could be a practical way of preventing people from doing the actual act of torturing but that must not be the goal of a philosophical approach about torture. It could be a political one yes, but not a philosophical, but even here, as Tommy already pointed out in class, it is actually not a matter of laws, for torture is already illegal. It is more a matter of the enforcement of existing laws. Hence, rather than making this practical approach, we ought maybe think about, what kind of morality stands behind these actions.

I‘m curios to read your answers!

What will the "state of exception" lead to?

I found an article that discussed a conversation between Carl Schmitt, associated with the “state of exception” concept, and a man named Walter Benjamin. Benjamin stated:

“The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the “state of exception” in which we live is the rule. We must arrive at a concept of history which reflects this. Then it will become clear that our mission is the introduction of a genuine state of exception; and our position in the struggle against Fascism will benefit from it. Fascism has a shot in part because its opponents, in the name of progress, treat it as a historical phenomenon.—But the astonishment that what we are experiencing is “still possible” in the twentieth century is not a philosophical reaction. It is not the beginning of recognition, unless by recognition we mean that the conception of history on which it rests is unsustainable.”

–Walter Benjamin, Über den Begriff der Geschichte: VIII. geschichtshistorische These (1940) in: Gesammelte Schriften, vol. I/2, p. 697 (S.H. transl.)

We can see from this statement the importance of carefully examining our history and the validity of the state of exception to see if it has become the rule. In becoming the rule the government would be taking advantage of this “state of exception” and allowing a totalitarian rule to form. The article draws a parallel to America after 9/11 in which parts of the Constitution were suspended by the president as a precautionary measure which is something we discussed in class (with the airport situation and violation of people’s privacy).

I think it would definitely be important to consider this idea because it has been seen throughout history that people often take advantage of power, and eventually dictatorship and complete government control occurs. Although I am not sure we will see a Julius Caesar or even a Hitler in our time again, the possibility is always there. Of course after a tragedy such as 9/11 happens, the government is justified in wanting to help protect the people from any further harm, but who is to say that the government will not continue to invade people’s privacy and their rights? When is the right time to end the “state of exception” and bring back those rights given by the Constitution?

This idea can also apply to our discussion of torture. If we allow one state of exception for one instance of torture then we are giving people the notion that torture is sometimes okay. This cannot work in such an extreme violation of human rights. Once it is justified one time then it would surely become justified at other times and could lead to much worse conditions. Torture needs to be accepted as always wrong and not sometimes justified based on what people think; Varying people have different ideas of what could be warranted and, as humans are flawed, so would the system which establishes when torture is justifiable.

Here’s the article if you want to check it out. I thought it was pretty interesting.

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/05/hbc-90007047

It's Illegal No Buts About It

The discussion of torture has been a frustrating one in regards to how it is viewed. Despite being illegal, there seems to be so many exceptions to an act that is no doubt wrong on so many levels. We've tried to rationalize as a class examples of torture as well as when and how they are acceptable or not, but it seems that we never really accept that TORTURE IS ILLEGAL, and therefore should not be practiced or tolerated. We have tried to justify exceptions based on moral or political claims, but the truth of the matter is TORTURE IS ILLEGAL.

My research paper is about female genital mutilation, which is also known as female circumcision and I argue how this act despite its cultural influences is torture. No matter how you view this act, whether from a cultural perspective or moral perspective, the idea of physically altering a female's reproductive organs by force without consent is not something that would be willed to everyone. No exception can justify the act, and even if there were one the act is STILL ILLEGAL. People often try to make arguments for things that are at the core wrong and unacceptable, because they need to have a say or need an understanding. But some things as apparent as torture, no matter the form, should be accepted as what they are- illegal and wrong.

Spanking is teaching and torturing is legalizing rape

At home it is called spanking, in the court systems it is termed corporal punishment, and in schools it is known as the “board of education.” These are the closest terms to what the majority of us have come to know as torture. But is it really torture? According to Dr. J, the first fact about torture is “torture does not ‘work’.” I may speak for myself, but for me, spanking did work and it was probably one of the most effective means to get me to behave. I may be the exception child, but I did not receive very many spankings. This was because the threat of a spanking from my parents was enough to be considered punishment for me. If a threat was said I would be sneakily running away from all adults present. I figured if I was out of sight, I would be out of mind; therefore, no spanking was necessary. I was still caught a couple of times and got a spanking; however, despite this horrific event, every year when I go to the doctor they have yet to tell me that I have chronic damage or a psychological problem as a result of my childhood. I am not suggesting that spanking is the only effective punishment for children. Like all cases, every child is different and responds differently to different punishments. In fact, certain school districts are bringing back the “board of education,” or the paddle.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7390234

In this article, it says that parents are requesting the school to swat their children. It is used most often in high schools than in elementary schools. Do you think this is an effective punishment? Spanking is a form of punishment that is used to condition individuals into learning what is right and what is wrong.

Comparing spankings to torture, they are two completely different things. Torturing an individual is a dehumanizing act for the torturer and the tortured, and it is not meant to teach an individual. Initially when presented with the idea of torture, it is seen as a necessary evil that falls in the gray area of right and wrong. The ticking time bomb case is what usually ends up coming to mind when I think of torture – you have 2 hours to find where the bomb is planted and to save millions of lives. It is hard to say that torture does not work, because if torture does not work, what does work? Are we to stand with our hands in our pockets? It is hard to comprehend the idea that we can do nothing and that we must wait to experience the worst.

Initially in class, I thought torture was an effective means to receive information, and it is hard to comprehend that it unconditionally wrong in every circumstance. A rational law cannot be created deeming torture to be legal because that would make it not only legal for the government but also for every individual in America. A form of torture is rape, and by legalizing torture you would be creating a higher law that would be legalizing rape. You cannot put a conditional statement to legalize rape. This rationing makes me think of legalizing torture in a black and white way. Torture is inconsistent with previously established laws, and to deem it legal would be to undermine other laws. Do you agree with this rationing?

http://www.irct.org/news-and-media/irct-news/show-news.aspx?PID=13767&Action=1&NewsId=2734

Torture vs Spanking

Today, we began talking about torture. I think this is a very timely topic but not one that I have thought about in depth before. I am excited to become more knowledgeable about the topic and develop my own views on the issue. Like Dershowitz said in the reading, this is a topic that needs to be discussed so that it is not used in unjust ways. If we never talk about issues, they will continue to happen and people's rights will be violated. 

The topic I found most interesting today was our discussion of spanking and whether or not that is a form of torture. Let me preface my opinion by saying that I was not spanked as a child and I do not plan on spanking my children. I may find that it is necessary, but at this time I do not plan on using this parenting method. Anyway, I believe that in some cases, spanking is torture. There are children that live in constant fear that a parent or family member will be violent towards them. Or during the act, they are extremely scared or hurt. Spanking is not anywhere close to the torture used by interrogators, but I still think it can be a form of torture. 

We talked about the intentions of the torturer and how this plays a role in whether or not torture is okay. When parents spank their children to teach them a lesson about staying safe or to not harm others, it is acceptable. I would not use this method but if it is effective for some parents, then it is not unjust. If the child is not constantly fearful that their parent will do it again and they are not permanently damaged from the spanking then it is not unjust. However, if a parent is using this method to instill fear in their child or using it to dominate them in an inappropriate manner, then I think it is wrong. There are definitely parents out there that spank their children for the smallest mistake and forget the fact that children are children and sometimes they make mistakes. Children understand words and sometimes that is all it takes. So overall, if a parent decides to spank his or her children, then they should use in minimally and in extreme circumstances. Would you say the same logic should be applied to torture? Or is torture, as an extreme example of spanking, something that should never be used in any circumstance? We have not discussed the topic in full, but I'm sure we all already have an opinion one way or the other. 

Searching for definitions of Torture

This was somewhat funny to me , hope someone else enjoys

What's wrong with Thanksgiving?

Thanksgiving in itself is not such a horrible idea. It would be great if people actually spent the holiday feeling thankful and fostering contentment. But we don't. We consume copious amounts of food, watch TV, and get up early the next day to spend extravagant amounts of money on things we don't need. The fact that Americans have a holiday surrounding eating way more food than we need to or should is completely ridiculous and even unjust.

Marx thought that distributive justice can exist only when material objects are distributed to each according to his needs and from each according to his ability. The average American eats twice his or her appropriate amount of calories on Thanksgiving. That exceeds one day's bodily need by an entire other day. According to Nozick, anything more than the minimal state is unjust. Rawls has a rule that says each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty that is compatible with a similar liberty for others. Not everyone can afford to have a Thanksgiving dinner, not even everyone in America, much less in the rest of the world. If not everyone can have an extravagant dinner, then no one should. From Kelsen's point of view, would all men find happiness with some men feeding their families with copious amounts of food while another feeds his nothing? If the answer is no, then our social order is unjust. In fact, the idea of Thanksgiving is not compatible with the ideas of four separate philosophers. To what extent does that make Thanksgiving unjust? Food for thought.

Black Friday

So, watching the crazy footage of people on Black Friday and our recent symposium made me think of Marx again. While I never venture out because I am not a fan of shopping even under normal circumstances, many of my friends and family wouldn't miss it for the world. This year, things got particularly violent. A woman took a cue from police at UC-Davis and pepper sprayed her way to the center of a battle for an X-box. There were injuries at a Wal-mart where there were $2 waffle irons for sale. There were huge fights and police were present at a number of stores just in case.

http://jezebel.com/5862742/california-woman-who-pepper-sprayed-fifteen-people-on-black-friday-turned-herself-in-refuses-to-talk-about-it?autoplay

Black Friday represents consumerism at its peak. This woman is going to "bargain shop" for 11 hours. She's donating what she buys; the stockpile in her own house is to capacity.

http://jezebel.com/5862488/extreme-couponer-will-compulsively-bargain+shop-for-11-hours-tonight

Do you think our attitude toward each other and toward goods on Black Friday (and around this time of year in general) helps Marx's point about alienation or am I reading too much into it as a result of my own fear of massive shopping crowds? What does Black Friday say about us?

The Injustice of Violence Against Protesters

Toward the end of our symposium on Monday, Dr. Johnson mentioned that all four of the philosophers we were talking about seemed to be in opposition to the events at UC Davis, in one way or another. It doesn’t stop there, though; I can think of ways in which almost all of the philosophers we’ve covered would oppose those same events.

Beginning with the philosophers covered in the symposium, Kelsen would disagree with the UC Davis violence because it does not further discussion on what justice means to either party. Also, based upon the assumption that the police committing the assault are also part of the 99% (whether they like to admit it or not), the reasoning behind their actions, and thus their idea of what is just, appears questionable. If these officers weren’t busy pepper-spraying non-violent students, they could be having a rational discussion and possibly coming to some important conclusions. Nozick’s disapproval comes simply from his idea that anything more than the most minimal government is in violation of the people’s rights. It’s obvious that Rawls would not see the events as beneficial to the least advantaged, but rather the opposite. Using his concept of the veil of ignorance, his standing should become even more clear: no one would want a society in which he could prospectively become victim to police brutality. By Rawls’ thinking, this is an indicator of an unjust action. Marx would assuredly be in opposition also, as police violence visited upon peaceful protesters who are fighting against a capitalist system simply furthers the divide in an effort to prevent the system’s collapse.

Going back a bit to touch on previously covered teachings, I’d like to look first at Kant: he would automatically disagree with the police, as their actions could never be willed as a universal principle. In fact, he might even think that allowing for protest or peaceful assembly should be upheld as one such principle. Using Mill’s system of utilitarian justice wouldn’t promote the officers’ actions either, since they were physically and mentally damaging to countless people. As we have seen, these actions have become commonplace at (often peaceful) protests, furthering their continuance and their harmful effects on society. Even Plato and Aristotle would surely agree that the events at UC Davis were unjust. They were harmful, not beneficial, to the greater good. The officers committing the violence were not allowing reason to be in control, but were giving in to their appetites. Given Aristotle’s idea of justice being a mean between two extremes, we can ponder what those extremes would’ve been in this situation. To me, it seems that violent conflict (as we saw occur) and passive submission would be the extremes. Thus, the golden mean and justice were not achieved.

So many of the philosophers we’ve covered would have most likely disapproved of the police actions, despite having lived centuries apart, in different countries, different eras, different forms of government. A vast portion of the general public is in an uproar about this particular incident and all of those that have come before it. So, when so many are able to find fault and injustice in these actions of police violence against protesters, why is it still ongoing? Why does it appear that it won’t stop anytime soon?

Finding the Middle Ground to have a Functioning Society

During Monday's class, we held our symposium with people being Nozick, Marx, Kelsen and Rawls. Due to the night's vigil, we ended up discussing the UC Davis pepperspray incident and what the different philosophers would say about the actions involved.

We know the base stances each man have on government (Nozick and Marx being the most polarized) but we came to the conclusion that every single one of them would agree the cop should not have sprayed the students. This is a contiunation of a question I keep having when we discuss ideas of justice: the common conclusions different people have and now that we have learned Kelsen, it really takes on a whole new meaning.

As we know, Kelsen's theory of relativism is based around different people having their sense of morality stem from a grounding principle that helps them derive the conclusions of what they ought to do. He argues, when one is a relativist, they are more aware of their actions because they admit, they are choosing everything they do instead of almost blaming their grounding philosophy. It is very different for someone to say, "I am a Christian and God condemns that action." than for them to say, "I condemn that action of my own volition." With the degree of separation the different grounding norms give someone, it makes them feel less personally culpable. Culpability aside, it explains how different people (with radically different beliefs) come to similar conclusions, and also how America's government can function.

People in America have different beleifs: politically, religiously, morally etc. This is not a shocking new concept. Posing questions like "What is justice?" "Ought one do that?" will come up with hundreds of different answers, all conclusions stemming from each person's grounding norm according to Kelsen. Even with the different beliefs though, normality can be found to make laws and hold society culpable for actions, as well as allow people to live together in a healthy and positive way. It is illegal to kill another human being. This is because regardless of grounding norm (Mills would say it would decrease utility and not benifit the most amount of people, Kant would say one wouldn't want to be killed themself thus one shouldn't kill another, different religions would have reasons why their God says it is wrong) everyone agrees this is a good law for a society to employ. And this idea is how humanity can continue thriving: regardless of the foundational principle we choose to live our lives, there seems to be common ground with every one.

The major issues do have debate, which is why we continue to argue over things like the personhood bills or whether or not capitol punishment is a just punishment. These issues come up because there are grounding norms with hugely different ideas, thus hugely different conclusions that can be found from them. But because our country is built on the idea of people having different beliefs, the arguments must happen to progress forward. These debates are not lazy relativism, an open discussion can be the best thing to settle conflict and help people involved.

This is sort of where I want to end with this idea of many different people being able to function together: we need open discussion. A professor mentioned this at the vigil Monday night, without discussion there is never real progress made or resolution to anything. The cops pepperspraying the students was wrong to each of these philosophers because it did not really do anything productive.
If Kelsen is wrong and there really is some universal truth, how do we explain how society works? If there is some universal truth, do each of these different philosophies somhow work within it?

Entitlement

So, today in class we brought up the violence at the UC-Davis protest. I stumbled into an article that states that John Pike, the police lieutenant shown pepper spraying students, makes over 100,000 dollars a year (http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/what-uc-davis-pays-for-top-talent/41422).

According to Nozick's first principle of entitlement, "A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding." As we established in class today, the police's actions were unjust. What does this mean of Pike's wages? Is he still entitled to them? One would hope a person being payed such an astronomical sum of money to do their job would be more cognizant of the history of police violence at college protests. I am of course, referring to the Kent State shootings during the Vietnam War. While the Kent State protests were closer to a riot by the time shots had been fired, the general public only remembers that students were shot by the National Guardsmen called in to quell the protest. Thankfully, the violence wasn't as severe at UC-Davis as it was at Kent State, but then again, the protest at UC-Davis seems to have been much more calm than that at Kent State. I have gotten away from my point slightly, but I just do not see how anyone could justify such a large amount of tax money going to a man who obviously failed his duties in such a public and abhorrent way. What would Nozick's solution to this be?

Relativism vs Absolutism

Relativism is the concept that no point of view of has any absolute value. Values and norms are therefore relative to each person meaning that everyone has their own unique set of moral rules. According to Kelsen, although everyone has their own sets of morals and values, laws can still be created.
When someone disagrees with your value claim, you should not just settle with acknowledging that you all have differing opinions; instead, you should argue for your value claim. Not defending your claim is evidence that it is not something that you truly believe in. When you make an argument for your claim (beginning with the similarities between the two), the most reasonable claim will be adopted by both parties. When applied to societies, the claim that is reasonable to the most people become the basis for the creation of laws.
This idea is similar to a conclusion we reached previously in a discussion about human rights: if you're arguing with a rational being, you can prove rights universal. Both concepts agree that reasonable beings can come to a consensus that something is or is not right. If that is the case, then isn't there an absolute value that all rational agents share?

Just Some Thoughts...

My paper, as I have discussed before, relates to the healthcare issue as a human rights violation. I wanted to determine the arguments against universal healthcare and what our best options might be in such a sensitive issue. I think it is interesting that the Stop Snitching campaign was brought up to point out how choosing not to act in knowledge of the consequences relates to the train track dilemma. This is a point I brought up in my discussion as well. The government or anti-universal health care activists can deny that health care is a human right but in choosing not to treat sick people they are often sitting back and watching people suffer and even die. Maybe universal healthcare is not the answer, but one thing that is for certain is something needs to change with the healthcare industry. One used to consider America as the home of the free and the land of opportunity. It seems now that the cost of simply living is going up and seems like it will never come back down.

One article I read talked about how people’s health statuses are often determined by their personal choices which is true. However, there are also several diseases and disorders that are out of people’s control. People should not be punished because they are sick and by choosing not to treat these people is punishment for the victim of this healthcare crisis. The article also pointed out that for the government to allow healthcare to all people they would have to ban detrimental activities such as smoking, drinking, and unhealthy “junk” foods. I honestly feel like this does not sound like such a bad idea. The very people who put these items out on the market are aware of the side-effects, yet they don’t care. They attempt to make these things look as appetizing as possible and allow people to harm themselves. Maybe instead of promoting these harmful products, the government should spend more time, effort, and money to raise awareness about health and the importance of taking care of your body. I do not think it is necessary to ban any of these things because obviously that would never work in our society, but raising awareness and giving people a new perspective is worth a try in my opinion. The U.S. has a reputation now for high obesity rates, and we are falling further behind in education. I think based on these ideas alone we can see where we are headed and it is not a positive outlook.

Proof or Faith? What Do You Choose?

Following our class discussion about Kelsen, I was left wondering what my life would be like if I didn't have faith in my religion and simply viewed everything I've been shown to believe as only a normative claim. I realize and understand that religion as well as other concepts are examples of Grundnorms and can never truly be validated, but what kind of society would we live in if everything had to be validated?

There are so many things about life and nature that we know little to nothing about. Most of the things we know come from theories, which in actuality are supported assumptions or claims. A theory is never proven, but rather supported, because there is not a definitive answer or reason. We still do not even know everything about the human body itself let alone everything about the earth and universe. If we only relied on what can be validated or proven, many aspects of our lives would be nonexistent to us and not even worthy of discussion.

Religion, however, gives people a peace of mind and a sense of purpose to live and aspire to be an upstanding person, when the only thing constant in our lives is death. To only take life as it is at face value would lead to a very meek existence in my opinion. The only definite thing you would know in life is that you would eventually die, and the concepts of life after death or having morals would not be relevant to your existence.

Maybe I'm being too extreme here, but this was on my mind when I left class. I was left feeling that so many people try to prove or support claims that they will never really know and that maybe would be better off not knowing. Education is important, but some go through life only wanting hard factual knowledge, and miss out on so many other elements of life. Religion often answers the unknown so that we can live fulfilled lives, and whether it is based on invalidated or unproven points, I wholeheartedly do not care.

How do you all feel about grundnorms that are present in our society? What purpose do they serve and is it valid to have these grundnorms in place?

I found both the class and the lecture with Antjie Krog to be very compelling. There are a few things she said that I found particularly interesting. I liked the story she told about spreading the guilt. I never would have thought to take that story about people passing the guilt along for anything more than just people trying to avoid blame. It makes sense though to want to spread the blame. It is more beneficial for everyone to feel guilty and responsible in some way because then they are more likely to change and less likely to just forget about it. If everyone shares the blame there is no one person for everyone to point at or hide behind. I like that the amnesty aspect of the truth commission corresponds to this taking responsibility and accepting blame. Krog explained the difference between amnesty and the court system by saying that in the courts you begin by pleading not guilty but with amnesty you stand and say "I have done wrong and I want to change". I think that beginning with the acceptance and acknowledgement of fault and blame is a more effective place to start. I also liked the idea of forgiveness having the power to restore humanity. It is incredible that all the people involved in the truth commission had the capacity to forgive and the willingness to change and move forward. I knew little about this subject before and I am really glad that I got to learn more about it from such a knowledgeable and eloquent source.

Stop Snitchin'

The lead in to my paper on racial profiling discusses the Stop Snitchin' movement, specifically Cam'Ron's famous "60 Minutes" interview. Here is a video, I'd recommend watching it if only for the pure entertainment value.

In my paper, I discuss why the movement exists (hint: racial profiling -> pressure in minority neighborhoods -> distrust of police), but I was not able to go on at length about the justness/unjustness of the Anti-Snitching movement. It would seem as if the sense of humanity that Antjie Krog talked to us about is ignored by Cam'Ron and those who agree with his philosophy. From the side of the Anti-Snitchers, it seems as if the priority is dissent from the police, a reasonable thing considering that racial profiling has pretty much stripped the police of all respect among low-income minority neighborhoods. Another defense would be "it's none of my business," again ignoring the humanity and brotherhood that is preached by Krog and documents like the UDHR.

The people behind Stop Snitchin' are no different than the man who lets the train kill the 5 people on the track (from the problem where one must choose between actively killing one person or letting multiple die with the train track-changing lever) just because they are trying to prove a point. That being said, there is an almost utilitarian principle behind the whole movement. Consider that Stop Snitchin' could easily have just been a way to bring attention to racial profiling in the U.S. With the serious possibility that it could indirectly help lessen the strain of racial profiling in the country, can the Stop Snitchin' movement be justified? Can it be justified regardless? Tell me what you think.

Relativism

Kelsen's theory represents the most accurate representation of what most developed countries in effect do and are, indeed forced to do by virtue of the fact that they are not monarchies. Since the rebirth of democracy in the eighteenth century, developed western civilizations began to develop constitutional democracies. If I understand Kelsen correctly, then this would be the example of a grundnorm. The rest of society is based upon this very norm, i.e. that a government ought to be a constitutional democracy. From this, at least in the United States (I can only raise conjecture about others as I have not studied them with any depth), we observe that throughout the ages legislature does not reflect any one ideology of the times, but rather a mixture of both of the two main ideologies of the times. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin regarding American democracy, we must respect the opinions of one another enough to come to a reasonable compromise. All of the individual norms that groups of people, or even individuals (although individuals alone will not get much done without a group backing them in a democracy), are debated in the legislature and the hope is that the compromise created will be a mean between the two extremes in which people sometimes generalize their arguments into. I think this is what Dr. J was saying during class today. Moral relativism seems to be exactly what we have been searching for in the other theories of justice we have studied--a PRACTICAL analysis of the way things ACTUALLY work. In its formalization, I agree with Kelsen that the main reason people dislike his theory is that it gives them too much responsibility. We all know how much people hate responsibility. Now that I have been given an accurate representation of moral relativism, rather than the lazy one as our professor put it, I pretty much completely agree and find myself baffled at the fact. The idea definitely merits further study.

Of the impossibility of purely rational decisions and the consequences of Kelsen's assumptions

Writing the précis for tomorrow about Kelsen’s essay “What is Justice”, I had to think about several assumptions, he makes, as well as consequences, his theory would necessarily have.

I find it very interesting to think about justice in the way he did it, i.e. justice as the satisfaction of basic needs. That reminded me a lot of Marx’ “each according to his needs”, although it is derived from a different approach. So far, I totally agree with Kelsen. It is indeed very just if everybody has a kind of guarantee for his survival. This is exactly what welfare systems try to provide. Also, I really do like his statement that judgments about justice, just as every other decision, cannot be made purely rational for every reason we might have for making a decision, it is also emotional. In order to make this clearer, I’d like to use one of Kant’s famous examples of irrational decisions. Kant says that if somebody wants to commit suicide, it is immoral, because it is irrational to want to better your life by ending it. If you have ended your life, your situation won’t be better. Personally, I can feel a sense of anxiety behind this argument, because it is relatively easy to foil. Indeed, it is not irrational if somebody wants to better his situation by committing suicide, because it is a ration decision, similar to the Utilitarian Calculus. So, why does Kant see a contradiction here? Or even in a wider sense, why do people always look for rational arguments that support their attitude, although their decision is most-likely already made. Of course, if we sit down and have philosophical discussion, we can expect people to be as neutral as possible and only build their opinion after the conversation. But in the daily life, we always have opinions and can reasons for them. We call this arguing, but what is there first: Rational argument or emotion? In any way, emotions are included. How do you “feel” about that?

So, what would is the consequence of what Kelsen describes? He says that the term “justice” is never absolute but always relative. What are we going to do with our justice system? How can we create punishment and reward in our society, if just actions are relative and subjective? Somebody who is accused of for example raping a woman can always refer to his own system of justice in which it is not unjust what he did. Does the term “justice” not automatically come with the assumption that everybody has to share these values and therefore obey them?

Western Perspectives

Monday Mrs. Krog spoke to our class about Restorative justice and Truth Commissions. What many of us may have been thinking, and Tommy articulated, was the question of whether this type of justice could be effective in a society like the one in which we all thrive. Could we have, as Americans in the truest sense of the word, seen ourselves allowing our country to rehabilitate Osama bin Ladin ? I thought back to post September 11, when Wal-Mart had "Made in America" sections, and any little statement had to be carefully articulated as to not be interpreted as anti-American. The policeman I knew spoke of revenge and violence daily, the soldiers spoke of murder. Never, and still not to this day, have I come across someone who was willing to work with the perpertrators in an attempt to rehabilitate them. When addressed with the question as to why these concepts could not function in a Western culture, Mrs Krog focused in on the African philosophy of interconnectedness and humanity. Initially I thought, in the aftermath of September 11, we could not have been a more united front, so we could adapt this idea again. But then I remembered that with that interconnectedness, there also came the alienation of those who "looked" or "acted" like terrorists. There was the mistreatment of those who grew up in the "melting pot" just like the ideal American. There was the problem. Not only did the American sense of interconnectedness lack real interaction, but it lacked the essential  sense of humanity. In the wake of death and turmoil, we as a country, mustered up enough spirit to simultaneously mourn a inhumane act and dehumanized many of our fellow countrymen. My questions to you all are: Is it possible for America to have a sense of interconnectedness and humanity?What would it take to get to that point? Another tragedy?  A revolution? If we were to reach this point, would we allow restorative justice or are we too set in the ways we have?

Avatar and Apartheid

During the class today with guest speaker Antjie Krog, I had blast from the past when the idea of interconnectedness was displayed as part of restorative justice. As much as I would not like to admit it, I definitely am a representative of a Christian ontology- if something goes wrong, I definitely start pointing my finger into the opposite direction to relay the attacks addressed to me (of course this hardly ever occurs). Therefore, when the idea where everything is connected and everything has a specific relationship to one another, the image of little blue people from the movie “Avatar” immediately came into my mind.

In this movie, an obvious distinction between the two different cultures of the Na’vi people (the blue people) and the humans from earth is apparent. Our culture (Earth) acts almost in an imperialistic way, harming the balance of the Na’vi peoples’ land in order to obtain natural resources. However, to obtain the resources would be to damage the land and further cause the disruption of the interconnectedness of life (this sounds like a slippery slope in a justified “manner”). At the heart of Na’vi culture is the idea that all aspects of life are in some way connected. In the beginning of this movie, the government announced the initial purpose of the Avatar program was to create a relationship between the two cultures; however, hidden agendas compromised the seemingly innocent operation into a hostile situation in which a war resulted between the two groups. Essentially, my question is how do you have restorative justice when there is an inconsistency between the two parties of a situation? How can you trust the same group of individuals that initially harmed you? The interconnectedness relies on all aspects of life, but is the attempt to restore justice only a superficial mask that covers only the feelings on the surface? Can lifetime hatred and differences in cultured be settled in a lifetime, or does it require time for the entire situation to be forgotten within the depths of time?

Similarly, the Apartheid in South Africa was between two groups of individuals with physical distinctions between the groups: black and white. The blacks have an interconnectedness view point on life; whereas, whites have a Christian ontology on life. Usually, people hold similar viewpoints that are in agreement to what your parents have taught you- do you believe that it is possible to change these viewpoints in order to achieve restorative justice?

Entitlement?

So I've been thinking a lot about Nozick, government, and the different ways the we see entitlement to property, money, and other goods. The questions raised in class on Friday about the tie between morality and entitlement made me think about things that are currently happening in the world. Specifically, the situations with the Occupy movement, Greece, Italy, etc come to mine. This makes me a little nervous because I don't want to oversimplify any of these issues, and I'm definitely not an economics major. That being said, I want to look at these situations with Nozick's ideas about entitlement and see what y'all think about it all.

For fun, here are some links to relevant articles on Greece and Italy.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2099201-1,00.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/11/italy-silvio-berlusconi-resigns.html

Nozick's claim that big government is unjust because it violates the entitlement theory he provides is interesting given the current situations in many nations across the world. Austerity bills are being passed, though hotly contested, in several places in the EU. There have been riots over the potential removal of benefits. Beyond Greece and Italy, Londoners have been protesting hikes in university fees. These protests suggest that we feel that we deserve certain things regardless of our economic status. Along those lines, the UDHR tells us that we deserve certain things regardless of our economic status and that the state has a responsibility to provide those things.

Given these realities, along with Nozick's really convincing claim about entitlement, what are we supposed to do? Where do we draw the line with public services? How do we balance human rights issues with property and entitlement issues? What do y'all think?

Lady Gaga's "Little Monsters"

Dr. Robin James' lecture, "Feminism Calling?: Beyonce's and Lady Gaga's Posthuman Politics," was an eye opening experience. In critiquing their styles, lyrics and music videos, Dr. James categorized Lady Gaga and Beyonce as two different types of posthumanism feminists: post-goth posthumanism and afrofuturists posthumanism respectively.
According to Dr. Lemon, posthumanism is "transcendence of the merely human." That could be from plastic surgery to a cyborg. It critiques the idea of liberal humanism, which promotes wholeness and authenticity. Unlike humanists, posthumanist feminism doesn't believe that there is a clear gender identity; therefore, we cannot be recognized as fully human.
Lady Gaga can be evaluated as post-goth posthumanist. In the past, goths put on heavy make-up and cross-dressed with things like corsettes to criticize the social norm. With post-goth posthumanism, Lady Gaga shows how grotesque and monstrous the norm is. For example in the shower scene of "Bad Romance," the scene would be a typical sexualization of the female naked body, but her spine is distorted like a reptile's. This shows that human behavior is monstrous.
To Lady Gaga, there is no recognizable gender, so no one is human. In turn, we are all her "little monsters." I didn't cover a lot, but what do you think? Is there a clear gender identity or are we manufactured into monsters?

Nozick's Theory of Entitlement

In class today, I was thinking a lot about entitlement versus deserving. I agree with Nozick's idea that people are entitled to items that are justly transferred to them, but when I think about people who gets massive amount of money from their parents, I have trouble accepting those ideas. If people did not do anything to deserve that money, or even more when they did something immoral that makes them a bad person, and yet they still get to keep that money. Many times, people abuse their parents' money. They are entitled to that money but they definitely don't deserve it. Is this still a just society? According to Nozick it is, but I have trouble accepting that. I don't necessarily have a solution to this problem, but it’s hard for me to say they are entitled to that money when better people deserve it.

I also thought it was interesting when Dr. J asked us if we thought that people were entitled to inheritance from their parents and most of us agreed that that was just. However, I think that if she asked a class of students whose parents did not have money, then they would respond differently (I know that everyone that goes to Rhodes does not have money, but I think we all assume that we will have money one day to give to our children). If they do not think that they will get inheritance or have money to give to their children, then I don’t think that they would want this rule to be agreed upon by society. I also believe that behind the veil of ignorance, which I realize is a Rawls concept, people would not agree that others are entitled to their parents’ money. If you assume that you are going to be the lowest level, then you would want money from these people to be distributed fairly. This could just be my opinion, so I should not assume that all people would feel this way, but I would not agree to this arrangement.

            Do you agree with my assumptions? Do you think that students with different backgrounds would feel the same way as us? What about the people behind the veil of ignorance?