Monday, November 28, 2011
Torture vs Spanking
Sunday, November 27, 2011
What's wrong with Thanksgiving?
Black Friday
Friday, November 25, 2011
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
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?
Monday, November 21, 2011
Entitlement
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?
Friday, November 18, 2011
Relativism vs Absolutism
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?
Stop Snitchin'
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
Thursday, November 17, 2011
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?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Western Perspectives
Monday, November 14, 2011
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?
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Entitlement?
Friday, November 11, 2011
Lady Gaga's "Little Monsters"
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
Nozick and the Internet
Marx, Rawls and Nozick... Oh my!
Marx, "To each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities."
The government needs to be very big, and capitalism must have fallen.
Rawls' main point is that to decide what is just in a society, a thought experiment must be done imagining people behind "the veil of ignorance". A group of people must imagine themselves as the lowest possible status of people in a society and try to make everything the best possible for them.
Nozick is under the view that government must be the smallest it possibly can and that when injustice occurs it must be decided where the possession of entitlement went wrong.
Each idea these men have is aimed towards the idea of a fair and just society. There are some obvious contradictions when comparing each philosophers' view: Nozick's entire entitlement theory is based on the concept of private property, something that Marx would disagree ought to be taken into account due to private property perpetuating injustice in a society. Rawls' veil of ignorance theory is how to effectively set up a government much more involved than Nozick would agree with. We have been discussing so many different theories of justice, so what are the similarities between them? As mentioned in class today, while some differences are obvious and extreme, there can still be common ground. As Dr. Johnson mentioned, sometimes we see the 99% and the tea party critique the same things.
Marx and Rawls both have similar interest in the lowest class of people in a society. Marx is more extreme: everyone needs everything they need, but Rawls still writes that behind the veil of ignorance the lowest class needs the best situation possible for them. It is a common theme when looking at how a society will be ideal, the class gap must be as small as possible. We went through the thought experiment of Nozick's today of where inevitably all types of societies end in a gap, this is unequal but is it unjust? Does Nozick's societal mind game really conflict as much as it would seem with Marx and Rawls? There is no direct harm inflicted on the lower class, and if taking the entitlement is justified it still fits with Nozick's claims.
So the main question I am trying to figure out is: what are the similar things each man wants in a society? Would these ideals hold true for any thought experiment or ideal? Are there things that regardless of what someone things a government must do stay universal?
A meritocracy: material and societal gains due to merit.... or not.
Inheritance and Justice in Transfer
Friday, November 4, 2011
This theory actually takes into account aspects of human nature?!?
Does the US measure up?
Questions about Marx
My main issue is the idea that we must abolish the concept of “private property”. If a socialist society would give each according to his needs then would these needs not include some form of property? We think of our basic needs as food, water, and shelter but is there anything else that could be included in our needs? If we were to become a socialist society does that mean that all of our needs would be met in a community with other people- meaning would we have to share everything like houses and food? Then, I wonder if this society would take into account the idea of happiness and the opportunity to enjoy oneself or would this come from simply taking joy in work without any extra-curricular activities? I guess it is just the capitalist views which are so deeply engrained in my mind and thoughts that make it so difficult to fully comprehend these concepts, but I think it is definitely something worth exploring further.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Does socialism cause an explosion of capitalism?
The idea behind capitalism is “the hardest workers get the most;” however, although we term the United States as a capitalist country, is our country migrating towards a more socialistic society? Marx believes that the distribution model of capitalism is unjust, but could our problem today not be that we are too capitalistic, but rather too materialistic with the implantation in our minds that everything must be equal to be fair? People believe that they are entitled and deserve the same “stuff,” whether it is education, owning a home, an iPhone, a steady meal, and a steady job- regardless of their contribution to society and the financial mechanisms behind the entire system.
On Wednesday, the Health Professions Society displayed a video describing the situation many Americans face- the inability to purchase health care insurance. In addition, this video left many viewers with the feeling of guilt, and the idea that “all” individuals deserve health care, regardless of the costs. The idea of equality in this case is unachievable, as it is financially impossible to provide acceptable health care to such a mass of people. Already, individuals in the top 10% tax bracket pay more than 50% of the total taxes collected according to “The Tax Foundation.” In order to give something to an individual, it first must be taken away from another; therefore, one must take more money away from the same individuals that already contribute the most to taxes. From this past night’s reading, is this a violation of transfer of holding in Nozick’s “justice in holding?” Most individuals acquire their income “with the principle of justice in acquisition” and “are entitled to that holding.” People choose to buy computers knowing that they are funding the “Bill Gates fund,” and people choose to sponsor the people that create the greater division between the gap of social classes. This fundamental principle in which people strive to be the best and to create the best is what makes capitalism so successful. It may create a gap in society, but at the same time, it offers other individuals the same opportunity to strive and create some new beneficial product to society.
So how is it that the U.S. has gotten to where we stand today? I would like to propose a question: is it capitalism or the debt that is created through the government programs aimed to redistribute wealth the mechanism behind which our capitalistic society will explode? In the attempt to create equality through government intervention, are we instead creating systems that will back-fire?
Capitalism, Patriarchy, and All Those Other Pesky Systems of Oppression
I would like to compare the socialization and deeply embedded-ness of capitalism to the deeply ingrained system of patriarchy that shapes so much of our lives. Until we become aware of the dominance of patriarchy in every realm of society, we believe that the system is natural, because that's "how it is." We do not recognize any oddity in male-dominated workforces, homes, families, religious groups, etc., because from birth we have been trained to accept these things as normal. Men have certain roles; women have different roles. When something happens to trigger our consciousness about the existence and oppressive nature of patriarchy (taking a Gender/Sexuality Studies course, for example), we begin to realize that we have lived within this system our whole lives and that it is not natural; it is socially constructed. Even when we gain this awareness, though, we cannot escape the system, because it is far bigger than any of us. We can make personal choices to refuse to participate in certain elements of the system, but we cannot escape the macro-level, global dominance of the structure of patriarchy.
In the same way, we can become aware of the way in which capitalism oppresses us, but we cannot escape the system. It is both too ingrained in our own psyches and also too macro of a system to escape on our own. This is where I think Marx's class revolution theory enters the picture. Social and political revolutions are key to overturning macro systems of oppression. We can make personal choices to rebel against capitalist or patriarchal ideas, but we must remember that we are still operating under the macro system that exists regardless of our individual decisions. Widespread, united rebellions versus global systems of oppression seem to be our best hope for human equality. Do you agree?
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
"Capitalism + Marx = Happiness" ?
As we all learned in class, Capitalism - according to Marx - always leads to unequal distribution of goods and therefore to a clash between the two classes in a society. Before that happens, Capitalism will probably try to survive by all means, for example such as creating social welfare systems, health care and progressive taxes. In Marx‘ logic, these kind of small improvements won‘t avoid the big revolution that is gonna come at the end of Capitalism, but just delaying it.
What I was thinking about was, if it is really necessary for the capitalistic system to end up in a revolution - even if this is still far away - or if there is any way to use the advantages of this well-going system and to combine it with another theory, maybe with Communism. Even though, I know that Dr. J really does not like this kind of combination of theories, because they are mostly contradictory, I would like to think about that in the following passage.
I guess, we can all agree that Capitalism has big merits, such as the omnipresent competition in nearly every field, which leads to better, faster products and a higher efficiency. It also leads to the fact that people work better, but why does it so? Well, the basic reason for that is fear: Fear of not being able to afford the necessary things to survive. Of course, that is Capitalism on the lowest level. On a higher (financial) level, the reason for that is the belief that we need certain goods (advertisement plays a big role here). One could argue that we actually don‘t need the majority of these goods, but in my opinion, humankind never lived on such a high standard of living quality then nowadays. Therefore, progress and development could be considered as intrinsic goods.
The bad sides caused by the omnipresent competition are also well-known, such as poverty, unequal distribution of goods and social injustice. If we take a look at the different kinds of Capitalism in the world, we see that Capitalism has very diverse faces. In Political Sciences, one distinguishes between the so-called LME (Liberal Market Economies) and the CME (Coordinated Marked Economies). The most important LMEs are the USA and the UK, which are famous for their very liberal and market-driven economy, which also means that social welfare-systems don't play a big role. CMEs, such as Germany but even more the Scandinavian countries, have very different preconditions and have built systems, which have a very high rate of happiness in their society, due to very just welfare systems. These examples show us that it is indeed possible to change the hardest liberal Capitalism into some system that generates “the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people”.
Do you think, Capitalism has a chance to survive, if it changes and faces its problems or will it go down, like Marx foresaw?