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?

Nozick and the Internet

Since we've been talking about Nozick in class and entitlement I began to think of the idea of entitlement in regards to our technology today. As I am typing this, YouTube is minimized, playing The Band's cover of Bob Dylan's “I Shall Be Released.” I can go back to YouTube and listen to it as many times as I want for no cost (outside of Internet bills, power bills, the cost of the computer., etc.). I do not own the song, but I am able to listen to it whenever I want. Nozick uses the term “holding” By being able to access this song on YouTube, do I have holding? If I can forward the link to someone (Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ore6K3ESTLc) am I transferring the holding, even though I can still go and listen to the song? Nozick had no way of anticipating YouTube or the Internet when he wrote Anarchy, State, and Utopia, but that does not mean we cannot think about our technology in his terms. I guess the point I am trying to get to here is what we call Internet “piracy” and distribution. So the individual who uploaded the YouTube video, “mesna,” for this discussion, came into possession (holding) of a live performance of The Band playing “I Shall Be Released” through one of two means: by purchasing a DVD of the performance, or by downloading a file via P2P transfer, Torrents, IRC, etc. Now, if mesna purchased the DVD, and decided to rip “I Shall Be Released” from the concert and put it onto YouTube, is he is obviously not transferring a holding, because he still has a physical copy of the DVD. However, he is still allowing others to, say, enjoy the benefits of holding the concert DVD. The second tenant of the Entitlement Theory states that “A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, es entitled to the holding. Is mesna owns a copy of the DVD and then uploads a portion of that concert, he is freely transferring the performance of “I Shall Be Released” to you, making you entitled to the video yourself. And since you are entitled is it now yours to download and then redistribute as you see fit? What do you guys think, I'd love to hear from someone who has a stronger grasp on this than I do.

Marx, Rawls and Nozick... Oh my!

We have been reading three ideas of what a society needs to be like:
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.

Today we were discussing Nozick's Entitlement theory, and our example featured a meritocracy. In this theoretical meritocracy, Will Chamberlain receives a lot of money solely because of his "merit"--which include his talents and/or hard work. But his children receive that money when he dies. I think that my issue with this fact is not in the entitlement aspect. According to Nozick's transfer principle, it is absolutely just that Chamberlain's children receive his money. But our example featured a meritocracy. His children receive money not because of their talents or hard work, but because of that of their father. I think this really can't be paired with a meritocracy. By definition, this is not a meritocracy, because they haven't earned what they have by talent or hard work. I just can't get around that.

Somewhat related to that is my interest in seeing how Nozick's theory would play out in an egalitarian society. Doctor J said Nozick and Marx would just be like, "Agree to disagree then...," but I really am interested to see in particular how Marx would address natural differences causing respect and affirmation from society, as well as material gain. Does anyone have any ideas?

Inheritance and Justice in Transfer

As we've been learning about Nozick's entitlement theory and his principles of justice in holdings, it seems that most people agree with these basic ideas. If someone acquires a holding in a just manner, such as by buying it with his own money, he is entitled to that holding. If a holding is transferred to him in a just way, such as in the form of a gift or inheritance, he is entitled to it. This appears to coincide with the general idea of property acquisition.

However, when we got into a discussion about the entitlement of one's children to his wealth, some dissent arose. Going solely by Nozick's principle of justice in transfer, they are certainly justified in their holdings. In spite of this, there seemed to be a general feeling that they still should not have that property. Of course, the children did nothing to deserve their inheritance, as they were involuntarily born into their family. They had no control over what their parent did to amass or diminish his wealth. He was the one to bequeath his earnings to his children, which is a just transfer.

I can see this disagreement as stemming from two different sources. When we think of fair systems of distribution, two of the main ones that come to mind are systems of both equality and merit. Well, in this example, the children are clearly not on an equal level as everyone else in terms of wealth. It seems unfair that they have so much more than everyone else, and thus more opportunities; they should all start out at the same baseline. Another aspect that puts people off is the fact that the children do not merit the holdings that have been transferred to them. American society tends to think that everyone must put in hard work to achieve their goals, that nothing should be handed out. Thus, a lot of us were inclined to feel that the children should not maintain their holdings.

While I definitely think that these are understandable points of contention, and can personally sympathize with them, they cannot overturn the principle of justice in transfer. There is nothing about the way in which the children acquired their holdings that is unjust; they didn't steal anything, but were willingly bequeathed it be their parent. Even though we may be inclined to disallow them of their advantage, based upon the way we were raised, our views on equality, society's views on merit, etc., there is no logical argument in support of this. In fact, it would itself be an unjust transfer of holdings if we were to somehow strip the children of these holdings.

Rawls' original position states that a just social contract is the one we would agree to if we did not know where we would be in the society we are agreeing to. I think this is true because when put behind a "veil of ignorance" we become sympathetic to all views and circumstances. Every position becomes our position and so it becomes important that the rules, laws, expectation, etc. be truly just for everyone. When we do not know who we will be in a society we see ourselves as everyone in the society and make decisions with every possibility in mind. If we do not know if we will be rich or poor, we want society to be just for both the rich and the poor. If we do not know if we will be male or female, we want it to be just for both men and women. Not knowing makes us apply the human instinct of looking out for ones self to everyone. It uses an aspect of human nature that normally results in selfish and unjust behavior into one that ensures fairness for all. The veil of ignorance takes away peoples bias and forces them to view everyone as having equal rights to equal opportunities. The fact that this social contract and veil of ignorance are hypothetical makes it harder to accept this theory as being helpful and relevant. People are not behind a veil of ignorance. They do know where they stand in society and make their decisions based off of this. They have bias' and self interests and act on them even when it is unjust to others. When people know where they are in society they are not as sympathetic and aware of the positions of others.

This theory actually takes into account aspects of human nature?!?

This theory, though clearly stated to be hypothetical, does take realistic stances and seems to consider human nature. The first rule of sorts states that "every person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty that is compatible with similar liberty for others." Similar liberty. Rawls was speaking based on the knowledge that: YES people have differing levels of ability in differing areas. And YES some of those areas are seen as or literally are more valuable to society than others. A person who has more wealth or status than others, in addition to their met needs, will have it because they have more to offer to society. It is part of human nature to want a hierarchy of skill and ability clear in any area. As soon as a person thinks about baseball, he or she might think about who runs fastest, throws the best, or is best at bat. Even when I think about a friend as a person, I think of their strengths and weaknesses as a person. It's just human nature. And I think this is the first theory that takes this particular aspect of human nature into account, which is interesting, seeing as how big a part of our lives this is. Humans categorize and order in order to better understand their surroundings. This is absolutely just me being a Psych major nerd, BUT I still think it's important to note.

Does the US measure up?

In today's class we discussed John Rawls and his amendments to the social contract theory as well as his concept of original position and its principles. Unlike the social contract of the seventeenth century, Rawls replaces natural law with Kantian ethics and clearly states that the social contract is hypothetical. With this being said, Professor Johnson stated in class that Rawls' social contract and concept of original position can be used as a measure of real societies. From this perspective I want to critique society in the United States.

Using the principles of original positions, I do not believe that each person in our society has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty that is compatible with a similar liberty for others nor are the social/economic inequalities arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and attached to positions under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. The inequalities in the US are not set in such a way, discussed in class, that allows people to grow while being challenged to excel or accomplish more. If anything the inequalities keep the least advantaged people disadvantaged with no intention or hopes of ever being in a position to do better. The welfare system, is one with good intentions, but often is used as a crutch that leads to people being dependent upon a small means of assistance rather than an incentive to continue to work one's way out of a tough situation.

Also the offices/positions attached to social/economic inequalities are not open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. In our society, everyone does not run the risk of living in poverty or the advantage of being extremely wealthy. There are those that have money that's heavily secured and so profound that the greatest blows of an economic crisis like we're going through now would not affect their well-being , and then there are those that can never combat those same blows despite effort to overcome their present situations. For these people, being wealthy or in the opposite condition of their present one is not a realistic possibility. I would think that under conditions of fair equality of opportunity, either one of these positions would be possible for anyone no matter what, but in the US, I don't believe this is so.

What do you all think? How does the US measure up to Rawls' Principles of original position?

Questions about Marx

As many people probably were, I was first skeptical of reading Marx and his ideas which are not widely accepted in America. However, after discussing it in class and reading some of his views myself I am more convinced that Marx knew what he was talking about even if there are some parts I do not agree with. The idea of alienated labor feels completely true in my point of view because I hardly feel that work is every satisfying like it should be. As a capitalist society, we are constantly striving to out-do one another and push our way to the top, but it also seems that this hope for advancement is not usually fulfilled. This is probably one of the reasons many believe that the “American Dream” is not a realistic venture that one can achieve. As the upper class- or the proletariat- becomes smaller and richer, the lower class- the bourgeoisie- becomes bigger and poorer. Marx lays out that capitalism, like the situation we are in, will eventually lead to a revolution in which the bourgeoisie gains “class consciousness”. Then and only then can socialism and a classless society be possible. This concept seems a little hard to grasp though which is the main issue I think most people have with Marxist views. How can we possibly transition from a society of class struggle and consumerism to a classless society of proportion in distribution of wealth? The concept is very hopeful and ideal but one wonders if it could actually work.

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.

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?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1

Capitalism, Patriarchy, and All Those Other Pesky Systems of Oppression

The phrase "human nature" often comes up in class, and recently some students have mentioned the concept of human nature in regards to humans' "natural" desire to own private property or humans' "natural" selfishness. Dr. J has explained how embedded capitalist concepts are in all of us from birth, emphasizing how we have been socialized in an overtly capitalist system. Therefore, we cannot even imagine how life without capitalist ideas would be, because even our imaginations of such a non-capitalist system are framed within capitalist ideas. Because we are so socialized to accept capitalist ideas as "natural," we cannot truly know or really begin to speculate on what is "human nature," because even speculation takes place within the framework of capitalism.

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?

"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?