I know that this is not a small topic to breach, and that we have partially discussed it before, but I would like to hear some thoughts on what the class believes when it comes to making laws based on moral laws. This is a topic I have struggled with for sometime. I think there are certain things that the government needs to mandate out of self-preservation. Making murder, any other kind of severe physical abuse and treason illegal would fall under this category in my mind. The thing that catches me is whether our government should really base laws or build social programs based on moral laws or what is "fair".
Extreme examples, in my mind, would be things like gay marriage, abortion, the welfare system and the tax policy that is being put in place in a few months. (a side-note: we don't have time to discuss these specific examples and I do not think permanently publishing the class' views on abortion or gay marriage would be a great idea, I am just using them as examples.) When I look at laws based on the question of whether something is fair or not, I see a lot of failed programs which might not have been have been based in logic to begin with. Taking the upcoming tax policies as an example, the laffer curve (as well as the last Great Depression) shows us that raising taxes both stunts the economy and lowers the national tax revenue. Is further damaging an already broken economy while further bankrupting our nation, worth aiding people who do not 'contribute'* to the economy? The problem with this is that many people don't believe this is a 'fair' practice anyways, ignoring the likely consequences. Seeing as there is no solid definition for something being 'fair', there is no solid defense for these policies.
This can then be applied to other social policies. How can you prove that something is moral? Ethics have been heatedly debated for thousands of years, and now we force people to adhere to the 'moral codes' of Washington? Do you trust the morals of Washington? I don't.
*When I say 'contribute' I mean that they pay taxes. I am referring to President Elect Obama's plan to give tax refunds to members of our society who do not pay taxes to begin with.
Monday, December 8, 2008
To Be Distinctly Human
I was intrigued at the path the debate in class took last Thursday. It would seem that a distinctly Human trait would be something that, if not easy to find, would at least be easy enough to agree on. This was not the case, as we had a solid block of time dedicated to merely deciphering the points of the sides of the argument. On the one hand, some believe that life, in and of itself, is the most fundamental thing that allows an individual to be human. On the other side, some believed that freedom is the distinctly human trait which, if removed, would diminish one's humanity.
What is distinctly human about life? Are we any more alive than the plants and animals that inhabit the world around us? Or is it possible that they are, in some way, functional and yet not “living” in the sense that humans are? The technical definition of life is “A condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects.” The specific signs of life are threefold: growth through metabolism, reproduction, and adaptation to one’s environment. Surely humans cannot be unique because we are alive, so there must be something special about how we live that sets us apart from the rest of the organisms on this spacious blue planet. What could this intangible quality be?
Humans are obviously very different from other forms of life on the planet. We wage war, we have sex, and even end our very existences whenever we deem it appropriate. So what dictates human action and motivates us to do the things that we do? It must be freedom, or something like it. Some of the worst punishments imaginable to us involve bondage, imprisonment, and death; all of which are limitations of our freedom. These punishments are most despicable because they take away the very thing that we need to be human; freedom.
Some may say that in order to be free one must be living, however it is not life in and of itself that gives us any measure of freedom or satisfaction. Truly there are situations (such as a prolonged coma or lifelong slavery) in which a person would rather exert their freedom to end their own existence than continue on in a manner where their situation is limited. In the context of life, human’s cognizance of their truly wretched conditions can be enough to compel us to end the suffering. This is even extended by us to the animal kingdom in the form of putting animals to sleep as a form of consolation should their ailments become too great. What would humans be without freedom? We would be yet another simple life form on this planet with basic instincts and a very rudimentary awareness of their surroundings, but without ambitions, inspirations, or a unique drive to understand that which is beyond the limits of our reason. Also, we wouldn’t have as much sex.
What are Human Rights?
What does it mean to be human?
In class we discussed the idea that first off life by itself was not a human right, that has to be a given. If you take life away from a person, they cannot be a person any more - they are no longer a thinking thing.
I believe that Sartre's idea that humans are a freedom and we are giving the free will to choose what actions to do or not to do, that is what makes us human not something else. If this is true we decided that it was our right to have self-sovereignty which was the most important human right. If one was to tamper with or infringe on a person's ability to make choices then it would be inhuman.
For example: if the US government holds an Egyptian immigrant in a secret prison and they torture him. This treatment is an attack on that immigrant's human rights, he can no longer be self-determined. The torture is an attempt to push this person into a life where he cannot be able to make choices, so this prisoner sees a limit set of choices and he ends up not being able to be a human.
We also talked about how there were some basic other human rights. These would obviously include access to clean water, as well as food, and the right to have a baseline health care and education. These are the foundations of any modern human society so that people can have a properly lifestyle.
But, is there some level of international intervention to guarantee that those above noted rights are not to be tampered with by a government or organization. First off there can intervention when people are being killed like in Bosnia-Kosovo conflict. Here a certain people where having their ability to live their lives taken away just because of religion. They were treated not like humans, but more like animals at the slaughter. This was a case where the West in the form of NATO saw that humans were being killed and their self-sovereignty was being threatened by the will of other people. In the end I believe any nation with the power should intervene for human rights if they have the resources or the power to.
In class we discussed the idea that first off life by itself was not a human right, that has to be a given. If you take life away from a person, they cannot be a person any more - they are no longer a thinking thing.
I believe that Sartre's idea that humans are a freedom and we are giving the free will to choose what actions to do or not to do, that is what makes us human not something else. If this is true we decided that it was our right to have self-sovereignty which was the most important human right. If one was to tamper with or infringe on a person's ability to make choices then it would be inhuman.
For example: if the US government holds an Egyptian immigrant in a secret prison and they torture him. This treatment is an attack on that immigrant's human rights, he can no longer be self-determined. The torture is an attempt to push this person into a life where he cannot be able to make choices, so this prisoner sees a limit set of choices and he ends up not being able to be a human.
We also talked about how there were some basic other human rights. These would obviously include access to clean water, as well as food, and the right to have a baseline health care and education. These are the foundations of any modern human society so that people can have a properly lifestyle.
But, is there some level of international intervention to guarantee that those above noted rights are not to be tampered with by a government or organization. First off there can intervention when people are being killed like in Bosnia-Kosovo conflict. Here a certain people where having their ability to live their lives taken away just because of religion. They were treated not like humans, but more like animals at the slaughter. This was a case where the West in the form of NATO saw that humans were being killed and their self-sovereignty was being threatened by the will of other people. In the end I believe any nation with the power should intervene for human rights if they have the resources or the power to.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Nietzsche on Christianity
As we’ve progressed to modern philosophers in our search for values, we’ve been confronted with several critiques attacking Christianity. After reading Sartre, who denies the existence of God altogether but offers no evidence for his claim, Nietzsche’s argument against the “anonymous, passionless, self-righteous, and hypocritical” (Solomon 112) Christianity serves as a more convincing analysis against this modern religion.
First, Nietzsche welcomes the “Death of God” because he thinks Christianity has encouraged weakness. He says Christianity serves as a crutch to the feeble-minded masses and rejects the values necessary for a man to live a self-actualized life. Instead of conforming to these harmful values, Nietzsche claims that there is a god waiting to be born inside of everyone that brings forth something creative and new to the world. With the “Death of God”, Nietzsche gives the power back to the individuals to decide their own values and courses of action.
Next, Nietzsche suggests that Christianity advocates slave moralities- doing what is most useful for the whole community (the herd), and not the strong. This belief prompts the weak to gain power over the strong because they make the strong believe that there are certain evils that they should avoid and certain values that they should uphold. Thus, humility, charity, sympathy and the like are the result of universalizing the values of the weak to bring others down. To Nietzsche, this mentality is flawed: great things should be for the great, while what is common should have little value to the great.
In response to slave moralities, Nietzsche outlines master moralities, which are based on individual excellence instead of obedience and conformity to a set of universalized values. Because this morality is for superior people who look beyond the emphasis of good and evil, they strive for values such as pride, honor, and nobility.
Finally, Nietzsche says that Christianity generates negative thinking. Because it is based on refraining from certain practices, especially those that seem instinctual, Christianity denies natural emotions and behaviors.
Nietzsche’s attack, originating from his disdain for universalized values and conformity, offers a sound case against Christianity. By emphasizing Christianity’s rejection of our instincts and creative capacities, Nietzsche argues that this religion denies the affirmative expression of our life.
First, Nietzsche welcomes the “Death of God” because he thinks Christianity has encouraged weakness. He says Christianity serves as a crutch to the feeble-minded masses and rejects the values necessary for a man to live a self-actualized life. Instead of conforming to these harmful values, Nietzsche claims that there is a god waiting to be born inside of everyone that brings forth something creative and new to the world. With the “Death of God”, Nietzsche gives the power back to the individuals to decide their own values and courses of action.
Next, Nietzsche suggests that Christianity advocates slave moralities- doing what is most useful for the whole community (the herd), and not the strong. This belief prompts the weak to gain power over the strong because they make the strong believe that there are certain evils that they should avoid and certain values that they should uphold. Thus, humility, charity, sympathy and the like are the result of universalizing the values of the weak to bring others down. To Nietzsche, this mentality is flawed: great things should be for the great, while what is common should have little value to the great.
In response to slave moralities, Nietzsche outlines master moralities, which are based on individual excellence instead of obedience and conformity to a set of universalized values. Because this morality is for superior people who look beyond the emphasis of good and evil, they strive for values such as pride, honor, and nobility.
Finally, Nietzsche says that Christianity generates negative thinking. Because it is based on refraining from certain practices, especially those that seem instinctual, Christianity denies natural emotions and behaviors.
Nietzsche’s attack, originating from his disdain for universalized values and conformity, offers a sound case against Christianity. By emphasizing Christianity’s rejection of our instincts and creative capacities, Nietzsche argues that this religion denies the affirmative expression of our life.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Home-wrecking is happiness
So, Dev’s post on the “scarier implications” of existentialism suggests that ultimate freedom undermines the value of meaningful relationships. I, too, have apprehensions that stem from this notion of absolute freedom, however my fears take on a different form. In Existentialism Is a Humanism, Sartre states that values are not so serious because you are given the freedom to choose them for yourself. He argues that your values should be reflected in your actions, and should ultimately aim to make yourself happy. Period.
Although I am obviously in favor of happiness and enjoying life, choosing values on the basis of benefiting yourself seems like a selfish aspect of existentialism. Shouldn’t everyone have some set of morals to keep from acting completely out of line? What about caring for others and not just yourself…and the golden rule? I feel like existentialism focuses too much on the satisfaction of the individual, and because everyone cannot be happy all the time, focusing on the greater happiness for the greater good may be more beneficial.
Sartre illustrates this principle of using freedom to attain happiness, even if it hurts others in the process, through his Maggie Tulliver example. Maggie is in love with Stephen, who is engaged to another woman. Maggie forfeits her own happiness and decides not to intervene, letting Stephen and the other woman follow through on their plans to get married. However, Sartre mentions Maggie’s alternative option, to disregard Stephen’s fiancée and pursue a relationship with him to make herself happy, and claims that this is an equivalent choice to the one she actually makes. The only thing that matters to Sartre is that she made a choice (home wrecker or not).
Again, I understand that happiness is the aim of life, but I just can’t get on board with something that denies any sense of morality altogether. If everyone was operating to benefit themselves, the world would be a chaotic and mistrustful place.
Ultimately, I like that existentialism gives individuals the freedom to decide their own fate, but considering the flaws of the human condition, I find this freedom simultaneously scary.
Although I am obviously in favor of happiness and enjoying life, choosing values on the basis of benefiting yourself seems like a selfish aspect of existentialism. Shouldn’t everyone have some set of morals to keep from acting completely out of line? What about caring for others and not just yourself…and the golden rule? I feel like existentialism focuses too much on the satisfaction of the individual, and because everyone cannot be happy all the time, focusing on the greater happiness for the greater good may be more beneficial.
Sartre illustrates this principle of using freedom to attain happiness, even if it hurts others in the process, through his Maggie Tulliver example. Maggie is in love with Stephen, who is engaged to another woman. Maggie forfeits her own happiness and decides not to intervene, letting Stephen and the other woman follow through on their plans to get married. However, Sartre mentions Maggie’s alternative option, to disregard Stephen’s fiancée and pursue a relationship with him to make herself happy, and claims that this is an equivalent choice to the one she actually makes. The only thing that matters to Sartre is that she made a choice (home wrecker or not).
Again, I understand that happiness is the aim of life, but I just can’t get on board with something that denies any sense of morality altogether. If everyone was operating to benefit themselves, the world would be a chaotic and mistrustful place.
Ultimately, I like that existentialism gives individuals the freedom to decide their own fate, but considering the flaws of the human condition, I find this freedom simultaneously scary.
Yet more on politics and economics
When we mentioned libertarianism in our discussion of ideology, Prof. Johnson stated that it is inconsistent to be economically conservative and socially liberal, at least in the widely accepted modern notions of liberalism and conservatism. In an attempt to receive more fresh criticism for a small portion of my rapidly-evolving political beliefs, I would like to expand on this point, and briefly state my position.
As stated in class, libertarianism might be better described in terms of a lack of government interference. In some individuals this ideology extends to a desire to abolish government entirely. There are many extremely different schools of libertarian thought ("liberalism" and many other ideologies cover quite a broad range as well), but I will be discussing the more anarcho-capitalistic (or minarcho-capitalistic) libertarianism common in the States, as the Libertarian Party is apparently the third largest political party in the US.
The laissez-faire capitalism advocated by these libertarians is incompatible with social liberalism in addition to economic. I will admit that I personally associate social liberalism first with issues like abortion and gay marriage, so it's understandable that the Libertarian Party, which is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage in general, could have this association, but libertarianism doesn't really fit on the left-right spectrum and cannot be considered socially liberal when it rejects affirmative action, anti-discrimination and hate crime laws, welfare, expanded or universal health-care, public education and income tax or any other attempt at wealth re-distribution.
I am of the opinion that granting complete and total individual liberty, at least according to this definition, means that minorities and the poor will remain poor and oppressed. If people are allowed to refuse to hire (or provide services to) racial minorities, women and homosexuals, many would. Many, many more would refuse to hire/serve transgendered people - admittedly this is already the case in much of America. I reject that notion that the "freedoms" to discriminate and to hoard resources that others need in order to remain alive and well are worth protecting.
Making no attempt to remedy the vast gulf between the rich and the poor that keeps many ignorant, without access to healthcare and lacking career opportunties will only perpetuate the racism, classism, sexism and homophobia of our largely "socially conservative" society.
As stated in class, libertarianism might be better described in terms of a lack of government interference. In some individuals this ideology extends to a desire to abolish government entirely. There are many extremely different schools of libertarian thought ("liberalism" and many other ideologies cover quite a broad range as well), but I will be discussing the more anarcho-capitalistic (or minarcho-capitalistic) libertarianism common in the States, as the Libertarian Party is apparently the third largest political party in the US.
The laissez-faire capitalism advocated by these libertarians is incompatible with social liberalism in addition to economic. I will admit that I personally associate social liberalism first with issues like abortion and gay marriage, so it's understandable that the Libertarian Party, which is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage in general, could have this association, but libertarianism doesn't really fit on the left-right spectrum and cannot be considered socially liberal when it rejects affirmative action, anti-discrimination and hate crime laws, welfare, expanded or universal health-care, public education and income tax or any other attempt at wealth re-distribution.
I am of the opinion that granting complete and total individual liberty, at least according to this definition, means that minorities and the poor will remain poor and oppressed. If people are allowed to refuse to hire (or provide services to) racial minorities, women and homosexuals, many would. Many, many more would refuse to hire/serve transgendered people - admittedly this is already the case in much of America. I reject that notion that the "freedoms" to discriminate and to hoard resources that others need in order to remain alive and well are worth protecting.
Making no attempt to remedy the vast gulf between the rich and the poor that keeps many ignorant, without access to healthcare and lacking career opportunties will only perpetuate the racism, classism, sexism and homophobia of our largely "socially conservative" society.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say
Parrhesiastes, what are your thoughts? I’m for ‘em, and here’s why. Their belief in the truth wrests in their opinion that their beliefs are true; alas, parrhesiastes reconcile belief with truth and are hence completely committed to the messages that they profess. And the truth that they profess is no filler; indeed their messages are devoid of rhetoric, fraught with truth for truth’s sake. The truth they tell is frank and forthright—effective and unyielding in their message without appeal to rhetoric as a faculty upon which they promote the truth. Their truth is legitimate in that they cite fact based on what they know to be true and share these findings because they believe it to be incumbent upon themselves. And let us not forget that a parrhesiastes always must always be in a position of inferiority relative to that which s/he is critiquing. It is this risk that commands qualifies a true parrhesiastes, one who would rather risk his/her personal wellbeing for the sake of delivering a message than be comfortable with the truth being unspoken.
Based on these qualifications, I think it is fair to assume that Malcolm X is indeed a parrhesiastes. Early in his speech, Malcolm X speaks to the general state of moral, spiritual, and institutional degradation of Black America in 1964 at the hands of white suppression. He states:
“Now in speaking like this, it doesn’t mean that we’re anti-white, but it does mean we’re anti-exploration, we’re anti-degradation, and we’re anti-oppression. And if the white man doesn’t want us to be anti-him, let him stop oppressing and exploiting and degrading us.”
And this sets the tone for the rest of what proves to be a true to form dissertation on what it is that has kept the black community subordinate to that of white America. He talks about Black Americans were systematically coaxed and manipulated into supporting, if not contributing towards, the economic and authoritative system that exploits them. He then goes on to state that the government doesn’t recognize them as a citizenry despite having guaranteed all citizens unalienable rights, and states that Black America needs a ballot to enact change before it gives a bullet. Before concluding, Malcolm X comes to appeals to the international community in recognizing the disenfranchisement of Black American’s human rights in the face of blatant hypocrisy (i.e. America’s involvement with the U.N.)
Although it’s fairly obvious that Malcolm X spits hot fire, I don’t think the same can be said of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, “I Have a Dream,” for a few simple reasons. Firstly, the language is much too inflated. Indeed the verbiage and phrasing speaks consists wholly of biblical allusions and extended metaphors that cloud would should be a frank and direct address (quite literally most of what is stated before Dr. King reveals his prophetic dream). What’s more, the speech isn’t an address to the oppressive superior. Rather, it is directed to those with concordant dispositions. There is no critique.
This isn’t to say that Dr. King is not a parrhesiastes. Alas, my thirst for knowledge and faith in Dr. King is unyielding, and I sought out a more telling work of Dr. King’s truth-telling exploits. Dr. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is a solid example of what it is to be a parrhesiastes—committed, bold, frank, and instigating. The letter is a response to a formal statement delivered by eight Alabama clergymen who urge Dr. King to forego initiatives of direct action in favor of eliciting concessions by way of the courts as opposed to the collective conscience of White America. These clergymen offer the virtue of patience instead of their support in action, a point that Dr. King isn’t loathe to harp on and argue against.
Briefly, Dr. King explains the theory of direct action before revealing what it is that they mean to get at by it’s execution, eliciting a tension in the mind of the community so that the issues of the oppressed must be addressed. He states: “We have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure,” the equates the Clergymen’s advice to “wait” with “never.” He even hints at the notion of the master/slave dialect being in full-effect. So yeah, he’s pretty much saying to the established authority, look, here’s what you’ve got wrong and this is how I suggest you go about changing. To close, he writes:
“If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.”
I’ve provided a link to the letter; go ahead, take a peek. I think you’ll find that the incredibly direct and forceful nature of the work cannot otherwise be misconstrued.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf
Based on these qualifications, I think it is fair to assume that Malcolm X is indeed a parrhesiastes. Early in his speech, Malcolm X speaks to the general state of moral, spiritual, and institutional degradation of Black America in 1964 at the hands of white suppression. He states:
“Now in speaking like this, it doesn’t mean that we’re anti-white, but it does mean we’re anti-exploration, we’re anti-degradation, and we’re anti-oppression. And if the white man doesn’t want us to be anti-him, let him stop oppressing and exploiting and degrading us.”
And this sets the tone for the rest of what proves to be a true to form dissertation on what it is that has kept the black community subordinate to that of white America. He talks about Black Americans were systematically coaxed and manipulated into supporting, if not contributing towards, the economic and authoritative system that exploits them. He then goes on to state that the government doesn’t recognize them as a citizenry despite having guaranteed all citizens unalienable rights, and states that Black America needs a ballot to enact change before it gives a bullet. Before concluding, Malcolm X comes to appeals to the international community in recognizing the disenfranchisement of Black American’s human rights in the face of blatant hypocrisy (i.e. America’s involvement with the U.N.)
Although it’s fairly obvious that Malcolm X spits hot fire, I don’t think the same can be said of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, “I Have a Dream,” for a few simple reasons. Firstly, the language is much too inflated. Indeed the verbiage and phrasing speaks consists wholly of biblical allusions and extended metaphors that cloud would should be a frank and direct address (quite literally most of what is stated before Dr. King reveals his prophetic dream). What’s more, the speech isn’t an address to the oppressive superior. Rather, it is directed to those with concordant dispositions. There is no critique.
This isn’t to say that Dr. King is not a parrhesiastes. Alas, my thirst for knowledge and faith in Dr. King is unyielding, and I sought out a more telling work of Dr. King’s truth-telling exploits. Dr. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is a solid example of what it is to be a parrhesiastes—committed, bold, frank, and instigating. The letter is a response to a formal statement delivered by eight Alabama clergymen who urge Dr. King to forego initiatives of direct action in favor of eliciting concessions by way of the courts as opposed to the collective conscience of White America. These clergymen offer the virtue of patience instead of their support in action, a point that Dr. King isn’t loathe to harp on and argue against.
Briefly, Dr. King explains the theory of direct action before revealing what it is that they mean to get at by it’s execution, eliciting a tension in the mind of the community so that the issues of the oppressed must be addressed. He states: “We have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure,” the equates the Clergymen’s advice to “wait” with “never.” He even hints at the notion of the master/slave dialect being in full-effect. So yeah, he’s pretty much saying to the established authority, look, here’s what you’ve got wrong and this is how I suggest you go about changing. To close, he writes:
“If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.”
I’ve provided a link to the letter; go ahead, take a peek. I think you’ll find that the incredibly direct and forceful nature of the work cannot otherwise be misconstrued.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
