The strong move quiet, the weak start riots.

Here’s a scenario: eighteen students and one professor are sitting in Found class in 203 Palm Tree Hall at Roads College when bullets burst through the windows. There is nowhere to hide as the steady stream of bullets flows into the classroom, leaving each student (and professor) to try to protect themselves by diving behind bodies and placing others in front of the bullets.

Think this isn’t a feasible scenario? Ask Kinji Fukasaku, director of the movie Battle Royale, who worked in a munitions factory during World War II. His entire class was drafted when he was fifteen to work in the factory and one day they were caught in artillery fire. With nowhere to hide, his classmates dove under each other to shield themselves from harm.

This, my friends, is Rousseau’s view of the natural man in society: the self-serving and self-interested human always interested in survival and self-preservation. We argued recently about whether or not it was essential for humanity’s survival for humans to be co-dependent upon one another, and brought up several post-apocalyptic scenarios in which there could be a dichotomy of choices, namely whether or not to help those weaker than you or just leave them behind.

I offer this link to a fantastic movie that we previously viewed in the Philosophy Film Series last year: Battle Royale. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1225842003597524246

You can ignore the stuff in the intro about the adults fearing the children and all that stuff. It doesn’t make much sense. Just keep watching.

In this movie, a class of 9th graders is sent to an island and given weapons and a three day time limit in which they must kill all others on the island. If there is more than one person alive after three days are up, everyone dies. The question then, my fellow classmates, is whether or not we can kill each other to survive. The answer, as we quickly see, is yes. Factions quickly form within the class and there is a general lack of unity among the classmates as they almost all turn on each other and kill each other in an attempt to survive. One might argue that the reason factions form is due to humans’ need to interact and depend upon each other, but I offer this counterpoint: cold-hearted Kiriyama almost won the game and he operated entirely as a lone wolf. I argue that factions are alliances of convenience which often deteriorate when no external threat is present. Later in the movie, a group of girls that hide in a watchtower turn on each other as mutual suspicion rises and there is nothing to keep them united. This pattern is not new, as the girls’ inevitable betrayals echo the course of history. Take the alliance of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. against Nazi Germany, for example.

The other argument that one might derive from this movie is that in the end love conquers all, and since it is love between two people that allows them to both survive the game, it proves humanity’s co-dependence. To this I say that the two lovers are an anomaly in a system full of people that are overwhelmingly interested in serving themselves.

I encourage you all to watch this movie (it’s only an hour and 15 minutes) and reply to my questions:

1) Do you believe in Rousseau’s view of human nature? If not, why?
2) Do you believe that survival is the ultimate incentive for humans? Is it realistic for humans to consistently sacrifice themselves for others? We see two examples of this in the movie (The rogue Kawada, who won a previous game of Battle Royale through the grace of his love, and of course the two lover protagonists Shuya and Noriko.) Are these two examples glitches in the system? Or are they true representations of human nature? If they are, then what justifies the actions of the other players in the game?

She's not emotional, just hormonal.

Kant places too high a value on the human capacity to think rationally. Kant’s ideology speak to how humankind ought to act, and in doing so, speaks to the ideals upon which we strive to achieve but realistically fall short of doing. We are fallible beings with the capability to seek moral authority by way of acting rationally in a rational world. That being said, the Kantian human model turns humankind into something of a machine by discounting emotional influence on human action. As Solomon wrote of Hegel’s disillusionment with Kantian moral principles, such a character that abides by the categorical imperative would be utterly deplorable.

I find it fascinating that by divorcing emotion from rational, Kant’s ideal person is something of an outcast. We as human beings who function within a societal context and are fundamentally dependent upon interaction with each other do not discern emotion from rational judgment; indeed, emotions consistently guide rationale as a means upon which to make decisions. Though imperfect and certainly not absolute by way of its subjectivism, this system upon which we as humans decide how we go about deciding is, well, distinctly human. Perhaps Kant’s rigid moral structure would be more feasible if we view the achievement of a kingdom of ends as being achieved by a superhuman population. So long as Kant’s “ought” is an “ought,” Kant strives for humankind to achieve something above itself, something above its nature, something outside of its capabilities. Kant believes that it is perfectly feasible for human’s to act as such at this very moment by use of our rational minds; I believe that we will never sacrifice our propensity towards empathy or self-interest without losing our humanity with it.

Out of Curiosity...

I don't really remember how we ended up rationalizing that me committing a crime (probably a violent one, like committing a massacre while on PCP) makes it okay for everyone else to do so. In my PCP-induced madness, I clearly did not follow the supreme law of all morality, but does that really make it okay for everyone else to do likewise? Kant's laws are still in place, regardless of whether or not I follow them. Are you not held to the same moral laws?

Since I am irrational and immoral (whether this is due to PCP or if I just happened to be a psycho anyway), I am not willing my maxim of murder as universal law. There is no intent for my subjective principle to become an objective one, but since I am acting irrationally and on impulse I really would not be willing anything. I may be denying people their freedoms by denying their right to live, but if I am not doing this consciously, intentionally, or rationally, how am I breaking the maxim for EVERYONE? Just curious...

Hegel has a problem.

I have an issue with Hegel. His culmination of thought results in people no longer being individuals, at least that is how I understand it. But one of the fundamental limitations of humans is the self. We can never “be” outside the individual. If we reach the pinnacle of consciousness, as Hegel says, then we would have to cease to be human. But what does that look like? I’m not really willing to accept an “I don’t know” response. If we can’t know what it looks like, then there just doesn’t seem to be a point in considering it.

Ok, so what does it look like when you get rid of the individual? So far humanity hasn’t come up with very many pleasant images. The first two that leap to mind are the Borg and the Zerg (and all other knockoffs). And nature doesn’t do us much better, she gives us bees and termites. I wouldn’t call any of those images better for humanity. The only realistic state I can think of is a world in which everyone agrees on everything. But that wouldn’t eliminate the individual, it would just make him/her really boring.

I just can’t really get on board with Hegel saying that humanity will look entirely unpredictable and inhuman once its consciousness is wholly realized.

The necessity of Rationality?

As we've read through Kant he puts a large emphasis on rational and irrational actions.  Kant lays the founding for his work and on morality in wether an action is rational as well as it's being done for duty.  Rational people will make good, moral decisions where an irrational person would make a bad, immoral decision according to Kant.  Can we say this is always true though?  Is someone who acts irrationally always immoral?

In class we looked at Kant and what he believes.  He states that an action is rational if the person committing the action can will it as a universal maxim.  This meaning that a rational person could not will for it to be ok to lie because it would create a community of chaos where we cannot know if we are being told the truth or a lie.  Also, an action is moral if performed only for the sake of duty.  We explored this in Dr. Johnson's example of Dev helping an old woman across the street for twenty dollars, and Mark helping the old woman across the street out of duty even with a large range of problems.

The example of having Ann Frank in the attic of your house and the Gestapo were at the door asking if you had any Jews there was posed, and the question "would it be rational and moral to tell the truth or to lie" arose.  A normal person would say that it is rational to lie to preserve the life of another human being.  Kant, on the other hand, says it is moral and rational to tell the truth.  He declares this true for several reasons.  First, he states that we cannot know the future.  We cannot be sure of what will happen to her and therefore don't know if she'll be killed.  Second, as stated above, a rational person cannot will it to be ok to lie, even under certain circumstances.  Third, similar to the first reason, Anne Frank could have left the attic and be leaving in the direction you point the Gestapo.

During class I posed the question of "is taking a risk irrational or rational?"  We looked at someone diving in a lake to save a drowning person, even though they might be drowned by the struggling person.  While this was eventually discredited by saying that we cannot know the future and can't look at consequences, it doesn't necessarily take into account every situation of risk.  If one takes a financial risk would it be for duty or personal gain?  One could risk money out of duty for family to provide better, or they could risk it in hopes to gain more for themselves.  These are two opposing sides, one duty and one for personal gain.

  So are there actions that can be irrational and still be moral.  Also, can a person perform a rationally immoral action?

Locke and Slavery

John Locke was a British philosopher who was very involved with the governance of the colonies and the political conflicts of England. In 1689, Locke published The Two Treaties of Government in which he discusses political philosophy. Furthermore, Locke describes his theories of the natural rights of humans in a civil society. The fourth chapter of this text is dedicated to his theory of the existence of slavery.

In this chapter Locke states that one’s “natural liberty” allows for one to be free from any worldly power. It is the right of the individual to only be ruled by the law of nature. Moreover, an individual cannot be ruled by the will or legislative power of man. Therefore, slavery should not exist in a civil society. One can only be controlled by a societal legislative power if the individual gives their consent. Locke further claims that individuals are so concerned with self-preservation that they cannot voluntarily give up their freedom to any form of an absolute power.

Locke declares that the only state of slavery exists in a “state of war”. He defines a “state of war” as hostility that is brought about by an individual’s attempt to destroy another’s life. The relationship between the conqueror and the captive involves slavery because the captive has been overtaken forcefully by the conqueror.

In the eighth chapter Locke emphasizes that one of the basic characteristics of a civil society is being governed by the majority of that society. “The only way, whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community…”. By joining a society, an individual gives their consent to be governed. Therefore, one has to accept and obey the decisions of the majority. Is it not possible that slavery can exist in a civil society in which slavery is in favor of the majority?

Bent out of shape by society's pliers

Although Rousseau is mostly noted today for his influence on political philosophy, I find him to be a compelling figure because of his image of human nature. His ideas may be considered “paranoid” and “flamboyant”, but nonetheless I appreciate and (for the most part) agree with his notion that all humans are innately good until society exerts evil influences on the individual. Also, Kant’s moral theory overshadowed Rousseau’s as far as our class discussions go, so I thought it was necessary to finally dissect Rousseau’s thought on the self and society.

To understand Rousseau’s argument, it is first important to understand the key components of the self. Rousseau defines the inner self as a distinctly moral and unique part of an individual. To discover the self, one must be guided by their feelings rather than reason. He says that “a man who thinks is a depraved animal” and “if all the philosophers in the world should prove me wrong, all that is important is that you feel that I am right.” Because emotions are one thing we do have control over, I think Rousseau’s point is valid even though he dismisses the importance of reason. If someone does something to make you mad, you can control whether you lash out and feel angry or stay calm and take a few deep breaths. He also argues that the goodness of the self should define us rather than our actions. This is reminiscent of Luther’s idea that a person is justified by something greater (in his case it was faith) than just their deeds. I agree with Rousseau (and Luther) because good people can do bad things, however I do not believe it makes them any less of a good person. People, even the most moral and obedient, make mistakes and have poor judgment every once in a while.

At the same time Rousseau explains the goodness of the self, he blames society for corrupting this innate morality found in everyone. Rousseau says, “ Nature made man happy and good, and society depraves him and makes him miserable”. To alleviate this misery he suggests that humans should rid themselves of the artificialities imposed on them by culture, and revert back to the ways of free and natural or else you will be like one of these savages that Rousseau describes:

“He enjoys not a moment’s relaxation; and what is yet the stranger, the less natural and pressing his wants, the more headstrong are his passions, and still worse, the more he has it in his power to gratify them; so that after a long course of prosperity, after having swallowed up treasures and ruined multitudes the hero ends up cutting every throat till he finds himself, at last, sole master of the world. Such is…the secret aspirations in the heart of every civilized man.”

Although this quote is intense, Rousseau (and I) just want others to realize that we (referring to the moral “self”) are better than we appear (referring to tainted society).