As for the instance where charges were left for the destruction of the Indonesian ship, I feel that the ship could have been left alone as it was. It was true that the ship was not sinking, but it certainly wasn't going to be going anywhere either. One would have to prove that the ship would still be able to carry out the function of supplying the Japanese in order to justify it's destruction. Also, if that was the case, then they should have insured that all of the survivors were to make it off safely.
I think it sucks that something can be morally right, but legally wrong. I feel that we should not be able to convict someone in legal terms for doing something that is morally correct. That solider should not be held at trial because he decided that it would be wrong to gun down those surrendering German soldiers.
I can see where there are two different kinds of moral thinking in the virtues of a good solider and the virtues of a good person. The problem is that the two rarely coincide in situations that morality is questioned. What I find hard to debate as Hare somewhat mentions here is that sometimes - usually in the case of the Germans and Japanese of WWII - they are forced to do immoral things because if they don't follow orders they will be shot. That is a very abstract and difficult concept for me to decide upon. You can't ask someone to be kill voluntarily, but it is also unjustifiable that many could be killed if one doesn't sacrifice oneself. The questions also arises that perhaps the many will be killed either way. That is, that the solider that doesn't want to commit the unjust act could be killed and then the others would be killed as well. Clearly, the solider would then have no moral responsibility, but a greater evil would have been committed.
Is loyalty truly a virtue? I see it as a blinding force at times especially in the situation that we have here. Certainly a blind loyalty which causes the death of innocent people doesn't sound like much of a principle. It is true that right moral actions don't ever come easy.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wasserstrom - On the Morality of War
War is a difficult moral issue and this seemed to be a lengthy argument against all morality in war. I had a hard time distinguishing if Wasserstrom had anything to say in support of war at all. It seems like he took a wholly negative approach in that every venue of war is entirely immoral. I found that his argument formed around how all aspects of war hold no morality, and thus, wars should never be fought.
What I got confused about was his argument about self-defense. He seems to see some justification in defending one's nation as an individual, but notes that one needs only to defend oneself to the extent of merely defending. As in not going any further. My question is how does one know when they have successfully defended oneself? Is it a defeat of an invading army all the way to your shores? Is that justifiable? What happens if they are beaten to the edge of the map only to invade once more and kill more innocent civilians? Is that justifiable? I also agree that it is the duty of the President to hold American lives at a higher lives than others, however, it is not moral. It simply must be done when you hold that position.
As for his argument on innocent civilians, I find it a bit one-sided. Innocent civilians will be killed in any war. However, more innocent civilians may be killed if a nation does not go to war. It is often the killing of innocent civilians that prompts war. Regardless, is war immoral? Yes. However, is it immoral to allow your own people to be killed or to go to war and stop those whom are doing the killed from continuing. Sometimes there is little option in war.
What I got confused about was his argument about self-defense. He seems to see some justification in defending one's nation as an individual, but notes that one needs only to defend oneself to the extent of merely defending. As in not going any further. My question is how does one know when they have successfully defended oneself? Is it a defeat of an invading army all the way to your shores? Is that justifiable? What happens if they are beaten to the edge of the map only to invade once more and kill more innocent civilians? Is that justifiable? I also agree that it is the duty of the President to hold American lives at a higher lives than others, however, it is not moral. It simply must be done when you hold that position.
As for his argument on innocent civilians, I find it a bit one-sided. Innocent civilians will be killed in any war. However, more innocent civilians may be killed if a nation does not go to war. It is often the killing of innocent civilians that prompts war. Regardless, is war immoral? Yes. However, is it immoral to allow your own people to be killed or to go to war and stop those whom are doing the killed from continuing. Sometimes there is little option in war.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Reflection on the in-class film
In order to create a journal entry in relation to the film we viewed in class, I am going to simply respond to the questions posed in class.
How do we see war? How is war presented to us?
The photographer in the film depicted war through his photographs. He did not capture war from the perspective of the soldiers, but as a representation of the people and the aftermath of war. War is obviously not presented in a favorable light as the pain, suffering, and anguish that war bestows on the people of the nations from which it is fought is clearly depicted through these photographs.
Does the photographer document war? Give a moral account of war? Judge war as good/bad?
The photographer does not document war as it is happening, but the affects of the war on the surrounding people. He obviously gives an account of the in-human and immoralities of war and makes a clear judgment call that this is a bad thing. He clearly states that his photographs are the answer to war, a form of peaceful negotiation. He feels that he is doing the right thing in attempting to bring to light these horrible affects of war so that others may join him in taking action against wars.
How do we make sense and/or find meaning out of the consequences and aftermath of war?
The photographer seems to still maintain a sense of optimism in the fight against wars. He feels that good will eventually win out over the evils of war. He believes that war won't keep going on and on. His photographs attempt to function as a form of communication to the rest of the world. He wants to open the eyes of everyone around him so that we can see what is actually going on. The photographer feels that if people know about these things, then they will have a responsibility to do something about it. This sounds like some form of duty to me. I wrote in my notes that the photographer is appealing to some sort of Prima Facie duty that we have when seeing these photos. That we will be compelled and should to do something about it.
How do we see war? How is war presented to us?
The photographer in the film depicted war through his photographs. He did not capture war from the perspective of the soldiers, but as a representation of the people and the aftermath of war. War is obviously not presented in a favorable light as the pain, suffering, and anguish that war bestows on the people of the nations from which it is fought is clearly depicted through these photographs.
Does the photographer document war? Give a moral account of war? Judge war as good/bad?
The photographer does not document war as it is happening, but the affects of the war on the surrounding people. He obviously gives an account of the in-human and immoralities of war and makes a clear judgment call that this is a bad thing. He clearly states that his photographs are the answer to war, a form of peaceful negotiation. He feels that he is doing the right thing in attempting to bring to light these horrible affects of war so that others may join him in taking action against wars.
How do we make sense and/or find meaning out of the consequences and aftermath of war?
The photographer seems to still maintain a sense of optimism in the fight against wars. He feels that good will eventually win out over the evils of war. He believes that war won't keep going on and on. His photographs attempt to function as a form of communication to the rest of the world. He wants to open the eyes of everyone around him so that we can see what is actually going on. The photographer feels that if people know about these things, then they will have a responsibility to do something about it. This sounds like some form of duty to me. I wrote in my notes that the photographer is appealing to some sort of Prima Facie duty that we have when seeing these photos. That we will be compelled and should to do something about it.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The Ethics of War and the Struggle Against Terrorism - Lackey
"Blindness" entires have been delayed indefinably. Probably during Spring Break I will finish.
1. Varieties of Pacifism
Lackey provides a good point here, he states that normal pacifists believe that killing is wrong, but will not judge or impose their beliefs on someone else. Lackey says that this philosophy does not consider morality at all. He says that for something to be a moral principle, the person must state that their beliefs should apply to everyone. I agree with this statement, however I feel that a person can be understanding of someone else's difference and still believe that they are wrong, but a wishy-washy stance on an issue - especially on something like murder and war - is not permissible as a moral philosophy.
2. The Prohibition Against Killing
(a) The Biblical Prohibition
Finally, someone who challenges some of the religious contradictions in the Bible. How can God tell us not to kill, but tell others to do so in his name or whatever. I doesn't make any sense which is why I am very skeptical about following the teachings of the Bible. Also, Lackey mentions that the teaching of the Bible are religious laws and not moral law, but I think that it is difficult to distinguish the two. Many people consider their morals to pass through the teachings of religion which would bring no separation between the two. I would suggest that the difference lies between acting out of the words of a text and acting out of reason or some form or moral reason. That is, that we do things that only make rational sense. Can we kill whenever and whomever we want? No, that would not make any rational sense because we would not have a society any more.
(b) The Sacredness of Life
Ah yes, another excellent point. I like this guy. I would have to agree with him in that if you must kill someone to save the lives of others - or oneself - then it must be necessary to do so. I am a strong believer that death is a final option and that things should be allowed to be discussed and negotiated so that no one has to be killed. However, there are some that can not be negotiated with and I find these people to be inherently evil. In that case, if that person must die so that another shall live, I can see where it may be permissible.
(c) The Right to Life
Sometimes people kill others to secure the right to life. This is a contradiction in and of itself.
3. Antiwar Pacifism
The Killing of Soldiers
I am not one to blame the victim, so I will never agree that it is the soldier's fault for being killed. I would argue that it is the German's fault for the death of the Russians and of the the German soldiers. Here I am not blaming the German soldiers, but the commanders that ordered the invasion.
The Killing of Civilians
I think we need to understand that if you fight a war, innocent civilians are going to be killed - it is war. Civilian deaths are unavoidable and, yes unintentional, bu they are going to happen. You can't fight a war without it and that is why war is so horrible. I see no difference morally between a soldier's death and a civilians, ever human life is sacred. Wars are not only fought by soldiers.
The Balance of Good and Evil in War
This is obviously a very hard argument. As Lackey pointed out, it is immoral either way, but the blame would be placed elsewhere. That doesn't make it right though. I have a strict moral belief that there are times when one must kill in order to protect of the overall good from evil. If the question is either allow Nazi troops to occupy of the country and the world or kill them all to stop them by doing so, I would agree with the latter. There are some evils in this world that must be stopped so that the good in this world may survive. The problem is that what is good and what is evil is subjective.
1. Varieties of Pacifism
Lackey provides a good point here, he states that normal pacifists believe that killing is wrong, but will not judge or impose their beliefs on someone else. Lackey says that this philosophy does not consider morality at all. He says that for something to be a moral principle, the person must state that their beliefs should apply to everyone. I agree with this statement, however I feel that a person can be understanding of someone else's difference and still believe that they are wrong, but a wishy-washy stance on an issue - especially on something like murder and war - is not permissible as a moral philosophy.
2. The Prohibition Against Killing
(a) The Biblical Prohibition
Finally, someone who challenges some of the religious contradictions in the Bible. How can God tell us not to kill, but tell others to do so in his name or whatever. I doesn't make any sense which is why I am very skeptical about following the teachings of the Bible. Also, Lackey mentions that the teaching of the Bible are religious laws and not moral law, but I think that it is difficult to distinguish the two. Many people consider their morals to pass through the teachings of religion which would bring no separation between the two. I would suggest that the difference lies between acting out of the words of a text and acting out of reason or some form or moral reason. That is, that we do things that only make rational sense. Can we kill whenever and whomever we want? No, that would not make any rational sense because we would not have a society any more.
(b) The Sacredness of Life
Ah yes, another excellent point. I like this guy. I would have to agree with him in that if you must kill someone to save the lives of others - or oneself - then it must be necessary to do so. I am a strong believer that death is a final option and that things should be allowed to be discussed and negotiated so that no one has to be killed. However, there are some that can not be negotiated with and I find these people to be inherently evil. In that case, if that person must die so that another shall live, I can see where it may be permissible.
(c) The Right to Life
Sometimes people kill others to secure the right to life. This is a contradiction in and of itself.
3. Antiwar Pacifism
The Killing of Soldiers
I am not one to blame the victim, so I will never agree that it is the soldier's fault for being killed. I would argue that it is the German's fault for the death of the Russians and of the the German soldiers. Here I am not blaming the German soldiers, but the commanders that ordered the invasion.
The Killing of Civilians
I think we need to understand that if you fight a war, innocent civilians are going to be killed - it is war. Civilian deaths are unavoidable and, yes unintentional, bu they are going to happen. You can't fight a war without it and that is why war is so horrible. I see no difference morally between a soldier's death and a civilians, ever human life is sacred. Wars are not only fought by soldiers.
The Balance of Good and Evil in War
This is obviously a very hard argument. As Lackey pointed out, it is immoral either way, but the blame would be placed elsewhere. That doesn't make it right though. I have a strict moral belief that there are times when one must kill in order to protect of the overall good from evil. If the question is either allow Nazi troops to occupy of the country and the world or kill them all to stop them by doing so, I would agree with the latter. There are some evils in this world that must be stopped so that the good in this world may survive. The problem is that what is good and what is evil is subjective.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Blindness - p.114 - 185
I have gotten a little behind in my reading of "Blindess," but I will try and still maintain my journal to correspond with what I do finish and when I do so.
This particular section of the reading truly represents the downward spiral of the blind people in the asylum. The uprising of the "Thugs" and the addition of the old man with the black eye patch. Amongst this reading I found that there has been one major clue to the cause of the blindness and another moral decision.
I find it very ironic that the old man with the eye patch - who is already half blind - would be the one who is partially sees the truth. As if literal blindness is the answer to the metaphorical blindness that has stricken everyone else. I am not entirely sure if it is the old man with the black eye patch that says this, but his arrival certainly prompts it. What I am referring to is on page 129 and states:
Here is seems that Saramago is saying - perhaps himself literally - that it is fear that has caused their blindness. Perhaps that are not truly blind at all, but have been for years and have never known it. There is no clue as to who this person was, it might have been the old man with the black eye patch because he was the insightful one at the time. However, as literary works seem to function, it is usually an unknown or the most unlikely of characters that explain the true theme of the novel. Therefore, "A blind man" would be a perfect fit. Of course one could analyze this a litter deeper in suggesting that the "blindness" is truly just our fear blinding us. This fear is reflective of actual society that seems to now be based on fear from outside forces (terrorist) and crime or violence (media) and that this blinding fear is the downfall of our moral reasoning and society which is rightfully reflected in the downward spiral we see in the asylum.
As for one of the major moral considerations of these chapters include the question of if the women are morally obligated to allow themselves to be humiliated and raped so that everyone can have food. Clearly the "Thugs" have regressed to a level of barbaric inclination and sadly, the functioning society of the other wards must yield to the wills of the barbaric "Thugs" in order to survive, in order to receive food. However, the question is if the women should do this? Is it morally correct to relieve yourself of all dignity and humility in order for the good of the whole to survive? Should the husbands have to make the choice of allowing their wives to venture off to almost certain rape and possible death so that everyone may receive some food? It seems that there is little option aside from resistance and an overthrow of the "Thugs" which would also lead to some death, maybe not the death of everyone, but some may die. This path also would lead to the death of the "Thugs" as well in which the morality of that could be questioned. Is death more or less moral than rape? This is the major question of this particular section. The answer: I don't know if I could accurately provide my solution as I am not in that situation. However, my feelings now would suggest that I would be more willing to resist against the "Thugs" than to allow my wife to be raped. If someone doomed to harm, I would wish it upon my enemies rather than my loved ones.
This particular section of the reading truly represents the downward spiral of the blind people in the asylum. The uprising of the "Thugs" and the addition of the old man with the black eye patch. Amongst this reading I found that there has been one major clue to the cause of the blindness and another moral decision.
I find it very ironic that the old man with the eye patch - who is already half blind - would be the one who is partially sees the truth. As if literal blindness is the answer to the metaphorical blindness that has stricken everyone else. I am not entirely sure if it is the old man with the black eye patch that says this, but his arrival certainly prompts it. What I am referring to is on page 129 and states:
"Fear can cause blindness, said the girl with dark glasses, Never a truer word, that could not be truer, we were already blind the moment we turned blind, fear struck us blind, fear will keep us blind, Who is speaking, asked the doctor, A blind man, replied a voice, just a blind man, for that is all we have here."
Here is seems that Saramago is saying - perhaps himself literally - that it is fear that has caused their blindness. Perhaps that are not truly blind at all, but have been for years and have never known it. There is no clue as to who this person was, it might have been the old man with the black eye patch because he was the insightful one at the time. However, as literary works seem to function, it is usually an unknown or the most unlikely of characters that explain the true theme of the novel. Therefore, "A blind man" would be a perfect fit. Of course one could analyze this a litter deeper in suggesting that the "blindness" is truly just our fear blinding us. This fear is reflective of actual society that seems to now be based on fear from outside forces (terrorist) and crime or violence (media) and that this blinding fear is the downfall of our moral reasoning and society which is rightfully reflected in the downward spiral we see in the asylum.
As for one of the major moral considerations of these chapters include the question of if the women are morally obligated to allow themselves to be humiliated and raped so that everyone can have food. Clearly the "Thugs" have regressed to a level of barbaric inclination and sadly, the functioning society of the other wards must yield to the wills of the barbaric "Thugs" in order to survive, in order to receive food. However, the question is if the women should do this? Is it morally correct to relieve yourself of all dignity and humility in order for the good of the whole to survive? Should the husbands have to make the choice of allowing their wives to venture off to almost certain rape and possible death so that everyone may receive some food? It seems that there is little option aside from resistance and an overthrow of the "Thugs" which would also lead to some death, maybe not the death of everyone, but some may die. This path also would lead to the death of the "Thugs" as well in which the morality of that could be questioned. Is death more or less moral than rape? This is the major question of this particular section. The answer: I don't know if I could accurately provide my solution as I am not in that situation. However, my feelings now would suggest that I would be more willing to resist against the "Thugs" than to allow my wife to be raped. If someone doomed to harm, I would wish it upon my enemies rather than my loved ones.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Blindness - Part Two
In the second section of the novel, we experience a little more of what it is like in the asylum with all of the seemingly connected blind folks together.
As far as my comprehension serves me, I see a few moral issues that have been risen in this section.
The first is the dilemma of the Doctor's Wife and how she wants to help her husband, but cannot do anything to compromise the fact that she can still see. Others are suspicious of her including some of the blind and the guards. It book notes how she feels like she is part of a moral dilemma since she can see and she feels guilty to the fact that she shouldn't be able to see others if they can't see her. There is no telling with the outcome may be if she acknowledges that she can see. I don't think that they would remove her and it is possible that she might even represent some truth that you can interact with these people and not become blind yourself. However, it could cause harm and distress to her by forcing to perform chores for the others in need. This is perhaps negligent of her command of reason or duty in the situation by helping those who do not have the means to help themselves. This may perhaps lead to blindness for her.
Another moral issue surrounds the injured blind man who stole the car and the soldiers. This is where the first issue of rules against humanity arises. The injured man asks for help after his leg was injured - however - the solider said that we would not help the man. At one point somehow exclaims that by not providing the man with the proper medical support, it was against of the rules of humanity. The solider implied that the man would be left to die. Therefore, the injured man tries to escape and was shot in the process, thus providing a precedent for the rest of the group as more individuals are shot. By analyzing this moral issue, I can't help but think about how Kant and Mill would view this situation. Mill would suggest that by allowing the blind to die, it would be necessary for the greater happiness of the rest of society because they would not be "infected" by the epidemic. However, Kant would say that this could not be universalized because certainly no one would want to be left for dead if the situation was reversed. It would not be reasonable for everyone to act in this manner and thus, immoral.
As far as my comprehension serves me, I see a few moral issues that have been risen in this section.
The first is the dilemma of the Doctor's Wife and how she wants to help her husband, but cannot do anything to compromise the fact that she can still see. Others are suspicious of her including some of the blind and the guards. It book notes how she feels like she is part of a moral dilemma since she can see and she feels guilty to the fact that she shouldn't be able to see others if they can't see her. There is no telling with the outcome may be if she acknowledges that she can see. I don't think that they would remove her and it is possible that she might even represent some truth that you can interact with these people and not become blind yourself. However, it could cause harm and distress to her by forcing to perform chores for the others in need. This is perhaps negligent of her command of reason or duty in the situation by helping those who do not have the means to help themselves. This may perhaps lead to blindness for her.
Another moral issue surrounds the injured blind man who stole the car and the soldiers. This is where the first issue of rules against humanity arises. The injured man asks for help after his leg was injured - however - the solider said that we would not help the man. At one point somehow exclaims that by not providing the man with the proper medical support, it was against of the rules of humanity. The solider implied that the man would be left to die. Therefore, the injured man tries to escape and was shot in the process, thus providing a precedent for the rest of the group as more individuals are shot. By analyzing this moral issue, I can't help but think about how Kant and Mill would view this situation. Mill would suggest that by allowing the blind to die, it would be necessary for the greater happiness of the rest of society because they would not be "infected" by the epidemic. However, Kant would say that this could not be universalized because certainly no one would want to be left for dead if the situation was reversed. It would not be reasonable for everyone to act in this manner and thus, immoral.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Blindness - Part One
Since this is no longer information from a text book, but content from a literary novel, my journal entries will look a little different.
Regardless, after reading the first section of "Blindness" it seems obvious that the white blindness is a metaphor, but for what I am not sure.
Also, the epidemic of the "blindness" has led to a quarantine of those affected which seems to make some since being that anyone who interacts with those affected with the "blindness" becomes blind as well.
I guess one theory of mine is that it seems that all those affected with the blindness seemed to face some sort of moral problem. My thought is that these individuals are not acting in accordance to any correct moral principle and thus - blindness. The man who stole the first blind man's car became blind, the prostitute became blind, and the doctor is now blind . I'm not sure what he has done or his patients , but I guess that is why this is only a theory.
Saramago's writing seems to be very difficult at times to understand due to his complete lack of any punctuation. Having taken AP English courses in high school I know that the structure of the prose can be a function of the theme or meaning of the piece so I will not criticize the author's technique too heavily at this time.
Nevertheless, I found a grammatical mistake on page 5 which bothered me. It read: "It was as if there were a white wall on the other side." This doesn't even make sense when you first read it. The word "were" should be replaced with "was" to match the agreement with the object of the sentence in number.
I'm not sure how closely I will be able to read this book given how long the assigned readings are and my time commitments to other things.
Regardless, after reading the first section of "Blindness" it seems obvious that the white blindness is a metaphor, but for what I am not sure.
Also, the epidemic of the "blindness" has led to a quarantine of those affected which seems to make some since being that anyone who interacts with those affected with the "blindness" becomes blind as well.
I guess one theory of mine is that it seems that all those affected with the blindness seemed to face some sort of moral problem. My thought is that these individuals are not acting in accordance to any correct moral principle and thus - blindness. The man who stole the first blind man's car became blind, the prostitute became blind, and the doctor is now blind . I'm not sure what he has done or his patients , but I guess that is why this is only a theory.
Saramago's writing seems to be very difficult at times to understand due to his complete lack of any punctuation. Having taken AP English courses in high school I know that the structure of the prose can be a function of the theme or meaning of the piece so I will not criticize the author's technique too heavily at this time.
Nevertheless, I found a grammatical mistake on page 5 which bothered me. It read: "It was as if there were a white wall on the other side." This doesn't even make sense when you first read it. The word "were" should be replaced with "was" to match the agreement with the object of the sentence in number.
I'm not sure how closely I will be able to read this book given how long the assigned readings are and my time commitments to other things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)