It seems that Van Wyk's piece reflects somewhat closely to Singer. He seems to suggest that western, developed nations should produce aid for those in impoverished third-world nations. I feel that we should do what we can to help, but I have another aspect of the piece that I would like to see addressed. By the assumption of all of these moral philosophers, the United States is at the best position to aid other nations and their people in raising them above the poverty level. However, I don't understand how we can be the "world relief fund" when we have plenty of citizens within this county that are poor? It seems as though we should concentrate on our own people first. However, this leads into another issue when dealing with taking from the rich and giving to the poor. If we raise taxes, pool funds, and give money and resources to the poor, what is motivating them to do anything out their poverty? In the case of welfare, by giving money to those who have no other source of income, they have no incentive to help themselves unless they are forced to do so. If you were given free money for no reason wouldn't you quit your job? This is an extreme example of course, but entirely plausible.
I believe in the Kantian theory that people should be treated as means and not end, but if you are sacrificing your well-being for those who could be taking advantage of you, couldn't you argue that you are being used as a means instead of an end? I just feel that if we are to help those in need, we need to hold them accountable.
Certainly many corporations indirectly contribute to the poverty of others and I feel that they are morally accountable for their actions, especially if they achieve wealth in the process.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Ignatieff - Human Rights, the Laws of War, and Terrorism
1. Rights as Precommitments
I agree that human rights and civil liberties are a valuable part of our society and that terrorism is an act that attempts to displace these liberties. However, I think that in a time of crisis we may have to realize that out liberties can be strained in an attempt to protect society as a whole. I'm not talking about the sort of things that Ignatieff is suggesting such as torture, etc. but I think that this country fails to understand that when we are under attack, there are certain rights and procedures that we need to undertake in order to secure the nation as a whole. If that means that we profile Arab males, Caucasian males, or Asian women then we need to take those precautions, it would be foolish not too because life is a human right and these precautions are taken to ensure that. As for the human rights of terrorists, they do have some but severely limited to free individuals because the mere act of terrorism is a disregard for human rights and life in and of itself, so the individual clearly does not value these virtues. Therefore, we do not need to uphold theirs fully.
2. Emergency Suspensions of Rights
I agree with what Ignatieff has said here. A suspension of rights can only take place in times of emergency, however it is hard to tell when a President or government body has overstepped it's bounds as Ignatieff. I guess that when the rights of the American people are restricted so that a typical and reasonable way of life cannot be maintained, then they have overstepped their bounds. When the government oppresses its own people, it becomes a problem. However, it is easy for a select few to claim that they have been oppressed when they really haven't which is easy to do in today's society when the claim of oppression may lead to a law suit or fame in the media.
3. Two Precimmitment Strategies
All I have to say for this section is that terrorists and terrorism in general is a more complex war than any other fought traditionally. We don't know whether these terrorists act as civilians, militants, or soldiers therefore it is hard to hold them as any. I agree that the manner and condition in which some of these men have been held is unjustified and immoral. However, I revert back to my previous statement that some human rights and civil liberties should be taken away from those that clearly disregard them.
4. Human rights as a justification for terror?
Human rights are not a reasonable justification for terrorism. I can understand how others (terrorists) would think that it might be considering Ignatieff's argument, but I don't see how it is a justification. I understand that they come from a different culture and feel that they have been oppressed. However, taking human life and human rights away from others in the name of human rights as a justification does not make sense to me. Clearly it is using human life as a means instead of an end.
5. Human rights and the struggle against oppression
I agree with how Ignatieff distinguishes between a freedom fighter and terrorist. I was wondering myself as his argument progressed how he would classify our own forefathers. They were "revolutionaries" to us, but terrorist to the British. However, the forefathers fought military targets in the colonies instead of trying to instill fear and harm to the civilians in Britain herself. I also agree that when one resorts to violence, they have forgone their claim for human rights as a justification and must follow the rules of war. Terrorist have done just the opposite and can be rightly considered as such because of it.
I agree that human rights and civil liberties are a valuable part of our society and that terrorism is an act that attempts to displace these liberties. However, I think that in a time of crisis we may have to realize that out liberties can be strained in an attempt to protect society as a whole. I'm not talking about the sort of things that Ignatieff is suggesting such as torture, etc. but I think that this country fails to understand that when we are under attack, there are certain rights and procedures that we need to undertake in order to secure the nation as a whole. If that means that we profile Arab males, Caucasian males, or Asian women then we need to take those precautions, it would be foolish not too because life is a human right and these precautions are taken to ensure that. As for the human rights of terrorists, they do have some but severely limited to free individuals because the mere act of terrorism is a disregard for human rights and life in and of itself, so the individual clearly does not value these virtues. Therefore, we do not need to uphold theirs fully.
2. Emergency Suspensions of Rights
I agree with what Ignatieff has said here. A suspension of rights can only take place in times of emergency, however it is hard to tell when a President or government body has overstepped it's bounds as Ignatieff. I guess that when the rights of the American people are restricted so that a typical and reasonable way of life cannot be maintained, then they have overstepped their bounds. When the government oppresses its own people, it becomes a problem. However, it is easy for a select few to claim that they have been oppressed when they really haven't which is easy to do in today's society when the claim of oppression may lead to a law suit or fame in the media.
3. Two Precimmitment Strategies
All I have to say for this section is that terrorists and terrorism in general is a more complex war than any other fought traditionally. We don't know whether these terrorists act as civilians, militants, or soldiers therefore it is hard to hold them as any. I agree that the manner and condition in which some of these men have been held is unjustified and immoral. However, I revert back to my previous statement that some human rights and civil liberties should be taken away from those that clearly disregard them.
4. Human rights as a justification for terror?
Human rights are not a reasonable justification for terrorism. I can understand how others (terrorists) would think that it might be considering Ignatieff's argument, but I don't see how it is a justification. I understand that they come from a different culture and feel that they have been oppressed. However, taking human life and human rights away from others in the name of human rights as a justification does not make sense to me. Clearly it is using human life as a means instead of an end.
5. Human rights and the struggle against oppression
I agree with how Ignatieff distinguishes between a freedom fighter and terrorist. I was wondering myself as his argument progressed how he would classify our own forefathers. They were "revolutionaries" to us, but terrorist to the British. However, the forefathers fought military targets in the colonies instead of trying to instill fear and harm to the civilians in Britain herself. I also agree that when one resorts to violence, they have forgone their claim for human rights as a justification and must follow the rules of war. Terrorist have done just the opposite and can be rightly considered as such because of it.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Blindness - Finale
The ending pages of "Blindness" provide little by way of moral dilemma, or it has just been too long since I last read the book.
However, one of the key issues that we discussed in class was the sence of duty and "responsibility" that the government proclaimed in the quarantine just before their departure. Is it justified? Was it their moral duty to take these people out of society? Was it their duty to comply? Like any other moral issue, it depends greatly upon who moral theorist you want to follow. Mill would find that all of these actions are completely justified in that separating these these people would do the greatest good for the greatest number. Kant would argue that the maxim that the government and blind people would be operating upon would be rather difficult to universalize. If you simply discard every person that could cause harm to society or may increase the chances of an epidemic, then you would have more individuals in prison or quarantine than not. Couldn't the mentally ill be considered a threat, what about the elderly with disease, surely every cancer patient would fall under these same rules. Finally, Aristotle would attempt to find the golden mean in conduct. I would believe this mean to be a self-contained quarantine. They simply would not be allowed to leave the house until further research was done. Regardless, it is the government's duty (perhaps Prima Facie duty) to protect it's people. In a situation like this something had to be done. However, the manner in which it was done is not acceptable.
Secondly, the Doctor's Wife's food gathering brought about another moral dilemma. As she realized after discovering the dead bodies, by collecting food for herself and the others, she was taking food away from everyone else. She called herself a murderer for this act. Is she? I think that this is a special situation because of the epidemic of blindness has taken over the majority of society and there was little of any moral or legal structure at the time. It almost reverts back to a survival of the fittest type of mentality. The eyes of the statues and paintings in the church were blinded with white cloth and paint. Clearly moral standard were lessened as they were in the asylum. Still, were her actions immoral? I would say that her actions were immoral but entirely necessary. Much like our unit on war, it is hard to classify which is of a greater good, but there are times when something can be immoral, but necessary. Of course taking food or anything that may result in another's death is immoral, but it is what must be done to survive. It would be unreasonable to allow oneself to die when it could be easily avoided.
However, one of the key issues that we discussed in class was the sence of duty and "responsibility" that the government proclaimed in the quarantine just before their departure. Is it justified? Was it their moral duty to take these people out of society? Was it their duty to comply? Like any other moral issue, it depends greatly upon who moral theorist you want to follow. Mill would find that all of these actions are completely justified in that separating these these people would do the greatest good for the greatest number. Kant would argue that the maxim that the government and blind people would be operating upon would be rather difficult to universalize. If you simply discard every person that could cause harm to society or may increase the chances of an epidemic, then you would have more individuals in prison or quarantine than not. Couldn't the mentally ill be considered a threat, what about the elderly with disease, surely every cancer patient would fall under these same rules. Finally, Aristotle would attempt to find the golden mean in conduct. I would believe this mean to be a self-contained quarantine. They simply would not be allowed to leave the house until further research was done. Regardless, it is the government's duty (perhaps Prima Facie duty) to protect it's people. In a situation like this something had to be done. However, the manner in which it was done is not acceptable.
Secondly, the Doctor's Wife's food gathering brought about another moral dilemma. As she realized after discovering the dead bodies, by collecting food for herself and the others, she was taking food away from everyone else. She called herself a murderer for this act. Is she? I think that this is a special situation because of the epidemic of blindness has taken over the majority of society and there was little of any moral or legal structure at the time. It almost reverts back to a survival of the fittest type of mentality. The eyes of the statues and paintings in the church were blinded with white cloth and paint. Clearly moral standard were lessened as they were in the asylum. Still, were her actions immoral? I would say that her actions were immoral but entirely necessary. Much like our unit on war, it is hard to classify which is of a greater good, but there are times when something can be immoral, but necessary. Of course taking food or anything that may result in another's death is immoral, but it is what must be done to survive. It would be unreasonable to allow oneself to die when it could be easily avoided.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Miller - Jus as Bellum and an Officer's Moral Obligations: Ignorance, the Constitution, and Iraq
Jus in bello - Justice in War
Jus ad bellum - Justice of War
1. The Moral Equality of Soldiers?
I agree with the points that Miller brings up regarding Walzer. I feel that you cannot blame the individual soldier for war because most soldiers are forced into doing what they are told. This does not say - of course - that the soldier as no morality, it simply means that it was not the decision of the soldier or of a typical citizen whether or not to go to war. Also, it is true that we aren't always given all the facts that are leading up to war which is a problem because the citizens of a democracy have a right to be told this information, but rarely are told of all the facts. I guess one reasoning may be because as a democracy there is some fear and mistrust of the people. The very reason we have an electoral college is because we don't trust the blind and uninformed ideals of the majority. It is the same when declaring war. Yes, a soldier and citizen are ignorant to wars.
2. Soldiers and the Duty to Obey the Law
Here, Miller seems to try to formulate an overly convoluted and technical argument. He seems to be suggesting that US treaties override congressional orders - such as declaring war. Since the UN Charter seems to forbid all acts of war or "aggression" unless approved by the UN security council or as an act of self-defense, then a soldier fighting in a war that doesn't fit this criteria should not fight because it would contradict his or her own duty. I think that is the argument, which I feel is not very well founded and a perversion of the original meaning of duty, supreme law, and that of a soldier. Also, the question that has plagued this entire unit still remains, what is considered self-defense? Were the 9-11 attacks an aggressive attack on the US? If so, are we supposed to do nothing since it was not a nation that attacked us? There are far too many questions to give concrete answers to this topic.
3. Gulf War II as an Illegal War
I do not agree with Miller's statements in the previous sections and therefore I do not agree with what he is saying here. He just seems to be making too many obscure connections. I don't understand how performing a duty under the order of the Congress and the President is disobeying one's duty to the Constitution. I am almost a college education individual - much like these officers he was talking about - and I don't make this connection. It seems to be an ill-founded argument. Maybe the Iraq War was a mistake, but I will refuse to ever blame the troops that are out their giving their lives in service to this country.
Jus ad bellum - Justice of War
1. The Moral Equality of Soldiers?
I agree with the points that Miller brings up regarding Walzer. I feel that you cannot blame the individual soldier for war because most soldiers are forced into doing what they are told. This does not say - of course - that the soldier as no morality, it simply means that it was not the decision of the soldier or of a typical citizen whether or not to go to war. Also, it is true that we aren't always given all the facts that are leading up to war which is a problem because the citizens of a democracy have a right to be told this information, but rarely are told of all the facts. I guess one reasoning may be because as a democracy there is some fear and mistrust of the people. The very reason we have an electoral college is because we don't trust the blind and uninformed ideals of the majority. It is the same when declaring war. Yes, a soldier and citizen are ignorant to wars.
2. Soldiers and the Duty to Obey the Law
Here, Miller seems to try to formulate an overly convoluted and technical argument. He seems to be suggesting that US treaties override congressional orders - such as declaring war. Since the UN Charter seems to forbid all acts of war or "aggression" unless approved by the UN security council or as an act of self-defense, then a soldier fighting in a war that doesn't fit this criteria should not fight because it would contradict his or her own duty. I think that is the argument, which I feel is not very well founded and a perversion of the original meaning of duty, supreme law, and that of a soldier. Also, the question that has plagued this entire unit still remains, what is considered self-defense? Were the 9-11 attacks an aggressive attack on the US? If so, are we supposed to do nothing since it was not a nation that attacked us? There are far too many questions to give concrete answers to this topic.
3. Gulf War II as an Illegal War
I do not agree with Miller's statements in the previous sections and therefore I do not agree with what he is saying here. He just seems to be making too many obscure connections. I don't understand how performing a duty under the order of the Congress and the President is disobeying one's duty to the Constitution. I am almost a college education individual - much like these officers he was talking about - and I don't make this connection. It seems to be an ill-founded argument. Maybe the Iraq War was a mistake, but I will refuse to ever blame the troops that are out their giving their lives in service to this country.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Hare - Lovalty and Obedience
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)