Originally Written: 10 December 2008
Henry David Thoreau, an American essayist, poet, and naturalist, was quoted as saying, “No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof”. Despite the fact that he has been dead for well over 140 years, Thoreau’s words still ring true today. For a very long time I have believed that if one wants to argue his point, he must also be ready to back it up with evidence and/or ‘cold, hard facts’, as is often said. However, I have found that many people readily jump into a debate without such proof, and I am forced to believe absolutely nothing that they say, on the grounds that they have nothing with which to support their argument. I would argue that such actions merely demonstrate the level of thinking which these people possess, one that is lacking in analysis and possibly even complex ideas. For this reason, I believe myself to be among those who exhibit a reflective level of intellectual development, however, I do admit that the Pacific Seminar course has defined my understanding of what is involved in effectively supporting one’s point of view.
Throughout the semester, several readings and issues that came up within the course demonstrated my reflective level of intellectual development. I am under the impression, however, that I came to Pacific already in possession of such mental capabilities, and that being here only allowed me to use them more often. The thought-provoking essays that we read and discussed intellectually stimulated me; being the highly analytical person that I am, I often looked for flaws or lack of evidence in a writer’s argument. This speaks to Rampton & Stauber’s Questioning Authority, in which the writers urged their audience to question that which they were being taught or asked to do. Fortunately for me, or unfortunately in the eyes of some, I often question why I am asked to do certain things. I do not interrogate every teacher for the reasons that they are assigning a particular exercise, only when the task seems to have no overall purpose and/or does not confer any benefit to me, as the student. This is perhaps why I enjoyed Bjorn Lomborg’s Our Chemical Fears so much. He professed that all statistics are inherently flawed, as they can be twisted in any fashion that the presenter desires (despite the fact that he, himself, did the very same thing), which I completely agreed with. This distrust of statistics and “facts” in conjunction with my questioning of authority, serve to demonstrate my reflective development level. I reason through arguments and points of view, looking for people’s personal interpretations of data or “facts” as I examine and evaluate their “use of evidence”. I am sure to keep an open mind as long as facts and statistics that I believe to be true are presented in a non-biased light. In addition, I also examine the sources of information used for essays and articles, often looking for sources that would have some sort of “expertise” regarding the topic at hand. I have never felt that any issue, or question, was merely an opinion-driven topic. I have always found that opinions are based on experiences, analyses, and interpretations – whether people realize it or not. For example, I think that living in the 1950s is preferable to living in today’s world. I interpret the way of life in that decade as being uncomplicated, happy-go-lucky, innocent, and free of many of modern society’s problems with crime rates, technology, and other sources of discontent. In my experience, most people who lived in this era absolutely loved it, and would prefer to go back (including my parents)! Although, at the same time I surely realize that this was a time of innovation, in which many modern technical inventions and techniques did not even exist, and diseases such as polio were still rampant. However, I’ve weighed the potential benefits to potential costs, and reason that I would still prefer to go back in time and live in this era (I could write a whole paper simply on this issue alone, demonstrating my reflective level capabilities but this is neither the time nor place to do so – as I am limited by space constrictions).
In addition to simply siding with articles, or finding them to be enjoyable because of their veracity, I also argued against articles both in my own mind as I read and in class discussions. In Peggy Orenstein’s What’s Wrong With Cinderella? piece, I really put my analytical abilities to their full use. As I read, I tore up her argument. She presented herself as a feminist, which ordinarily would not have mattered, except in this case it slanted her point of view so much that I could not even see straight. She presented arguments that were driven purely by emotion and conclusions that she, herself drew – she had no facts, figures, or opposing interpretations of her arguments to support herself. I felt that she was just upset that little girls were going to grow up to be submissive, subservient housewives simply because they were wearing a Cinderella dress, or that they would be so disillusioned by the story tale that they would be heartbroken when their prince charming never showed up. This was somewhat presumptuous on her part, to believe that these little girls would not realize that Cinderella was just a story, not the real world. From my point-of-view, she is calling them stupid and naïve, what audacity! Although, I must say, I am biased in that I absolutely hated her piece, and looked for every wrong piece of information I could find. Hers was not the only piece that I argued against though.
There are several other examples of my complex thinking, in regards to works that we read, that shaped my “understanding of what is involved in reasoning through complex issues, supporting a controversial position, and responding to disagreement”. In this class I did develop a more concrete understanding of the methodology behind my analysis of a person’s argument. I realized that I first look for flaws, such as lack of proof for a conclusion. I then look at sources of information, possible points of (incorrect) interpretation, and bias. In supporting a controversial opinion of my own, such as when I was the only person in class supporting the ban on gay “marriage”, I maintained a level-head, sited an expert (Dr. Gerhard when it came to the historical perspective of my argument), and drew well-reasoned conclusions from my gathered evidence. In addition, I presented a solution and appealed to the opposition, in beginning with my belief that gays should have the same rights as married people (despite going on to say that they should not be allowed to attribute the word “marriage” to their unions). I used the same techniques in response to disagreement, the most important of which is not to answer right away; one must first carefully articulate a response before speaking and becoming trapped or losing crushing.
In conclusion, I came to the Pacific Seminar course as a reflective level intellectual but garnered a clearer understanding of the art of proving one’s point of view by being in the class. The experience in itself will prove to be rewarding for many years, if not a lifetime, to come. The skills I learned in this class and the observations that I am taking with me will aid me in my future career, discussions around the dinner table, and may even keep someone from taking advantage of me. The impact of the course
mercoledì 10 dicembre 2008
venerdì 28 novembre 2008
Formal Essay #4: Tying the Pacific Seminar I Course Together
Originally Written: 28 November 2008
In his piece, Environmental Justice: Normative Concerns and Empirical Evidence, Evan J. Ringquist explores the concept of environmental justice, or lack thereof. It quickly becomes apparent, however, that several other areas – those relating to education, civil society, and government in particular - are closely intertwined with the issue of environmental justice. In the Pacific Seminar I classes, students at the University of the Pacific are introduced to vital issues relating to education, civil society, government, and the environment through a series of informative and thought-provoking articles and essays. At the end of the course, when the interconnections among these four general topics become apparent, themes that once seemed to have no relevance to one another become intimately related. In fact, it is obvious that environmental justice is related to these other areas through an interconnected chain, whereby one area influences another, which may even turn around and influence the originator of influence as well as another area. Despite the fact that a seemingly endless chain of inequity will yield environmental injustice, causes such as intolerance can be identified and subsequently remedied to a point where “a good society” can be achieved.
In order to examine the concept of environmental justice and its relation to other areas of justice, a concise definition is appropriate. According to NationMaster.com, a site which compiles facts from sources such as the CIA Factbook, UN agencies, and the OECD, “Participants of [the] Central and Eastern European Workshop on Environmental Justice” said environmental justice consists of environmental risks and benefits that are equally dispersed among all, regardless of race, gender, or any other discriminating characteristic (“Environmental justice”). In addition, the ability to attain information and take part in decisions related to environmental issues is also a key component to environmental justice. No particular group is to be singled out because of their skin color, particular beliefs, or lack of education or monetary means for opposition to a proposed project that may potentially be hazardous. Each locale, under this doctrine, is to share the burdens placed on a particular environment and the benefits with which it is endowed; this alludes to waste disposal facilities and their side effects as well as access to natural resources, among other things. However, environmental justice is all too often nonexistent. A chain reaction of injustice leads to the unfair disbursal of facilities that are considered undesirable.
As previously mentioned, there is a chain of injustice that yields abject environmental situations for some groups of people. Unequal access to educational resources yields a poor civil society and unjust laws derived from the government, which will in turn give way to environmental injustice. A large number of uneducated people create a poor civil society that lacks civic participation; unjust laws arise from a populace that does not know how to vote to protect its own interests. When people harbor ill will or harsh sentiments towards other individuals, such as those who are uneducated, civil society suffers. Such feelings produce a weakened culture, one with rifts among its citizenry, to the point where members of a society no longer take care of one another as the unified whole that they should be. Such a debilitated state inevitably leads to laws (such as the former Jim Crow Laws of the Southern United States) made by government that no longer treat all members of the populace as equals, acquiescing egalitarian protection of all citizens to personal tenets founded on hatred and/or wrongly perceived notions of members of other races or religious groups. Inequality in the educational system becomes inescapable at this point, as citizens are no longer seen as equals in the eyes of the government. Such unjust education produces citizens who are not well versed in the proper methods for analyzing and addressing issues. Such unjust education produces citizens, possibly illiterate, that are not equipped with information needed to help them formulate opinions on how to vote or partake in civil procedures such as court proceedings necessary for opposition. Such unjust education produces citizens who are a drain on society, such as homeless people, and fail to participate in a productive manner that serves not only themselves, but their community as well. This leads to a vicious cycle of continued hatred for the “useless” members of society and stereotypes that only serve to worsen the problem. To present a more concrete, less vague argument, consider the case of African-Americans. Originally brought to the colonies as slaves, these people were seen not only as a lower class, but also as property. Yet after they had gained their freedom, they still faced discrimination from the Southern white community and the government (Jim Crow Laws); some members of society still held on to their preconceived notions of African-Americans, such as their inability to participate in society as cultured, refined citizens. This led to unfair practices of segregation, whereby whites and blacks were kept apart by “separate but equal” public facilities such as drinking fountains, but also with regards to education. The African-Americans were given substandard educational facilities, which only prolonged their ignorance and worsened their stereotypes of being uneducated, lazy, and useless. Because people refused to see African-Americans as equals, denied education and equal opportunities resulted. As will be illustrated, however, the plight of African-Americans and the other lower classes in America does not end here. This circle of inequality yields environmental injustice.
A weakened civil society started the cycle of inequality that has led to environmental injustice. In her A Call to Civil Society, Jean Elshtain points out that “we suffer from growing inequality…As we become an increasingly fragmented and polarized society, too many of our fellow citizens are being left behind, not participating in the benefits of economic growth and free society” (Elshtain 79). She points out that the main feature of civil society is to promote upstanding citizens who will become productive members and positive contributors in society (Elshtain 82). She goes on to emphasize that local government, in which there is to be an active participation, is an integral part of any good civil society. The most important part of her argument, however, is that in which she calls on schools to “sustain democratic culture by helping students attain civic literacy…a comprehension of what good citizenship is, and an appreciation of their society’s civic and moral ideals” (Elshtain 85). What can be ascertained from Elshtain’s argument is the fact that if people are left behind, and not included in a community’s decisions, the entire civil society suffers. In addition, she conveys how critical a citizen’s education is in influencing their participation is civil society. So not only does a poor civil society yield a poor education, but a poor education will serve to weaken civil society further. As will be seen though, the chain of injustice continues.
A weakened civil society gives rise to unequal access to educational facilities. In Jonathan Kozol’s piece, The Dream Deferred, Again, in San Antonio, he highlights the disparities between the education of the poor and that of the rich. The rich are predominately white, and the poor are oftentimes the country’s minorities – African-Americans and Hispanics. Kozol argues that “education offered to poor children should be at least as good as that which is provided to the children of the upper-middle class” (Kozol 175). He also mentions a specific court case in which Demetrio Rodriguez, of San Antonio, filed a class-action suit in 1968 against the state of Texas for violating the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution when it came to education. His attorneys argued, according to Justice Lewis Powell, “that education is itself a fundamental personal right because it is essential…to the intelligent use of the right to vote. [They argue also] that the right to speak is meaningless unless the speaker is capable of articulating his thoughts intelligently and persuasively” (Kozol 181). And so it is that civil society’s factions of wealthy and poor people result in a decrepit educational system where wealth and privilege gain a child’s access to better educational facilities. This only serves to continually worsen civil society, as the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. This in turn worsens the educational requirements and standards of the country, as those in power (the wealthy) maintain the status quo – perpetual dominance of the wealthy families who maintain their status within society by ensuring their access to good education. Furthermore, these unfair educational practices will yield injustice in the governmental sphere as well.
The poor educational system only exacerbates the problem of governmental injustice. This is because uneducated citizens are not effective participants in voting and elections, thereby keeping them from enacting the laws that they wish to have enacted, and effectively quieting their voices and opinions in the process. The importance of education is evidenced not only by Elshtain and Kozol, but also by John Stuart Mill in his Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, in which he states that “Judgment is given to men that they may use it” (Mill 27). If people do not have the intellect, that results from education, with which to vote and effectively take part in their government, inequality and injustice are most certainly likely products.
Environmental injustice is a common outcome of unfair governmental policies and practices. Unfair actions and laws, such as those regarding the placement of waste treatment facilities, result from an uneducated populace that cannot vote in its own interest. In Evan Ringquist’s piece, he refers to the work of sociologist Robert Bullard, who found that “82 percent of Houston’s waste facilities were located in majority black neighborhoods, though only 28 percent of Houston’s population was African American. Bullard claims that the results from the Houston…studies are not uncommon and that minority communities across the country receive more than their fair share of landfills and incinerators” (Ringquist 509). Ringquist mentions numerous other studies as well as facts and figures to support his argument. It is plain to see that these overwhelmingly impoverished areas seem to have no say when it comes to what facilities end up in their communities. When people are uneducated and lack the ability to articulate themselves in an eloquent or intelligible manner, they cannot protest such facilities coming to their neighborhoods. This environmental injustice is the product of an unjust government that results from unequal access to education and an unjust civil society.
To fix the dilemma, drastic change in the minds and hearts of the American people is needed. Equality must become the new principle that every citizen professes. Without radical change in individual practices and philosophies, this country is bound to continue in its present cycle of continual injustice that terminates with environmental injustice. A realization that ignorance and intolerance are not conducive to progressive and productive change is necessary in order to bring about an intellectual revolution in civil society that will lend itself to resolve the problems within the educational system. People must be willing to give equal opportunities to minorities and those who are uneducated for the situation to ever be rectified. Because of the existence of the cycle that has been described, alterations in the direction of equal education within America will yield changes in government and steps toward environmental justice as minorities and uneducated people become informed members of society. Such steps will yield “a good society”, in which all citizens are productive, active participants in communal and political life, serving not only their own interests, but also those of mankind in general.
In conclusion, although inequity in the realms of civil society, education, and government leads to environmental injustice, the problems are readily discerned, giving way to solutions that will bring about “a good society”. As has been shown, a chain of sorts exists, whereby injustice in one area leads to injustice in another, which will influence not only other areas but also the area from whence it came, ultimately aggravating the situation. However, the situation can be rectified with a fundamental philosophical change and commitment to equality (especially in the realm of education) among the American people. Once realized, the amendment of the convictions of the American public will bring about “a good society”.
Bibliography
Becker, Jeffrey, ed. Pacific Seminar 1 What is a Good Society?. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2008.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. “A Call to Civil Society.” Becker 79-85.
“Environmental justice.” NationMaster.com. 2005. NationMaster.com. 29 November 2008.
Kozol, Jonathan. “The Dream Deferred, Again, in San Antonio.” Becker 175-181.
Mill, John Stuart. “Of Thought and Discussion.” Becker 27.
Ringquist, Evan. “Environmental Justice: Normative Concerns and Empirical Evidence.” Becker 509.
In his piece, Environmental Justice: Normative Concerns and Empirical Evidence, Evan J. Ringquist explores the concept of environmental justice, or lack thereof. It quickly becomes apparent, however, that several other areas – those relating to education, civil society, and government in particular - are closely intertwined with the issue of environmental justice. In the Pacific Seminar I classes, students at the University of the Pacific are introduced to vital issues relating to education, civil society, government, and the environment through a series of informative and thought-provoking articles and essays. At the end of the course, when the interconnections among these four general topics become apparent, themes that once seemed to have no relevance to one another become intimately related. In fact, it is obvious that environmental justice is related to these other areas through an interconnected chain, whereby one area influences another, which may even turn around and influence the originator of influence as well as another area. Despite the fact that a seemingly endless chain of inequity will yield environmental injustice, causes such as intolerance can be identified and subsequently remedied to a point where “a good society” can be achieved.
In order to examine the concept of environmental justice and its relation to other areas of justice, a concise definition is appropriate. According to NationMaster.com, a site which compiles facts from sources such as the CIA Factbook, UN agencies, and the OECD, “Participants of [the] Central and Eastern European Workshop on Environmental Justice” said environmental justice consists of environmental risks and benefits that are equally dispersed among all, regardless of race, gender, or any other discriminating characteristic (“Environmental justice”). In addition, the ability to attain information and take part in decisions related to environmental issues is also a key component to environmental justice. No particular group is to be singled out because of their skin color, particular beliefs, or lack of education or monetary means for opposition to a proposed project that may potentially be hazardous. Each locale, under this doctrine, is to share the burdens placed on a particular environment and the benefits with which it is endowed; this alludes to waste disposal facilities and their side effects as well as access to natural resources, among other things. However, environmental justice is all too often nonexistent. A chain reaction of injustice leads to the unfair disbursal of facilities that are considered undesirable.
As previously mentioned, there is a chain of injustice that yields abject environmental situations for some groups of people. Unequal access to educational resources yields a poor civil society and unjust laws derived from the government, which will in turn give way to environmental injustice. A large number of uneducated people create a poor civil society that lacks civic participation; unjust laws arise from a populace that does not know how to vote to protect its own interests. When people harbor ill will or harsh sentiments towards other individuals, such as those who are uneducated, civil society suffers. Such feelings produce a weakened culture, one with rifts among its citizenry, to the point where members of a society no longer take care of one another as the unified whole that they should be. Such a debilitated state inevitably leads to laws (such as the former Jim Crow Laws of the Southern United States) made by government that no longer treat all members of the populace as equals, acquiescing egalitarian protection of all citizens to personal tenets founded on hatred and/or wrongly perceived notions of members of other races or religious groups. Inequality in the educational system becomes inescapable at this point, as citizens are no longer seen as equals in the eyes of the government. Such unjust education produces citizens who are not well versed in the proper methods for analyzing and addressing issues. Such unjust education produces citizens, possibly illiterate, that are not equipped with information needed to help them formulate opinions on how to vote or partake in civil procedures such as court proceedings necessary for opposition. Such unjust education produces citizens who are a drain on society, such as homeless people, and fail to participate in a productive manner that serves not only themselves, but their community as well. This leads to a vicious cycle of continued hatred for the “useless” members of society and stereotypes that only serve to worsen the problem. To present a more concrete, less vague argument, consider the case of African-Americans. Originally brought to the colonies as slaves, these people were seen not only as a lower class, but also as property. Yet after they had gained their freedom, they still faced discrimination from the Southern white community and the government (Jim Crow Laws); some members of society still held on to their preconceived notions of African-Americans, such as their inability to participate in society as cultured, refined citizens. This led to unfair practices of segregation, whereby whites and blacks were kept apart by “separate but equal” public facilities such as drinking fountains, but also with regards to education. The African-Americans were given substandard educational facilities, which only prolonged their ignorance and worsened their stereotypes of being uneducated, lazy, and useless. Because people refused to see African-Americans as equals, denied education and equal opportunities resulted. As will be illustrated, however, the plight of African-Americans and the other lower classes in America does not end here. This circle of inequality yields environmental injustice.
A weakened civil society started the cycle of inequality that has led to environmental injustice. In her A Call to Civil Society, Jean Elshtain points out that “we suffer from growing inequality…As we become an increasingly fragmented and polarized society, too many of our fellow citizens are being left behind, not participating in the benefits of economic growth and free society” (Elshtain 79). She points out that the main feature of civil society is to promote upstanding citizens who will become productive members and positive contributors in society (Elshtain 82). She goes on to emphasize that local government, in which there is to be an active participation, is an integral part of any good civil society. The most important part of her argument, however, is that in which she calls on schools to “sustain democratic culture by helping students attain civic literacy…a comprehension of what good citizenship is, and an appreciation of their society’s civic and moral ideals” (Elshtain 85). What can be ascertained from Elshtain’s argument is the fact that if people are left behind, and not included in a community’s decisions, the entire civil society suffers. In addition, she conveys how critical a citizen’s education is in influencing their participation is civil society. So not only does a poor civil society yield a poor education, but a poor education will serve to weaken civil society further. As will be seen though, the chain of injustice continues.
A weakened civil society gives rise to unequal access to educational facilities. In Jonathan Kozol’s piece, The Dream Deferred, Again, in San Antonio, he highlights the disparities between the education of the poor and that of the rich. The rich are predominately white, and the poor are oftentimes the country’s minorities – African-Americans and Hispanics. Kozol argues that “education offered to poor children should be at least as good as that which is provided to the children of the upper-middle class” (Kozol 175). He also mentions a specific court case in which Demetrio Rodriguez, of San Antonio, filed a class-action suit in 1968 against the state of Texas for violating the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution when it came to education. His attorneys argued, according to Justice Lewis Powell, “that education is itself a fundamental personal right because it is essential…to the intelligent use of the right to vote. [They argue also] that the right to speak is meaningless unless the speaker is capable of articulating his thoughts intelligently and persuasively” (Kozol 181). And so it is that civil society’s factions of wealthy and poor people result in a decrepit educational system where wealth and privilege gain a child’s access to better educational facilities. This only serves to continually worsen civil society, as the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. This in turn worsens the educational requirements and standards of the country, as those in power (the wealthy) maintain the status quo – perpetual dominance of the wealthy families who maintain their status within society by ensuring their access to good education. Furthermore, these unfair educational practices will yield injustice in the governmental sphere as well.
The poor educational system only exacerbates the problem of governmental injustice. This is because uneducated citizens are not effective participants in voting and elections, thereby keeping them from enacting the laws that they wish to have enacted, and effectively quieting their voices and opinions in the process. The importance of education is evidenced not only by Elshtain and Kozol, but also by John Stuart Mill in his Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, in which he states that “Judgment is given to men that they may use it” (Mill 27). If people do not have the intellect, that results from education, with which to vote and effectively take part in their government, inequality and injustice are most certainly likely products.
Environmental injustice is a common outcome of unfair governmental policies and practices. Unfair actions and laws, such as those regarding the placement of waste treatment facilities, result from an uneducated populace that cannot vote in its own interest. In Evan Ringquist’s piece, he refers to the work of sociologist Robert Bullard, who found that “82 percent of Houston’s waste facilities were located in majority black neighborhoods, though only 28 percent of Houston’s population was African American. Bullard claims that the results from the Houston…studies are not uncommon and that minority communities across the country receive more than their fair share of landfills and incinerators” (Ringquist 509). Ringquist mentions numerous other studies as well as facts and figures to support his argument. It is plain to see that these overwhelmingly impoverished areas seem to have no say when it comes to what facilities end up in their communities. When people are uneducated and lack the ability to articulate themselves in an eloquent or intelligible manner, they cannot protest such facilities coming to their neighborhoods. This environmental injustice is the product of an unjust government that results from unequal access to education and an unjust civil society.
To fix the dilemma, drastic change in the minds and hearts of the American people is needed. Equality must become the new principle that every citizen professes. Without radical change in individual practices and philosophies, this country is bound to continue in its present cycle of continual injustice that terminates with environmental injustice. A realization that ignorance and intolerance are not conducive to progressive and productive change is necessary in order to bring about an intellectual revolution in civil society that will lend itself to resolve the problems within the educational system. People must be willing to give equal opportunities to minorities and those who are uneducated for the situation to ever be rectified. Because of the existence of the cycle that has been described, alterations in the direction of equal education within America will yield changes in government and steps toward environmental justice as minorities and uneducated people become informed members of society. Such steps will yield “a good society”, in which all citizens are productive, active participants in communal and political life, serving not only their own interests, but also those of mankind in general.
In conclusion, although inequity in the realms of civil society, education, and government leads to environmental injustice, the problems are readily discerned, giving way to solutions that will bring about “a good society”. As has been shown, a chain of sorts exists, whereby injustice in one area leads to injustice in another, which will influence not only other areas but also the area from whence it came, ultimately aggravating the situation. However, the situation can be rectified with a fundamental philosophical change and commitment to equality (especially in the realm of education) among the American people. Once realized, the amendment of the convictions of the American public will bring about “a good society”.
Bibliography
Becker, Jeffrey, ed. Pacific Seminar 1 What is a Good Society?. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2008.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. “A Call to Civil Society.” Becker 79-85.
“Environmental justice.” NationMaster.com. 2005. NationMaster.com. 29 November 2008.
Kozol, Jonathan. “The Dream Deferred, Again, in San Antonio.” Becker 175-181.
Mill, John Stuart. “Of Thought and Discussion.” Becker 27.
Ringquist, Evan. “Environmental Justice: Normative Concerns and Empirical Evidence.” Becker 509.
lunedì 3 novembre 2008
Formal Essay #3: Law and Obedience
Originally Written: 3 November 2008
Martin Luther King, Jr. said that “Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is the duty of all men to disobey unjust laws” (“Quotes about Law”). This reasoning has led me to conclude that sometimes one is justified in breaking a law based on his personal view or belief. However, this is not to say that everyone should break every law they disagree with. There are certain procedures that must be followed in order to produce change. The last resort would be to break the actual law itself. There are proper methods that a good citizen observes in order to bring about legal change; because it is these methods which affect the rest of society’s citizens, I would personally stand up against any law that I found to be wrongful and/or unjust.
Situations arise in which it becomes necessary to break a law because it does not agree with one’s personal opinions or convictions. The most notable example concerns the fight for civil rights among the black population of the United States. Having been oppressed for decades, the negro population waited patiently for the day when their equality would come. However, this day would prove to be too far off in the future, and failed negotiations left the citizenry with no alternative but protest. The peaceful marches, the “sit-ins” in diners and restaurants, and Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat to a white person, are but a few examples of the peaceful protest which the negroes resorted to. Despite the fact that these may appear to be random events, rest assured that there was a specific way in which the colored population came to the point of being justified in taking direct action and breaking the law.
A good citizen should strive to follow a simple methodology in order to produce change. Martin Luther King, Jr. best characterized the procedure in writing in his A Call for Unity and Letter from Birmingham City Jail that “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: (1) collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive, (2) negotiation, (3) self-purification, and (4) direct action” (King, Jr. 384). So it is that one should decide whether or not a law is unjust, and if so, try to negotiate by peaceful means to reach the end that he desires. If this does not work, perhaps it is the individual that must change. However, more often than not, direct action must be taken in order to restore justice and/or equity. The Declaration of Independence provides the opportunity for such a necessity in saying that “Governments are instituted…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” (Jefferson 279). In the eyes of a good citizen there is a general framework to be followed before turning to direct action. However, as supported and recognized by our own Declaration of Independence, it sometimes becomes necessary to affect change by instituting new government (or laws).
The fact that direct action and subsequent breaking of the law affects the rest of society must not be overlooked. One individual’s actions can make a lot of difference, in fact, it can make more of a difference than anyone realizes or may be willing to admit. One individual’s actions can produce very large amounts of tension, which force people to face the facts and change their world (King, Jr. 386). Once again, Rosa Parks must not be forgotten. As a single individual she stood up for what she believed in, and forever influenced the Civil Rights Movement. Bernard Williams’ An Awkward Virtue condenses the result in saying, “There is a tension here between one’s own commitments, and the acceptance that other people may have other and perhaps quite distasteful commitments” (Williams 350). However, the tolerance needed to deal with such disagreeing views is more often than not nowhere to be found. This forces a particular topic to the forefront for political discussion and action. Such was the case with the civil rights issue, which spurred widespread controversy and disagreement. Williams further elaborates in writing that “The real problems of tolerance are to be found at the level of human relations and of the attitude of one way of life towards another; it is not only a question of how the power of the state is used” (Williams 350). Direct action is necessary in order to convince others of your views, in other words, to show them the injustice of many of the laws concerning blacks. Without changing the general consensus, the law, which is reflected by the sentiments of the population at large (and the majority thereof), cannot be corrected. By taking direct action one sparks debate, controversy, and outrage – all of which are necessary in order to affect change. This affects the rest of the citizenry not only by creating altercation, but also by trying to rectify the situation and help the minority who are unjustly discriminated against under the law in these most abject circumstances.
My actions would similarly reflect the steps that have already been characterized if I were to be placed in a similar situation. I would first analyze if there was in fact an injustice occurring under the law. Next, I would try to negotiate some sort of compromise with the authorities. If this failed, I would be forced to ask myself the question, am I being outrageous in thinking this way? Is it I who must change? If in fact I decided that this was not the case, then I would be inclined to protest, and engage in acts of civil disobedience. If I were to be discriminated against for being Italian, I would not hear of it. I would swiftly run through these steps and try to bring about the change that I wished to see. As King pointed out in his Letter from Birmingham City Jail, T.S. Eliot “said that there is no greater treason than to do the right deed for the wrong reason” (King, Jr. 395). Deciding that I was doing the wrong deed for the right reason would give me the strength and willpower to pursue my goal and end the oppression of Italians, much as the blacks have already done. According to Martha C. Nussbaum, author of Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, the fact that I “give [my] first allegiance to what is morally good” makes me a cosmopolitan (Nussbaum 399). I find it morally reprehensible to not stand up for that which you believe in. This statement is in explicit agreement with Sophocles’ Antigone, in which he wrote: “I would not be silent if I saw ruin, not safety, on the way towards my fellow citizens” (Sophocles 223). How could anybody choose to ignore a situation in which their morals were not observed? How could anybody stand by and watch such a thing as oppression occur, and not do anything about it? This I do not understand, which is why I would certainly follow the steps that I have previously characterized in dealing with such difficult situations which entail unjust laws and their breaking.
In conclusion, there are correct methods by which a good citizen proceeds to bring about legal change; these methods affect the rest of society, which is why I would fight against any law that I disagreed with on moral grounds. This kind of analytical thinking and objectivity needs to be put to use in these situations. It is this kind of approach, one involving a specific methodology and solid foundation of reason, which results in positive changes and outcomes. If more people would adopt such tactics, the world could advance and improve continuously, always getting better and providing a more suitable place in which to live. Dissension with respect to unjust laws is not only necessary at times, but may also be warranted.
Works Cited
Jefferson, Thomas. “Declaration of Independence.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 279.
King, Jr., Martin Luther. “A Call for Unity and Letter from Birmingham City Jail.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 384, 386, 395.
Nussbaum, Martha C. “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 399.
“Quotes about Law.” Famous-Quote.net. 2008. Famous-Quote.net. 3 November 2008.
Sophocles. “Antigone.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 223.
Williams, Bernard. “An Awkward Virtue.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 350.
Martin Luther King, Jr. said that “Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is the duty of all men to disobey unjust laws” (“Quotes about Law”). This reasoning has led me to conclude that sometimes one is justified in breaking a law based on his personal view or belief. However, this is not to say that everyone should break every law they disagree with. There are certain procedures that must be followed in order to produce change. The last resort would be to break the actual law itself. There are proper methods that a good citizen observes in order to bring about legal change; because it is these methods which affect the rest of society’s citizens, I would personally stand up against any law that I found to be wrongful and/or unjust.
Situations arise in which it becomes necessary to break a law because it does not agree with one’s personal opinions or convictions. The most notable example concerns the fight for civil rights among the black population of the United States. Having been oppressed for decades, the negro population waited patiently for the day when their equality would come. However, this day would prove to be too far off in the future, and failed negotiations left the citizenry with no alternative but protest. The peaceful marches, the “sit-ins” in diners and restaurants, and Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat to a white person, are but a few examples of the peaceful protest which the negroes resorted to. Despite the fact that these may appear to be random events, rest assured that there was a specific way in which the colored population came to the point of being justified in taking direct action and breaking the law.
A good citizen should strive to follow a simple methodology in order to produce change. Martin Luther King, Jr. best characterized the procedure in writing in his A Call for Unity and Letter from Birmingham City Jail that “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: (1) collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive, (2) negotiation, (3) self-purification, and (4) direct action” (King, Jr. 384). So it is that one should decide whether or not a law is unjust, and if so, try to negotiate by peaceful means to reach the end that he desires. If this does not work, perhaps it is the individual that must change. However, more often than not, direct action must be taken in order to restore justice and/or equity. The Declaration of Independence provides the opportunity for such a necessity in saying that “Governments are instituted…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” (Jefferson 279). In the eyes of a good citizen there is a general framework to be followed before turning to direct action. However, as supported and recognized by our own Declaration of Independence, it sometimes becomes necessary to affect change by instituting new government (or laws).
The fact that direct action and subsequent breaking of the law affects the rest of society must not be overlooked. One individual’s actions can make a lot of difference, in fact, it can make more of a difference than anyone realizes or may be willing to admit. One individual’s actions can produce very large amounts of tension, which force people to face the facts and change their world (King, Jr. 386). Once again, Rosa Parks must not be forgotten. As a single individual she stood up for what she believed in, and forever influenced the Civil Rights Movement. Bernard Williams’ An Awkward Virtue condenses the result in saying, “There is a tension here between one’s own commitments, and the acceptance that other people may have other and perhaps quite distasteful commitments” (Williams 350). However, the tolerance needed to deal with such disagreeing views is more often than not nowhere to be found. This forces a particular topic to the forefront for political discussion and action. Such was the case with the civil rights issue, which spurred widespread controversy and disagreement. Williams further elaborates in writing that “The real problems of tolerance are to be found at the level of human relations and of the attitude of one way of life towards another; it is not only a question of how the power of the state is used” (Williams 350). Direct action is necessary in order to convince others of your views, in other words, to show them the injustice of many of the laws concerning blacks. Without changing the general consensus, the law, which is reflected by the sentiments of the population at large (and the majority thereof), cannot be corrected. By taking direct action one sparks debate, controversy, and outrage – all of which are necessary in order to affect change. This affects the rest of the citizenry not only by creating altercation, but also by trying to rectify the situation and help the minority who are unjustly discriminated against under the law in these most abject circumstances.
My actions would similarly reflect the steps that have already been characterized if I were to be placed in a similar situation. I would first analyze if there was in fact an injustice occurring under the law. Next, I would try to negotiate some sort of compromise with the authorities. If this failed, I would be forced to ask myself the question, am I being outrageous in thinking this way? Is it I who must change? If in fact I decided that this was not the case, then I would be inclined to protest, and engage in acts of civil disobedience. If I were to be discriminated against for being Italian, I would not hear of it. I would swiftly run through these steps and try to bring about the change that I wished to see. As King pointed out in his Letter from Birmingham City Jail, T.S. Eliot “said that there is no greater treason than to do the right deed for the wrong reason” (King, Jr. 395). Deciding that I was doing the wrong deed for the right reason would give me the strength and willpower to pursue my goal and end the oppression of Italians, much as the blacks have already done. According to Martha C. Nussbaum, author of Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, the fact that I “give [my] first allegiance to what is morally good” makes me a cosmopolitan (Nussbaum 399). I find it morally reprehensible to not stand up for that which you believe in. This statement is in explicit agreement with Sophocles’ Antigone, in which he wrote: “I would not be silent if I saw ruin, not safety, on the way towards my fellow citizens” (Sophocles 223). How could anybody choose to ignore a situation in which their morals were not observed? How could anybody stand by and watch such a thing as oppression occur, and not do anything about it? This I do not understand, which is why I would certainly follow the steps that I have previously characterized in dealing with such difficult situations which entail unjust laws and their breaking.
In conclusion, there are correct methods by which a good citizen proceeds to bring about legal change; these methods affect the rest of society, which is why I would fight against any law that I disagreed with on moral grounds. This kind of analytical thinking and objectivity needs to be put to use in these situations. It is this kind of approach, one involving a specific methodology and solid foundation of reason, which results in positive changes and outcomes. If more people would adopt such tactics, the world could advance and improve continuously, always getting better and providing a more suitable place in which to live. Dissension with respect to unjust laws is not only necessary at times, but may also be warranted.
Works Cited
Jefferson, Thomas. “Declaration of Independence.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 279.
King, Jr., Martin Luther. “A Call for Unity and Letter from Birmingham City Jail.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 384, 386, 395.
Nussbaum, Martha C. “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 399.
“Quotes about Law.” Famous-Quote.net. 2008. Famous-Quote.net. 3 November 2008.
Sophocles. “Antigone.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 223.
Williams, Bernard. “An Awkward Virtue.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 350.
sabato 11 ottobre 2008
Formal Essay #2: The Decline of Civil Society in the Present
Originally Written: 11 October 2008
As defined by Reference.com, “Civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state’s political system) and commercial institutions” (“Civil society”). This definition of civil society indicates that American civil society is lacking, as the number of civic and social organizations dwindles towards oblivion. There are many areas that have been suggested as places to assign the blame, but there are a variety of factors that have combined to serve as catalysts and yield our present plight. I attribute the majority of the blame, however, to one of these factors: work. Although I blame work for our current American civil society status, humanism can be used to fix the problem and improve the quality of our lives as well as the health of our society.
A variety of factors have forced us into our contemporary predicament, but work is the major underlying cause. The fundamental issue that has allowed work to degrade civil society is our declining importance of family and friends and increasing emphasis on ‘things’. The only way to get ‘things’ is to work, to earn money, and to purchase. This overwhelming materialism has caused Americans to lose sight of the reasons for which the emphasis on work was so high in the first place. Immigrants came to this country in order not only to make a better life for themselves (yes, materially speaking) but also for their family. Many people do work to support their families and maintain the lifestyle to which each member has become accustomed, but the average American has lost sight of this fact – that they are working to support their family because they care about them and they mean a great deal within the worker’s life. I would not deny the fact that people realize they love their family, but I would argue the point that Americans’ obsession with providing for their families’ ‘needs’ has led to them spending less time with their families overall. When they get home from work they do not want to play games, or engage in anything constructive, they want to sit and vegetate in front of the television, sleep away their exhaustion, or drown it in alcohol. This may seem a bit dramatic to some, but I am willing to bet that many Americans do at least one of these things to cope with the overwhelming stress and anxiety caused by working so much. My question is this: ‘If we work so much, when will we have the time to enjoy the benefits of our work?’ These benefits would include things like spending time with family, friends, taking trips, or having the ability to relax (from the peace of mind that you get when you have enough money to rely on). Instead, Americans turn to their televisions and away from the social connections that were once given such high priority.
Several writers of the day have echoed and/or supported my sentiments regarding Americans’ inability to function socially. In Barbara Kingsolver’s Jabberwocky, she writes: “We seem to be living in the age of anesthesia, and it is no wonder. Confronted with knowledge of dozens of apparently random disasters each day, what can a human heart do but slam its doors?...It’s a practical strategy to some ends, but the loss of empathy is also the loss of humanity, and that’s no small tradeoff” (Kingsolver 208). While she is not saying that American civil society is languishing, she is pointing out that Americans have become ‘desensitized’, no longer feeling emotion for the awful things they see, as they have seen them so many times before. It is this disconnection from the world that has landed our civil society in its present state of affairs. Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death proclaims that “America is engaged in the world’s most ambitious experiment to accommodate itself to the technological distractions made possible by the electric plug,” and claims that Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, saw that “people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think” (Postman 196). He eventually comes to the conclusion that this is one of the “ways by which the spirit of a culture may be shriveled” (Postman 200). This is exactly what has happened, Americans have lost sight of what is really important in their lives. Martin E. P. Seligman’s Work and Personal Satisfaction, summarizes all of these points in saying that “Money…is losing its power…more money adds little or nothing to subjective well-being” and although “real income in America has risen 16 percent in the last thirty years, the percentage of people who describe themselves as “very happy” has fallen from 36 to 29 percent”. It seems that the American drive for a comfortable life, as fueled by materialism and a subsequent need to work, has led to an unhappy existence, with fewer social connections which could in fact help to defray the effects of working so much. There are other writers who support my point of view, however.
Several other writers have written about the effects of materialism and the loss of social connections within society. Pope John Paul II wrote in his Centesimus Annus that “The economy in fact is only one aspect of and one dimension of the whole of human activity…if the production and consumption of goods become the centre of social life and society’s only value…the reason is to be found…[that] the economic system itself as in the fact that the entire socio-cultural system…has been weakened” (Pope John Paul II 157). He further emphasizes my point that Americans are forgetting the former value that they placed on their families in saying: “When man does not recognize in himself and in others the value and grandeur of the human person, he effectively deprives himself of the possibility of benefiting from his humanity…a society is alienated if its forms of social organization, production, and consumption make it more difficult to offer this gift of self and to establish this solidarity between people” (Pope John Paul II 159). One must not forget that it is the American materialistic drive to work that has enabled man’s ability to forget the value of his fellow human counterparts and has also led to the decline of American civil society. Lastly, I would like to mention Robert D. Putnam, who stated in his controversial book, Bowling Alone, that there has been an immense decline in the membership of many traditional organizations. The most memorable example is that of bowling leagues, in which membership has declined, but the number of people bowling has increased greatly (“Robert D. Putnam”). This can be explained by the disconnection that I previously mentioned. Americans have unplugged their social lives in favor of plugging in their television sets or whatever other distractions they can get their hands on, all in an effort to assuage the stress of the increasing amount of time they spend working. There is hope however, as solutions exist that could turn our society around.
Despite the common perception that ‘the world is going to hell in a hand-basket’, there is still hope for the future. If American society as a whole can come together and realize how many fundamental issues it has, and genuinely wants to fix the problem, we can restore our civil society to its former glory. ‘How?’, one might ask. My answer: humanism. Having been introduced to the idea by studying the Italian Renaissance in a European history class, I realized what an amazing society it must have been. What an outstanding philosophical stance humanism took: placing particular emphasis on the worth of the individual and the individual’s education. Humanistic education encompassed a wide variety of disciplines, oratory, ethics, history, rhetoric, and poetry to name a few – relying on ancient Greek and Roman texts for study. The part of humanism that interested me the most was its stress on citizenship and participation within the community. Humanists felt obligated to get involved in politics and they wanted to improve humanity and society by instilling a feeling of patriotism and public duty within the general population (“Renaissance”). This description of humanism is the answer to our present struggles.
My charge to the American public is to embrace the humanistic ideals, their educational and political philosophies particularly. If Americans would become less focused on themselves and put more emphasis on their community and American society as a whole, not only would they be happier, but American civil society would also improve and the overall quality of life would as well. By giving special significance to the community and civil society, Americans’ overwhelming need for inter-personal relationships and connections will once again be satisfied, and no longer neglected. They will work less, contribute to society more, and spend more time building the vital networks of ties that are so important to the maintenance of a positive communal atmosphere.
In conclusion, work is the major underlying factor, among the many others, as to why American civil society is declining, but there is hope for America to fix the situation if it realizes it has a problem. This is easier said than done however. Think about it, how would someone go about trying to get Americans to participate in everyday civic life if they are only focused on going home and forgetting about their day? My answer to our problem is humanism. America: it is time you realized that you have a problem, admitting it is the first step towards recovery.
Works Cited
“Civil society.” Reference.com. 2008. Dictionary.com, LLC. 11 October 2008.
Kingsolver, Barbara. “Jabberwocky.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 208.
Pope John Paul II. “Centesimus Annus.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 157,159.
Postman, Neil. “Amusing Ourselves to Death.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 196, 200.
“Renaissance.” Msn.com. 2008. Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2008. 11 October 2008.
Renaissance.html#p26>
“Robert D. Putnam.” Reference.com. 2008. Dictionary.com, LLC. 11 October 2008.
As defined by Reference.com, “Civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state’s political system) and commercial institutions” (“Civil society”). This definition of civil society indicates that American civil society is lacking, as the number of civic and social organizations dwindles towards oblivion. There are many areas that have been suggested as places to assign the blame, but there are a variety of factors that have combined to serve as catalysts and yield our present plight. I attribute the majority of the blame, however, to one of these factors: work. Although I blame work for our current American civil society status, humanism can be used to fix the problem and improve the quality of our lives as well as the health of our society.
A variety of factors have forced us into our contemporary predicament, but work is the major underlying cause. The fundamental issue that has allowed work to degrade civil society is our declining importance of family and friends and increasing emphasis on ‘things’. The only way to get ‘things’ is to work, to earn money, and to purchase. This overwhelming materialism has caused Americans to lose sight of the reasons for which the emphasis on work was so high in the first place. Immigrants came to this country in order not only to make a better life for themselves (yes, materially speaking) but also for their family. Many people do work to support their families and maintain the lifestyle to which each member has become accustomed, but the average American has lost sight of this fact – that they are working to support their family because they care about them and they mean a great deal within the worker’s life. I would not deny the fact that people realize they love their family, but I would argue the point that Americans’ obsession with providing for their families’ ‘needs’ has led to them spending less time with their families overall. When they get home from work they do not want to play games, or engage in anything constructive, they want to sit and vegetate in front of the television, sleep away their exhaustion, or drown it in alcohol. This may seem a bit dramatic to some, but I am willing to bet that many Americans do at least one of these things to cope with the overwhelming stress and anxiety caused by working so much. My question is this: ‘If we work so much, when will we have the time to enjoy the benefits of our work?’ These benefits would include things like spending time with family, friends, taking trips, or having the ability to relax (from the peace of mind that you get when you have enough money to rely on). Instead, Americans turn to their televisions and away from the social connections that were once given such high priority.
Several writers of the day have echoed and/or supported my sentiments regarding Americans’ inability to function socially. In Barbara Kingsolver’s Jabberwocky, she writes: “We seem to be living in the age of anesthesia, and it is no wonder. Confronted with knowledge of dozens of apparently random disasters each day, what can a human heart do but slam its doors?...It’s a practical strategy to some ends, but the loss of empathy is also the loss of humanity, and that’s no small tradeoff” (Kingsolver 208). While she is not saying that American civil society is languishing, she is pointing out that Americans have become ‘desensitized’, no longer feeling emotion for the awful things they see, as they have seen them so many times before. It is this disconnection from the world that has landed our civil society in its present state of affairs. Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death proclaims that “America is engaged in the world’s most ambitious experiment to accommodate itself to the technological distractions made possible by the electric plug,” and claims that Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, saw that “people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think” (Postman 196). He eventually comes to the conclusion that this is one of the “ways by which the spirit of a culture may be shriveled” (Postman 200). This is exactly what has happened, Americans have lost sight of what is really important in their lives. Martin E. P. Seligman’s Work and Personal Satisfaction, summarizes all of these points in saying that “Money…is losing its power…more money adds little or nothing to subjective well-being” and although “real income in America has risen 16 percent in the last thirty years, the percentage of people who describe themselves as “very happy” has fallen from 36 to 29 percent”. It seems that the American drive for a comfortable life, as fueled by materialism and a subsequent need to work, has led to an unhappy existence, with fewer social connections which could in fact help to defray the effects of working so much. There are other writers who support my point of view, however.
Several other writers have written about the effects of materialism and the loss of social connections within society. Pope John Paul II wrote in his Centesimus Annus that “The economy in fact is only one aspect of and one dimension of the whole of human activity…if the production and consumption of goods become the centre of social life and society’s only value…the reason is to be found…[that] the economic system itself as in the fact that the entire socio-cultural system…has been weakened” (Pope John Paul II 157). He further emphasizes my point that Americans are forgetting the former value that they placed on their families in saying: “When man does not recognize in himself and in others the value and grandeur of the human person, he effectively deprives himself of the possibility of benefiting from his humanity…a society is alienated if its forms of social organization, production, and consumption make it more difficult to offer this gift of self and to establish this solidarity between people” (Pope John Paul II 159). One must not forget that it is the American materialistic drive to work that has enabled man’s ability to forget the value of his fellow human counterparts and has also led to the decline of American civil society. Lastly, I would like to mention Robert D. Putnam, who stated in his controversial book, Bowling Alone, that there has been an immense decline in the membership of many traditional organizations. The most memorable example is that of bowling leagues, in which membership has declined, but the number of people bowling has increased greatly (“Robert D. Putnam”). This can be explained by the disconnection that I previously mentioned. Americans have unplugged their social lives in favor of plugging in their television sets or whatever other distractions they can get their hands on, all in an effort to assuage the stress of the increasing amount of time they spend working. There is hope however, as solutions exist that could turn our society around.
Despite the common perception that ‘the world is going to hell in a hand-basket’, there is still hope for the future. If American society as a whole can come together and realize how many fundamental issues it has, and genuinely wants to fix the problem, we can restore our civil society to its former glory. ‘How?’, one might ask. My answer: humanism. Having been introduced to the idea by studying the Italian Renaissance in a European history class, I realized what an amazing society it must have been. What an outstanding philosophical stance humanism took: placing particular emphasis on the worth of the individual and the individual’s education. Humanistic education encompassed a wide variety of disciplines, oratory, ethics, history, rhetoric, and poetry to name a few – relying on ancient Greek and Roman texts for study. The part of humanism that interested me the most was its stress on citizenship and participation within the community. Humanists felt obligated to get involved in politics and they wanted to improve humanity and society by instilling a feeling of patriotism and public duty within the general population (“Renaissance”). This description of humanism is the answer to our present struggles.
My charge to the American public is to embrace the humanistic ideals, their educational and political philosophies particularly. If Americans would become less focused on themselves and put more emphasis on their community and American society as a whole, not only would they be happier, but American civil society would also improve and the overall quality of life would as well. By giving special significance to the community and civil society, Americans’ overwhelming need for inter-personal relationships and connections will once again be satisfied, and no longer neglected. They will work less, contribute to society more, and spend more time building the vital networks of ties that are so important to the maintenance of a positive communal atmosphere.
In conclusion, work is the major underlying factor, among the many others, as to why American civil society is declining, but there is hope for America to fix the situation if it realizes it has a problem. This is easier said than done however. Think about it, how would someone go about trying to get Americans to participate in everyday civic life if they are only focused on going home and forgetting about their day? My answer to our problem is humanism. America: it is time you realized that you have a problem, admitting it is the first step towards recovery.
Works Cited
“Civil society.” Reference.com. 2008. Dictionary.com, LLC. 11 October 2008.
Kingsolver, Barbara. “Jabberwocky.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 208.
Pope John Paul II. “Centesimus Annus.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 157,159.
Postman, Neil. “Amusing Ourselves to Death.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 196, 200.
“Renaissance.” Msn.com. 2008. Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2008. 11 October 2008.
Renaissance.html#p26>
“Robert D. Putnam.” Reference.com. 2008. Dictionary.com, LLC. 11 October 2008.
martedì 7 ottobre 2008
Former President of Columbia, Cesar Gaviria, Speaks at Pacific
Originally Written: 7 October 2008
Last night I attended the lecture by the former president of Columbia, Cesar Gaviria. I had been looking forward to hearing him speak, having heard that he was a Latin American champion of democracy who had done several things in Columbia, and Latin America as well, to improve their social, economic, and political standings.
He had several main points throughout his lecture. He talked about how many Latin American countries (possibly all) had seen the sort of economic crisis we are seeing right now, and how learning from their mistakes could have kept us from making the same one. He stressed that we, as North, Central, and South American countries need to work together – to trade with one another, build the economies of neighboring countries, and promote a higher standard of living. He went on to mention some of the deplorable conditions under which many Latin Americans are living, and placed a particular emphasis on the fact that it was completely unnecessary that these people live like this. It could be avoided, but the governments weren’t doing enough. He also placed particular importance on the fact that we as North, Central, and South American countries do not SAVE enough. He mentioned that many Asian countries save approximately 40% of their earnings, and attributed this fact to their economic well-being and lack of financial crises.
He also addressed the issue of drugs. He maintained that South American countries are doing the best they can to work with the American government, and their expectations of eradicating drug production and trafficking. However, despite the fact that they are meeting the USA’s expectations and doing everything that they are, Gaviria noted that our drug problem has not decreased in the US. If not from their countries, it will just come from elsewhere. He said that we needed to work with them on controlling paramilitaries, as he called them, which cultivate the drugs and transport and sell them. Without proper cooperation, the situation will remain the same, he warned.
What I found to be the most interesting was his, what I perceived to be, intense admiration for the United States, its free markets, and the general freedoms that it has; more often than not, our citizens take them for granted. I believe he appreciates what we have more than we do because he has lived under different circumstances. But I believe he likes our system, albeit imperfect, and recognizes that although certain changes need to be made, it’s much more preferable to many Latin American countries’ way of doing things. It was very refreshing to hear a foreigner speak so highly of America, especially a diplomat! What a rarity it was indeed.
I was also pleased that the audience members were given the opportunity to ask questions of the president, by submitting them on three by five cards. He was very polite, diplomatic, and well-spoken. I was particularly impressed by his answer about Hugo Chavez. Someone had questioned whether or not Chavez was a threat to democracy, particularly within South America. Gaviria responded by staying calm and mentioning that he disagrees with many of Chavez’s policies, but said that his country would learn from their mistakes, and would hopefully not make them again. He stated that Chavez had way too many powers for a president. Continuing that there were not enough checks and balances in place within their system of government to properly check his power and make sure it didn’t turn into an authoritarian government.
All in all, I was very pleased with the event and very happy that I attended, and took advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to hear such a powerful, influential man speak.
Last night I attended the lecture by the former president of Columbia, Cesar Gaviria. I had been looking forward to hearing him speak, having heard that he was a Latin American champion of democracy who had done several things in Columbia, and Latin America as well, to improve their social, economic, and political standings.
He had several main points throughout his lecture. He talked about how many Latin American countries (possibly all) had seen the sort of economic crisis we are seeing right now, and how learning from their mistakes could have kept us from making the same one. He stressed that we, as North, Central, and South American countries need to work together – to trade with one another, build the economies of neighboring countries, and promote a higher standard of living. He went on to mention some of the deplorable conditions under which many Latin Americans are living, and placed a particular emphasis on the fact that it was completely unnecessary that these people live like this. It could be avoided, but the governments weren’t doing enough. He also placed particular importance on the fact that we as North, Central, and South American countries do not SAVE enough. He mentioned that many Asian countries save approximately 40% of their earnings, and attributed this fact to their economic well-being and lack of financial crises.
He also addressed the issue of drugs. He maintained that South American countries are doing the best they can to work with the American government, and their expectations of eradicating drug production and trafficking. However, despite the fact that they are meeting the USA’s expectations and doing everything that they are, Gaviria noted that our drug problem has not decreased in the US. If not from their countries, it will just come from elsewhere. He said that we needed to work with them on controlling paramilitaries, as he called them, which cultivate the drugs and transport and sell them. Without proper cooperation, the situation will remain the same, he warned.
What I found to be the most interesting was his, what I perceived to be, intense admiration for the United States, its free markets, and the general freedoms that it has; more often than not, our citizens take them for granted. I believe he appreciates what we have more than we do because he has lived under different circumstances. But I believe he likes our system, albeit imperfect, and recognizes that although certain changes need to be made, it’s much more preferable to many Latin American countries’ way of doing things. It was very refreshing to hear a foreigner speak so highly of America, especially a diplomat! What a rarity it was indeed.
I was also pleased that the audience members were given the opportunity to ask questions of the president, by submitting them on three by five cards. He was very polite, diplomatic, and well-spoken. I was particularly impressed by his answer about Hugo Chavez. Someone had questioned whether or not Chavez was a threat to democracy, particularly within South America. Gaviria responded by staying calm and mentioning that he disagrees with many of Chavez’s policies, but said that his country would learn from their mistakes, and would hopefully not make them again. He stated that Chavez had way too many powers for a president. Continuing that there were not enough checks and balances in place within their system of government to properly check his power and make sure it didn’t turn into an authoritarian government.
All in all, I was very pleased with the event and very happy that I attended, and took advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to hear such a powerful, influential man speak.
giovedì 18 settembre 2008
Informal Writing Assignment on the motion picture, "Pleasantville"
Originally Written: 18 September 2008
“You will either step forward into growth or you will step back into safety” (Napier). As suggested by Abraham Maslow, a PhD in psychology, you can either take a journey and try something new, or you can remain in your box, figuratively speaking. This is the issue that the residents in the movie, Pleasantville, are confronted with in the end. The filmmakers are perhaps suggesting that a lack of predictability is preferable to a lack of anticipation of what will come in the future. I would have to disagree, although many would say that life is boring without any variation to stir things up. However, I would argue that people would be better off and altogether more content, if the world were not such a volatile place. There is a reason that the common phrase, “ignorance is bliss”, exists. If people are ignorant to the fact that they are missing out on something, they won’t realize that they don’t have it, and thus there is no harm done. The residents of Pleasantville are delightfully unaware of the fact that their lives are so full of monotony. But isn’t this what makes Pleasantville so pleasant? People are so content with their lives due to the fact that they are unaware of all of the strife and variation in day-to-day activities that they could be ‘enjoying’, if one wishes to call it that. The main element to my argument is that we have grown up in a world where certainty is absent. We never know what may come at us the next day, or ten years from now. So the idea of “Pleasantville” seems strange, abstract, and boring to some. But the citizens of Pleasantville don’t think so! Imagine being born into that society, one would have no idea that life could be any different. Their life is the one to which they have become accustomed, and thus there is no harm, no foul done. One would be completely content within such a society, so full of stability. Is the lack of security really a risk worth taking, as the prompt asks? No! If you could be raised in a society full of certainty, you wouldn’t know the difference. In fact, would the concept of boredom even exist? Most likely not, because people are so used to doing the same thing, day after day, it becomes a routine. This is not to say that people couldn’t engage in different activities, but I am saying that people would be more satisfied with life in general, because of the stability and predictability within that kind of society. The devil is in the details! One must realize that we can’t judge other societies or their inhabitants based on our own ideals or present state. Other societies’ citizens think differently, behave differently, and are assimilated differently. If security is the price of growth, I’ll keep my security, and forego the growth that most certainly keeps people from leading what the blissfully ignorant see as fulfilling lives. The cost of this approach is ignorance, albeit unrecognized, and the chance to experience variability and variety. But as I’ve already argued, what people don’t know can’t hurt them.
Works Cited
Napier, Eric. 2008. Quotes about Security. Quotation Collection. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from http://www.quotationcollection.com/tag/security/quotes
“You will either step forward into growth or you will step back into safety” (Napier). As suggested by Abraham Maslow, a PhD in psychology, you can either take a journey and try something new, or you can remain in your box, figuratively speaking. This is the issue that the residents in the movie, Pleasantville, are confronted with in the end. The filmmakers are perhaps suggesting that a lack of predictability is preferable to a lack of anticipation of what will come in the future. I would have to disagree, although many would say that life is boring without any variation to stir things up. However, I would argue that people would be better off and altogether more content, if the world were not such a volatile place. There is a reason that the common phrase, “ignorance is bliss”, exists. If people are ignorant to the fact that they are missing out on something, they won’t realize that they don’t have it, and thus there is no harm done. The residents of Pleasantville are delightfully unaware of the fact that their lives are so full of monotony. But isn’t this what makes Pleasantville so pleasant? People are so content with their lives due to the fact that they are unaware of all of the strife and variation in day-to-day activities that they could be ‘enjoying’, if one wishes to call it that. The main element to my argument is that we have grown up in a world where certainty is absent. We never know what may come at us the next day, or ten years from now. So the idea of “Pleasantville” seems strange, abstract, and boring to some. But the citizens of Pleasantville don’t think so! Imagine being born into that society, one would have no idea that life could be any different. Their life is the one to which they have become accustomed, and thus there is no harm, no foul done. One would be completely content within such a society, so full of stability. Is the lack of security really a risk worth taking, as the prompt asks? No! If you could be raised in a society full of certainty, you wouldn’t know the difference. In fact, would the concept of boredom even exist? Most likely not, because people are so used to doing the same thing, day after day, it becomes a routine. This is not to say that people couldn’t engage in different activities, but I am saying that people would be more satisfied with life in general, because of the stability and predictability within that kind of society. The devil is in the details! One must realize that we can’t judge other societies or their inhabitants based on our own ideals or present state. Other societies’ citizens think differently, behave differently, and are assimilated differently. If security is the price of growth, I’ll keep my security, and forego the growth that most certainly keeps people from leading what the blissfully ignorant see as fulfilling lives. The cost of this approach is ignorance, albeit unrecognized, and the chance to experience variability and variety. But as I’ve already argued, what people don’t know can’t hurt them.
Works Cited
Napier, Eric. 2008. Quotes about Security. Quotation Collection. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from http://www.quotationcollection.com/tag/security/quotes
lunedì 15 settembre 2008
Formal Essay #1: Education and Self-Examination
Originally Written: 15 September 2008
“The world is in need of annoying, troublesome, Socratic-like thinkers who will keep us from intellectual and spiritual slumbers brought on by lethargy, hyperstimulation, self-satisfaction, or simple discouragement over the magnitude and complexity of the challenges that have been set before us” (Morowitz 7). This quote, from a paper by Professor Harold J. Morowitz of George Mason University, serves to summarize the reasons why the University of the Pacific believes that critical thinking is the most important purpose of undergraduate education. UOP wants to send its students out into the world not only prepared with the skills necessary for their vocation, but also with a set of skills needed in order to be productive, acutely aware members of society, not just passive global citizens. UOP hopes that its students will challenge ideas in an intellectual way, not just accepting any one thing for truth, but also proving to one's self why it is the truth. As shown through several pieces of writing throughout Chapter One of the Pacific Seminar One What is a Good Society? text, and the articles Purposes and Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion by Derek Bok and John Stuart Mill in particular, UOP values critical thinking above all else in regard to undergraduate education.
Derek Bok stresses eight principle purposes of undergraduate education in his writing, including critical thinking skills. In his work, Purposes, Bok, a former President of Harvard University, states that “a student should always be free to question principles of behavior both in and out of class, no matter how correct they may seem” (Bok 12). In other words, a university should seek to cajole its students, through argument and intellectual demonstrations, as to why policies or widely held beliefs are right. Students should not simply accept them because they’re rules, but understand why, and agree or disagree with them. They should challenge whatever it is that is being presented, and prove to themselves what is right, and what is wrong (Bok 13). If the University of the Pacific didn’t believe this, why would its faculty select a reading such as this for its students to read? It begs students to question, and incites an individual to inquire. “An ability to recognize and define problems clearly”, to identify biases and relevant information pertaining to all sides, to “perceive as many plausible solutions as possible, and to exercise good judgment in choosing the best of these alternatives after considering the evidence” is vital in Bok’s opinion, as well as in the opinion of UOP (Bok 15). Furthermore, Bok continues by saying that students should also have a basic knowledge of statistics, probability, and math, as well as an idea of their common applications, to aid them in sifting through problems and situations that require these abilities (Bok 15). It should also be mentioned, however, that the ability to think critically also aids in the realization of the other purposes of higher education as identified by Bok, namely Moral Reasoning, Preparing Citizens, Living in A More Global Society, and Preparing for Work. Bok himself even states that “these aims…interact and overlap in many important ways” (Bok 22). Perhaps this is why the University of the Pacific holds the ability to think critically in such high esteem when it comes to the students who pass through its institution. However, another writer also shares this emphasis on the ability to think critically.
In addition to Bok, John Stuart Mill also makes an effective argument for the importance of critical thinking. In Mill’s Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, he argues that “Judgment is given to men that they may use it” (Mill 27). He says that no opinion should be silenced. Instead, everyone should share their opinions so that the rest of society can benefit from them, or at least the conversation that leads to their dismissal. He conveys the fact that when people are silenced into not sharing their opinion, society is “deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (Mill 26). This more clearly defined realization of the truth comes about when members of society think critically in order to arrive at a logical answer or stance. This is why it is imperative that universities make their students’ ability to think critically one of their top priorities, and is perhaps the reason that UOP has done so. In addition, Mill plainly asserts that constantly adjusting your own opinions and points of view by comparing them to those of others is a good habit to get into. Not only does it reevaluate and possibly reassert your own beliefs, it challenges others and forces both parties to think critically, looking for gaps in logic.
In conclusion, the ability to think critically is valued above all else when it comes to the undergraduate education provided by the University of the Pacific. UOP, among many other academic institutions, believes that this proficiency is absolutely essential in developing people who will become more than just the average, everyday resident. UOP wants to cultivate members of society who will be adept at making decisions and profoundly cognizant of what is going on in the world around them. These people will be more productive and will create a positive effect on society as a whole.
Works Cited
Becker, Jeffrey, ed. Pacific Seminar 1 What is a Good Society?. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2008.
Bok, Derek. “Purposes.” Becker 8-24.
Mill, John Stuart. “Of Thought and Discussion.” Becker 25-38.
Morowitz, Harold J. “Prison of Socrates.” Becker 5-7.
“The world is in need of annoying, troublesome, Socratic-like thinkers who will keep us from intellectual and spiritual slumbers brought on by lethargy, hyperstimulation, self-satisfaction, or simple discouragement over the magnitude and complexity of the challenges that have been set before us” (Morowitz 7). This quote, from a paper by Professor Harold J. Morowitz of George Mason University, serves to summarize the reasons why the University of the Pacific believes that critical thinking is the most important purpose of undergraduate education. UOP wants to send its students out into the world not only prepared with the skills necessary for their vocation, but also with a set of skills needed in order to be productive, acutely aware members of society, not just passive global citizens. UOP hopes that its students will challenge ideas in an intellectual way, not just accepting any one thing for truth, but also proving to one's self why it is the truth. As shown through several pieces of writing throughout Chapter One of the Pacific Seminar One What is a Good Society? text, and the articles Purposes and Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion by Derek Bok and John Stuart Mill in particular, UOP values critical thinking above all else in regard to undergraduate education.
Derek Bok stresses eight principle purposes of undergraduate education in his writing, including critical thinking skills. In his work, Purposes, Bok, a former President of Harvard University, states that “a student should always be free to question principles of behavior both in and out of class, no matter how correct they may seem” (Bok 12). In other words, a university should seek to cajole its students, through argument and intellectual demonstrations, as to why policies or widely held beliefs are right. Students should not simply accept them because they’re rules, but understand why, and agree or disagree with them. They should challenge whatever it is that is being presented, and prove to themselves what is right, and what is wrong (Bok 13). If the University of the Pacific didn’t believe this, why would its faculty select a reading such as this for its students to read? It begs students to question, and incites an individual to inquire. “An ability to recognize and define problems clearly”, to identify biases and relevant information pertaining to all sides, to “perceive as many plausible solutions as possible, and to exercise good judgment in choosing the best of these alternatives after considering the evidence” is vital in Bok’s opinion, as well as in the opinion of UOP (Bok 15). Furthermore, Bok continues by saying that students should also have a basic knowledge of statistics, probability, and math, as well as an idea of their common applications, to aid them in sifting through problems and situations that require these abilities (Bok 15). It should also be mentioned, however, that the ability to think critically also aids in the realization of the other purposes of higher education as identified by Bok, namely Moral Reasoning, Preparing Citizens, Living in A More Global Society, and Preparing for Work. Bok himself even states that “these aims…interact and overlap in many important ways” (Bok 22). Perhaps this is why the University of the Pacific holds the ability to think critically in such high esteem when it comes to the students who pass through its institution. However, another writer also shares this emphasis on the ability to think critically.
In addition to Bok, John Stuart Mill also makes an effective argument for the importance of critical thinking. In Mill’s Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, he argues that “Judgment is given to men that they may use it” (Mill 27). He says that no opinion should be silenced. Instead, everyone should share their opinions so that the rest of society can benefit from them, or at least the conversation that leads to their dismissal. He conveys the fact that when people are silenced into not sharing their opinion, society is “deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (Mill 26). This more clearly defined realization of the truth comes about when members of society think critically in order to arrive at a logical answer or stance. This is why it is imperative that universities make their students’ ability to think critically one of their top priorities, and is perhaps the reason that UOP has done so. In addition, Mill plainly asserts that constantly adjusting your own opinions and points of view by comparing them to those of others is a good habit to get into. Not only does it reevaluate and possibly reassert your own beliefs, it challenges others and forces both parties to think critically, looking for gaps in logic.
In conclusion, the ability to think critically is valued above all else when it comes to the undergraduate education provided by the University of the Pacific. UOP, among many other academic institutions, believes that this proficiency is absolutely essential in developing people who will become more than just the average, everyday resident. UOP wants to cultivate members of society who will be adept at making decisions and profoundly cognizant of what is going on in the world around them. These people will be more productive and will create a positive effect on society as a whole.
Works Cited
Becker, Jeffrey, ed. Pacific Seminar 1 What is a Good Society?. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2008.
Bok, Derek. “Purposes.” Becker 8-24.
Mill, John Stuart. “Of Thought and Discussion.” Becker 25-38.
Morowitz, Harold J. “Prison of Socrates.” Becker 5-7.
giovedì 4 settembre 2008
Essay on the Work of John Stuart Mills
Originally Written: 4 September 2008
“Judgment is given to men that they may use it.” This brief sentence sums up the main idea of English philosopher John Stuart Mill’s work, Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion. Mill was a well-educated man who wrote on many topics in order to convey his opinion. And ironically, that is exactly what his paper is about. Opinions – the necessity to look at both sides, Mill writes. He sifts through many examples throughout his examination of the topic, encompassing various themes.
Mill begins by mentioning government, and providing several examples having to do with this theme. He says that government should not limit free speech, even though it could if the people wanted the government to do so. He argues that by denying dissenters the opportunity to express their opinions, the “human race” and posterity lose out on the chance of “exchanging error for truth”, or appreciating the general consensus more if the dissenters are in fact wrong. Mill goes on to write that individuals and government have a responsibility to form their own opinions – but never force others into agreeing or going along with them. These opinions serve as a guide for our own conduct. He says that individuals should constantly compare, edit, and adjust their opinions by paying attention to the stances of others. However, he creates an exception, saying that as long as the public consents, government may enforce some laws simply to preserve individuals’ well-being (as long as it is necessary and vital). However, government is not the only theme for examples that Mill explores.
Religion also seems to be a common theme for arguments in Mill’s work. He condemns the Roman Catholic Church for its practices and it’s parishioners’ perception as the Church being the ‘be all and end all’ of reasoning. Furthermore, he questions as to why, if people believe so fervently in the fact that their viewpoint is truth, they don’t try and make their religion into laws? He even goes so far as to say that those who placed Jesus on the cross were justified in doing so. They did what they believed was right, he argues. However, it seems contrary to his point when he presents this example. By killing Jesus these men forced their opinion on others, Jesus especially, and thereby changed history, in arguably perpetual terms. In order to perhaps become more convincing, Mill also tries a more general approach, devoid of any one theme, except perhaps the theme of miscellaneous examples.
Mills also references several non-themed arguments in his work. He mentions Socrates, who was generally believed to be wrong in his time, but actually came up with many revolutionary ideas. He also appeals to the more scientific mind when he says that if someone is so confident in their opinions, why not let them be challenged? Just like a hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be tested, so too should a truth, argues Mills. It must be testable in order to prove its worth as a fact. He points out that it’s as if people are threatened by having what they hold to be truths questioned, once again referencing the Roman Catholic Church. He states that if society as a whole wants to enrich the minds of it’s citizenry with knowledge and critical thinking skills, what better way than to debate over the validity of something which some people regard as a truth, or hold as an opinion? He goes on to say that until the irrefutable evidence is acquired to say that something is a fact, we don’t fully comprehend or appreciate the foundation of our opinions. Lastly, a vital point that Mill makes in his justification for his reasoning is that in order to have a true comprehension of “moral and human subjects”, individuals must look at all sides of an argument. If there isn’t more than one side, says Mill, it is hard to believe anything (because there is no opposing view to compare it to).
In summation, Mill explores several themes throughout his work, in order to convince his readers that everyone should use the analytical abilities given them to discover their own versions of the truth. He presents several arguments, many of which prove to be logical and unbiased. However, he does at times represent a slanted point of view – clearly expressing his distaste for the Roman Catholic Church several times. Yet, in the end, it is up to his readers to decide whether or not to take what he says as true. Because after all, how could he refute what he believes to be the fact that everyone should reach his or her own final analysis of an opinion or truth?
“Judgment is given to men that they may use it.” This brief sentence sums up the main idea of English philosopher John Stuart Mill’s work, Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion. Mill was a well-educated man who wrote on many topics in order to convey his opinion. And ironically, that is exactly what his paper is about. Opinions – the necessity to look at both sides, Mill writes. He sifts through many examples throughout his examination of the topic, encompassing various themes.
Mill begins by mentioning government, and providing several examples having to do with this theme. He says that government should not limit free speech, even though it could if the people wanted the government to do so. He argues that by denying dissenters the opportunity to express their opinions, the “human race” and posterity lose out on the chance of “exchanging error for truth”, or appreciating the general consensus more if the dissenters are in fact wrong. Mill goes on to write that individuals and government have a responsibility to form their own opinions – but never force others into agreeing or going along with them. These opinions serve as a guide for our own conduct. He says that individuals should constantly compare, edit, and adjust their opinions by paying attention to the stances of others. However, he creates an exception, saying that as long as the public consents, government may enforce some laws simply to preserve individuals’ well-being (as long as it is necessary and vital). However, government is not the only theme for examples that Mill explores.
Religion also seems to be a common theme for arguments in Mill’s work. He condemns the Roman Catholic Church for its practices and it’s parishioners’ perception as the Church being the ‘be all and end all’ of reasoning. Furthermore, he questions as to why, if people believe so fervently in the fact that their viewpoint is truth, they don’t try and make their religion into laws? He even goes so far as to say that those who placed Jesus on the cross were justified in doing so. They did what they believed was right, he argues. However, it seems contrary to his point when he presents this example. By killing Jesus these men forced their opinion on others, Jesus especially, and thereby changed history, in arguably perpetual terms. In order to perhaps become more convincing, Mill also tries a more general approach, devoid of any one theme, except perhaps the theme of miscellaneous examples.
Mills also references several non-themed arguments in his work. He mentions Socrates, who was generally believed to be wrong in his time, but actually came up with many revolutionary ideas. He also appeals to the more scientific mind when he says that if someone is so confident in their opinions, why not let them be challenged? Just like a hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be tested, so too should a truth, argues Mills. It must be testable in order to prove its worth as a fact. He points out that it’s as if people are threatened by having what they hold to be truths questioned, once again referencing the Roman Catholic Church. He states that if society as a whole wants to enrich the minds of it’s citizenry with knowledge and critical thinking skills, what better way than to debate over the validity of something which some people regard as a truth, or hold as an opinion? He goes on to say that until the irrefutable evidence is acquired to say that something is a fact, we don’t fully comprehend or appreciate the foundation of our opinions. Lastly, a vital point that Mill makes in his justification for his reasoning is that in order to have a true comprehension of “moral and human subjects”, individuals must look at all sides of an argument. If there isn’t more than one side, says Mill, it is hard to believe anything (because there is no opposing view to compare it to).
In summation, Mill explores several themes throughout his work, in order to convince his readers that everyone should use the analytical abilities given them to discover their own versions of the truth. He presents several arguments, many of which prove to be logical and unbiased. However, he does at times represent a slanted point of view – clearly expressing his distaste for the Roman Catholic Church several times. Yet, in the end, it is up to his readers to decide whether or not to take what he says as true. Because after all, how could he refute what he believes to be the fact that everyone should reach his or her own final analysis of an opinion or truth?
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)