Hangman

The idea of taking action is important in justice. Thoreau and King both talked about the need for action. Thoreau also mentioned not obeying unjust laws. If a law is unjust, something should be done about it. Stanton took action in what she saw as injustice towards women. She met a lot of resistance, like King, but the resistance stopped neither one of them. Fighting for justice may not always be an easy thing, but it is the right thing. The idea that what can happen when one is willing to take action to stop an injustice reminded me of a poem that I read my freshmen year of high school. It is called The Hangman and it is written by Maurice Ogden.

Into our town the Hangman came. Smelling of gold and blood and flame and he paced our bricks with a diffident air and built his frame on the courthouse square
The scaffold stood by the courthouse side, Only as wide as the door was wide; A frame as tall, or little more, Than the capping sill of the courthouse door
And we wondered, whenever we had the time. Who the criminal, what the crime. That Hangman judged with the yellow twist of knotted hemp in his busy fist.
And innocent though we were, with dread, We passed those eyes of buckshot lead: Till one cried: "Hangman, who is he For whom you raise the gallows-tree?"
Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye, And he gave us a riddle instead of reply: "He who serves me best," said he, "Shall earn the rope on the gallows-tree."
And he stepped down. and laid his hand On a man who came from another land And we breathed again, for another's grief At the Hangman's hand was our relief
And the gallows-frame on the courthouse lawn By tomorrow's sun would be struck and gone. So we gave him way, and no one spoke. Out of respect for his Hangman's cloak.
The next day's sun looked mildly down On roof and street in our quiet town And stark and black in the morning air, The gallows-tree on the courthouse square.
And the Hangman stood at his usual stand With the yellow hemp in his busy hand; With his buckshot eye and his jaw like a pike And his air so knowing and business like.
And we cried, "Hangman, have you not done Yesterday. with the alien one?" Then we fell silent, and stood amazed, "Oh, not for him was the gallows raised."
He laughed a laugh as he looked at us: "...Did you think I'd gone to all this fuss To hang one man? That's a thing I do To stretch a rope when the rope is new."
Then one cried "Murder!" One cried "Shame!" And into our midst the Hangman came To that man's place. "Do you hold," said he, "with him that was meant for the gallows-tree?"
And he laid his hand on that one's arm. And we shrank back in quick alarm, And we gave him way, and no one spoke Out of fear of his Hangman's cloak.
That night we saw with dread surprise The Hangman's scaffold had grown in size. Fed by the blood beneath the chute The gallows-tree had taken root;
Now as wide, or a little more, Than the steps that led to the courthouse door, As tall as the writing, or nearly as tall, Halfway up on the courthouse wall.
The third he took-we had all heard tell Was a user and infidel, and "What," said the Hangman "have you to do With the gallows-bound, and he a Jew?"
And we cried out, "Is this one he Who has served you well and faithfully?" The Hangman smiled: "It's a clever scheme to try the strength of the gallows-beam."
The fourth man's dark, accusing song Had scratched out comfort hard and long; And what concern, he gave us back. "Have you for the doomed--the doomed and black?"
The fifth. The sixth. And we cried again, "Hangman, Hangman, is this the last?" "It's a trick," he said. "that we hangmen know For easing the trap when the trap springs slow.""
And so we ceased, and asked no more, As the Hangman tallied his bloody score: And sun by sun, and night by night, The gallows grew to monstrous height.
The wings of the scaffold opened wide Till they covered the square from side to side: And the monster cross-beam, looking down. Cast its shadow across the town.
Then through the town the Hangman came And called in the empty streets my name- And I looked at the gallows soaring tall And thought, "There is no one left at all
For hanging." And so he calls to me To help pull down the gallows-tree. And I went out with right good hope To the Hangman's tree and the Hangman's rope.
He smiled at me as I came down To the courthouse square through the silent town. And supple and stretched in his busy hand Was the yellow twist of the strand.
And he whistled his tune as he tried the trap And it sprang down with a ready snap And then with a smile of awful command He laid his hand upon my hand.
"You tricked me. Hangman!," I shouted then. "That your scaffold was built for other men... And I no henchman of yours," I cried, "You lied to me. Hangman. foully lied!"
Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye, "Lied to you? Tricked you?" he said. "Not I. For I answered straight and I told you true" The scaffold was raised for none but you.
For who has served me more faithfully Then you with your coward's hope?" said he, "And where are the others that might have stood Side by your side in the common good?,"
"Dead," I whispered, and sadly "Murdered," the Hangman corrected me: "First the alien, then the Jew... I did no more than you let me do."
Beneath the beam that blocked the sky. None had stood so alone as I And the Hangman strapped me, and no voice there Cried "Stay!" for me in the empty square

I think this poem does an excellent job showing what can happen when people sit back and do nothing. When society lets one injustice occur, it will led to more and more until it is stopped. The speaker of the poem never once spoke out against the hangman. He simply let the hangman keep doing his work. That is the danger of doing nothing.

Stanton

The article written by Stanton struck me as very interesting since we are discussing some of the same issues in my women’s studies class that Stanton brought up so long ago. The issue of the right to vote was obviously resolved, but from some of the videos from the presentation on Monday, it was easy to see that many people think all of women’s issues are now resolved and do not need any improving. I thought this was interesting because I also never realized what women in other countries, and even in the U.S. to an extent, are still having to go through. One of the things here that I realized still needs a lot of work is peoples’ perceptions of what it means to be a feminist. Many people associate the term feminist with negative things such as angry women, women trying to overpower men and that all feminists are lesbians. Some of the men in America seem to think that women aren’t oppressed anymore simply because they have the right to vote and can go out and get jobs. Today, it is not even noticed how frequently women are subjected to being objectified in the media and in magazines and ads. If you go through a magazine right now, try to find how many times there are women that are related to objects, especially sex objects. I guarantee you will find many connections between what Stanton was saying and how women are still seen now.
One of the most shocking things in the videos was how women were not willing to call themselves feminist just because of others’ thoughts about it. In third world countries, if you asked someone what it meant to be a feminist, I bet many of them would not even know. Many women there are still oppressed, have no choice in many of their daily activities and are also being raped and beaten during wars. These women have no choice to be a feminist or not like we do. I think that it is hard for us as Americans to relate to this because many of us barely ever see these things or know that they are still going on in the world. We also talked a lot about religion and how it plays a role in women’s rights. Some use religion as a way to justify the oppression of women, like the man in the video that referenced the bible. I feel like that is the exact opposite of what religion is about. Many times we are told to love one another and treat each other as equals, yet some men still use the bible as justification for treating women as inferiors. One of the things that I wanted to express which I think plays a part in how you view women’s rights is the way that you are raised. It could even tie back into the religion thing; whether or not someone was raised in a religious environment or not has an effect. One of the best examples that I can give of this is about my boyfriend. He was raised only by his mom who at the time was a deputy sheriff (which was brought up in class to be the “man’s” job). By only having her there to raise him and show him how she does things, he has grown up to view women as a powerful force that can do anything they set their minds to, including the things that are said to be only for men to do. I guess the question raised with that is the nature vs. nurture thing. Are people programmed to view things the way that they do or do they get these ideas about women’s rights from their environment and the views put upon them by their rearing?

Stanton, Videos

I decided to post the videos I used in my presentation today in case anyone was interested in seeing them again. Also thought it might help in generating responses.

Are YOU a feminist? (women surveyed)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcapO8EsKM8

Men survey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pdbnzFUsXI

Women's Liberation Posters, 1960
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82jRd54pAKI

Contemporary Wisdom

As a few people have already posted on Cicero already, I would find it very redundant to again go over his main points. I would, however, like to go over a few thoughts I had while reading and from our class discussion. Cicero wrote this excerpt, “The Defense of Injustice,” in times so long ago, very creatively and beautifully. I find it phenomenal how prevalent many of his ideas still are in our modern day society. First of all, Cicero speaks on worker's rights. Philus presents, “Consider Lycurgus. He invented a series of admirably wise and sensible laws Yet he felt able to insist, all the same, that the lands of the rich should be cultivated by the poor as if they were slaves.” Kayt already pointed out in her presentation today the relationship of this quote to sweatshop workers, and how sweatshops are still prevalent today in the United States even. Just further on in Cicero’s piece, Philus continues, discussing the Voconian Law, which prevented women from receiving inheritances. Although we might not have laws which so much oppress women, there is still inequality for women in our country. Just take a look at the wage gap between the earnings of men and women. As discussed in class, Cicero also touches on the idea of animal rights. “The argument maintains that what a good and just man does is to give everyone his due. (One problem which arises in this connection is what, if anything, we are to grand dumb animals their due.” Still today, though, even in the United States, people disagree on what rights animals should be given. For example, cock fights are still legal in 2 states.
Cicero’s main argument, defining wisdom compared to justice, is also still something we deal with today.

“That, then, is the teaching of “wisdom,” that we should rule over as many subjects as possible, indulge in pleasures, hold on to power, be rulers and masters. But justice, on the other hand, demands that we should be merciful to all men, act in the interests of the entire human race, give everyone what they are entitled to, and never tamper with religious property of what belongs to the community or to private persons.”

I would encourage you to consider how people interpret this view of wisdom today. I think that in America, “wisdom” goes hand in hand with today’s big name capitalists and even celebrities. Those who follow what “wisdom” tells them are the ones in power, who are very wealthy, and indulge themselves in pleasures. Take for example Donald Trump, the high earning CEOs that we discussed with Reich’s essay, the celebrities, and the politicians. It is clear that injustice and wisdom are very prevalent in America today. Obviously, there are many connections that we can make between Cicero’s ideas and modern society. Taking this into consideration, I feel we, as college students who will be making a real impact on the world soon, should not forget the advice presented to us in the final sentence of Cicero’s essay, “As a consequence, even if he escapes the normal punishment for wrongdoing, he will suffer the penalties of the gravest possible sort.”

Stanton

According to her father, Elizabeth Cady Stanton should have been born a boy. It was not enough that she was brilliant because what mattered is that she would have excelled if she had been the “preferred” gender. This prejudice did not stop Stanton’s determination; rather, it fueled her fight in the war of the unjust treatment of the oppressed (minorities, women in general, etc.).
Written in the form at the Declaration of Independence, Stanton lets everyone knows what unjust laws will not be tolerated by a society that should reward and strive for justice and morality. With a twist on the historic words of Thomas Jefferson, “All men and women are created equal,” Stanton states her main point and sets the stage for her argument against injustice.
I found that the way Stanton used the famous words of a highly respected man of justice (Jefferson) in order to prove a point was very interesting and in correlation with how Cicero fought against injustice. Cicero used this approach in The Defense of Injustice by using Philus, a man esteemed for his pro-justice views, to make the argument in favor of injustice. This allows the people receiving the speech to open their minds and approach the idea being discussed with the unbiased and thorough examination to which such an important subject deserves. This type of speech affects me more than the written word or the straightforward approach. I would like to know how the class feels about this same subject. Do written or oral arguments move you the most? How about the straight forward versus indirect approach that Cicero and Stanton use? Which is more compelling, more meaningful and persuasive to you?
Cicero presents information in The Defense of Injustice that show women oppression in his time (Voconian Laws, etc.) This ties in to a more present day outlook with Stanton. The war against gender and race prejudice is just as important and just as prevalent as the war for independence was when our ancestors fought it in the past. Speaking of race tying in with gender, I would like to her some opinions on why Frederick Douglass attended Stanton’s speech at the Seneca Falls Convention. Through using the Declaration of Independence, Stanton makes a point that this is a problem and it will not go unnoticed. Minorities and the oppressed will have been fighting since before Cicero’s time and will continue to fight for their freedom from unjust treatment and ignorant prejudices.

Justice

So far we have seen a few different versions of what justice means. Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau, both believed that justice was not necessarily defined by law, but instead had to come froma persons moral or ethical beliefs. Rawls on the other hand thought that justice could only exist when a fair, unbiased original situation existed.
Everyone has a slighltly different definition of justice, and it also differs from culture to culture. We have seen that the writings of these three authors still have relevance in the modern world. However, are the writings practical or realistic? King and Thoreau advocate civil disobediance as a way of protest and making change. Unfortunately, such action is only effective when there are many people involved. They believed that sometimes citizens had to against the law in order to serve justice, but ther are not that many people in today's world that would actually do that.
Rawls on the other hand was highly idealistic. It is human nature to have biases and it is hardly realistic to believe that justice can extist while not giving advantages to some. It is just not how the world works.
Justice is a part of the nation's conscience, the idea of equality and fairness. In the end each person must make their own decisions about what is just. Together citizens create a belief in justice that is supposedly fitting for a democratic country.

Throwing off the shackles of complacency

In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” Martin Luther King addresses the common misconception that “time heals all wounds.” People like to believe that just by sitting and waiting, things will improve. Quite the opposite is true. As King points out, “time itself is neutral,” but those who are working against justice seem to make better use of their time. (26.) Today in my Social Work class we watched a video on the evolution of racism in the United States. Racist movements are still alive and well. Though the Ku Klux Klan itself has lost membership and gone out of style, membership in many racist groups has been increasing, including among neo-nazis. People need to continue to fight for rights as the opposing side continues to fight against the rights so backsliding does not occur.

King says that he is not so upset at those who are outright racist as he is at those who are opposed to racism but do nothing about it. The people who accept the status quo and do nothing to further the causes they believe in are a bigger liability to him. For, as they say, the only condition for evil to continue is that the good man does nothing. This is true in all matters of injustice. If no one ever takes a stand against it, it will only continue to propagate and further its range. Injustice that is institutionalized usually has followers that attempt to keep it in place for their own advantage. In order for the injustice to be addressed, someone needs to speak out against it. As Thoreau says “It is not so important that many should be as good as you as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump.” (10) This means that just by setting a positive example a single person can make a huge difference by affecting the views of other people. How much more then if everyone who was opposed to a certain matter of injustice banded together for the common cause.

King saw the necessity of immediate action in the era he was living in. Even today, we cannot afford to wait for the “right time” to stand up for what we believe in. Things are not simply going to get better. If no one is actively fighting for justice, there is still probably someone fighting for injustice. The individual has more power than most imagine. People have the power to set an example for good, if only they can gather the courage to act in the present in order to build a better future.

Cicero

One of Philus's main points in Cicero's work, "The Defense of Injustice," and, I believe, the main argument given, is that the inconsistency of judicial systems throughout the world should lead us to believe that true justice doesn't really exist. He points out some of the laws that different renowned countries enforced that were in no way in agreement with each other. He also points out that it is wisdom, not justice, that makes individuals and states great.

Due to the writing style of this work, it is somewhat difficult to decipher Cicero's true beliefs. It is obvious that he is in favor of justice, though, as evidenced by the final paragraph. "There will not be different laws now and in the future. Instead there will be one single, everlasting, immutable law, which applies to all nations and all times." Through this, we can deduce that Cicero believes divine justice trumps any systems that man can dream up, and that we are therefore under a perfect and unchanging set of regulations. Personally, I agree with him, but I realize that the current world doesn’t believe that God and his omnipotence are worthy to be placed into law. Surely, some do, but the line between church and state mandates a secular set of laws by which non-believers can co-exist peacefully. I believe we can still conclude that Cicero approves of secular law, despite its inconsistencies. Indeed, in any society that doesn’t have 100% agreement on spiritual matters, it is wrong to ask for 100% compliance. Thus, we must have a way of governing action that relies on systems of the world rather than beliefs of the world. Secular law accomplishes that.

Another interesting point made by Phillus: “No country would not rather be an unjust master than a just slave.” In other words, we would all rather be the bully on the playground than the little kid being picked on. This relates to human nature as it applies to power. The end result is that a law-making body is by nature unjust due to the power which they have accrued. Any “justice” they attempt to enforce is merely thinly veiled exploitation of their subjects. Therefore, all laws are unjust and should not be followed. This argument does have some merit, as the corrupting nature of power is well known. However, the argument falls apart when it is considered that lawmakers should be subject to their own laws. As it is impossible for one to take advantage of himself for his own gain, it should be said that lawmakers would know this and refrain from using their power as a way to get more power.

Justice is relative and determined by those with power

I believe Scott summed up Cicero’s “The Defense of Injustice adequately, so I will not spend much time on it. For introduction’s sake, however, a brief synopsis: In Cicero’s “The Defense of Injustice,” the character Philus is prodded to argue a case for injustice (obviously this is contradictory to many practices). About halfway through his case, he makes the conclusion that the best option regarding injustice is to perform it “if you can get away with it.” This may lead one to believe that Cicero’s character Philus really does value injustice over justice, yet while he is making this case Philus’s rhetoric and examples ultimately prove the opposite—that he values justice over injustice. Moreover, his rhetoric illustrates what many hold to be important aspects of justice.

One point in this piece that I found I could relate to and connect to present day is Cicero’s idea that justice is relative and defined by those in charge. Cicero notes that “…the justice into which we are inquiring is not just something that naturally exists, but a quality that is created by those who are occupied in government.” This is so true. We talked in class about what justice meant, and not a single person could come up with a concrete definition. On top of that, not everyone could agree on what it even entails. We went through many examples and generally could not come up with a consensus about if the particular example was “just” or not. This is true in everyday life as well. Chris brought up the example of the man in Germany who asked for a willing person to be eaten. Both people were in agreement as to what was going to happen, but still people disagree if it was moral or not. Then comes the question about punishing this man. Is it just? He did break a law, but both men were in agreement. “Justice” is such an ambiguous and relative term—how could it “naturally exist” as Cicero mentioned?

Does anyone recall the Uruguayan rugby team that was stranded in the Andes Mountains when their plane crashed in 1972? The team was stranded in extremely cold and hostile conditions for 72 days and had to eat one of their dead companions for survival. Many people would have considered it unjust to punish the team for this act. What makes this different from the man in Germany? One could argue that the rugby team needed to eat for survival and that the person they ate was already dead. Yet in Germany, this act of cannibalism was consensual. Who determines if an act or punishment in response to an act is just or unjust if there are so many different circumstances and situations? Everything is relative.

Another aspect about this idea I agree with is the notion that justice is “a quality that is created by those who are occupied in government.” Let’s face it: whoever controls the means to enforce laws and punish people decides what is just and unjust. We as people may decide that the government or military is wrong in whatever they are doing—we may think it is unjust—but until we can step up and take over or control the means of enforcing and punishing people for disobeying “just” laws, we are only spectators, not creators. Take our government, for example. Many people believe that the death penalty is unjust for various reasons. But the death penalty is still being enforced and carried out. Why? Not because it is necessarily “just”—as mentioned before, justice is too relative to pinpoint—but because we do not control the means of enforcing or getting rid of the way in which “justice” is carried out. Out of a nation of millions of people, only a select few wield this kind of power—the power to determine what is “just” and “unjust.” In summary, justice is relative and those in power are the ones to determine what is just or not.

Civil Disobedience--Conscience vs. Opinion

In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau claims that people have a greater obligation to their conscience than to the government. People can express their beliefs through acts of non-violent protest, or civil disobedience. From the civil rights movement to current war protests, civil disobedience has been a common form of protest in the United States. Civil disobedience is usually considered acceptable, which may because the protests often stem from a person’s conscience and beliefs. When a protest seems unacceptable, it may because it appears to be based on an opinion.

I view conscience as an internal sense of right and wrong. Some people are more likely to respect a person who protests because they have strong beliefs about justice and morality. In paragraph 15 Thoreau says,

Action from principle, the perception and performance or right changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary and does not consist with anything which was. It not only divides states and churches, it divides families; ay, it divides the individual, separating the diabolic in him from the divine.

I think the situation can become confusing when a person is protesting because of their “opinions.” An opinion is a personal view of an issue, but it does not have the same effects as what Thoreau describes as “action from principle,” or conscience. Conscience might lead someone to refuse to pay taxes because they are morally opposed to what the tax supports; an opinion allow someone to say they won’t pay taxes because they don’t like their money being taken away. There’s a difference.

This can also go back to something we discussed in class--whether it is a good thing for people to follow their consciences. After all, it seems that some people’s consciences might tell them to perform unjust actions. It also could be that the unjust action results from their opinion, not their conscience. I think that if a person’s conscience tells them to “bad things,” he or she probably will not protest in the form of civil disobedience. They would be more likely to retaliate with another unjust action, than in a peaceful way. To Thoreau, civil disobedience may have been an inherently good thing. Also, in order for the action to truly be “civil disobedience,” it should also be somehow increasing public awareness of an issue. Saying, “I think drugs should be legal, so I’m going to smoke weed in my basement!” This is an example of acting from an opinion, because you are not showing how a law is unjust or immoral or trying to change it.

The problem is that it could very difficult to determine the true motivations of protests. You might not be able to if people are acting from their conscience or not. It would be even harder to tell if you are watching a news segment about a protest. The media could have distorted the actual intention of the civil disobedience. But that’s another issue entirely!

Consensus on conscience

Cicero gives his thoughts on justice in the form of a dialogue between two men, one of whom is charged to defend injustice. Cicero says that some law comes from God and some from men, which is why justice is viewed differently around the world, and the only universal justice will come from the law of God. He defines justice as an unnatural thing that is not a part of human nature and injustice as an opportunity for personal advancement. Cicero actually names injustice as basic common sense and wisdom because arguing that it is more beneficial than justice because justice comes from a state of weakness which is not desirable.

After reading this piece I think it is pretty easy to see that Cicero is in support of justice and against injustice. I say this because I am sometimes confused with an author assuming the opposite position when making his point and I think Cicero was fairly clear about his intention for writing. He begins by portraying the defense of injustice as a comical thing only for the sake of argument and ends his piece with a reminder that everyone is able to interpret the law and that everyone is susceptible to punishment from men and from God.

The above being said, Cicero still makes some interesting statements about the human attitude towards law. If people have everything to gain by disobeying laws, than it is a strong motivation to break them. Cicero claims that if a man may commit injustice and dodge the penalty, then he may claim power, wealth, and status with no cost, except what may pursue him out of his own conscience.

Here comes this conscience idea again; conscience always seems to be a factor in the creation and interpretation of justice. Cicero notes that most laws are created by people and are beyond even the laws given by God. So if man’s laws go beyond God’s laws, then the conscience must be a way that we decide how to obey these laws. There is a consensus between all of the authors we have read that people have a problem following their consciences and therefore create unjust laws from time to time: Thoreau believed that the government was corrupted, Rawls believed that human justice could be perfect if only a group of unbiased people, nearly impossible to come by in today’s world, could agree on beneficial laws, King believed that a majority could become oppressive out of prejudice, and Cicero believed that the benefits of injustice could cause someone to stray from their conscience. An article I read about the conscience, found here - http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Ethics/conscience.htm, concluded that the conscience is generally a guide towards obeying the law of God and the law of man. The exception is when the law of man is unjust and disobeying is the only way to achieve justice.

What I am getting out of the Justice unit is that you should always follow the eternal, moral law of God and listen to your conscience because it will either lead you to follow the law or to make a just act of disobedience. This is the case only if your morals are favoring justice over personal advancement.

Just Fuss

In Rawls’ essay “A Theory of Justice,” he defines justice as “justice as fairness.” He basically says that in order for a community to be completely just as it makes and enforces laws, everyone in the community must agree to the rules being made. Also, they must wear a “veil of ignorance.” Rawls states, “Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like.” Rawls also states that majority should not rule decisions because then only the majority will benefit. Rather, decisions should be arranged so that the bottom minority can benefit.
In reading this piece, I have found many flaws in his ideas. For instance, the rules that were made would have to constantly be revised with each new generation. For instance, a child may not have the same beliefs as his/her parent and therefore would not agree with every single law in the society. That person would either have to leave the society (because 100% agreement or toleration is required) or the rules would have to be changed. The next generation would have the possibility of being brainwashed because they would not know anything but what their parents knew. Therefore they have no freedom of choice to go against foundations that were already laid. I do not believe that a community can be healthy if there is no room for change or growth. Next, I believe that the idea of the “veil of ignorance” is nearly impossible. I do not see how anyone would be able to completely remove any kind of bias they may have in order to make important decisions. This would be even harder if there had to be an entire community of people that were capable of this task.
Rawls’ idea of benefiting the minority is similar to the modern issue of affirmative action. I believe that both of these ideas work in theory, but fall apart when put into action. There is just too much room for abuse of power and unfair treatment. The idea of affirmative action contradicts itself. Its goal is to not be discriminating, and yet it discriminates against the majority. The way I see it, race should just not play any factor when trying to choose someone for a position. It’s like the words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Well, I have a dream that one day race will not matter when applying for a job, but rather the qualifications of that person; that universities will not have to worry about meeting a certain quota for giving out scholarships. The fact of the matter is that no matter what we do, there will always be a minority. However, I suppose that actions can be taken to try to balance out the distribution. For example, here is a graph of the distribution of wealth in the US in 2005.
I wonder what our country would look like if it looked more like this.

In the first chart, the top one fifth had most of the wealth, but what if most of it belonged to the middle class and the top and bottom had the least? What do you guys think about this?

The King's Letter

Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” raises several interesting ideas. His first idea deals with time and how people must take action for progress. King said “… that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor: it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Also every time King tried to take action he was told to “wait” because his action is untimely. When is it ever a good time? King believes there will never be a good time to take action and justice has been delayed for too long. Another interesting idea King mentions is how to take nonviolent direct action. First collected information to show that there is an injustice; then try to negotiate a deal. If that fails, then the process of self-purification starts. The oppressed ask themselves if they are able to “endure the ordeal of jail” or “accept blows without retaliating” to prepare themselves for the next step, direct action. The goal of direct action is to make a “situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.”
King had two great ideas that I would like to explore. I’ll start with King’s first idea on taking action and how untimely it is to people. I agreed with this point because to get something changed you have to go out and make it happen. If you sit around and do nothing then you can expect nothing in return, but if you take action then you can expect progress. The problem with taking action is the untimely factor though. There will never be a good time to take action. For example, you decide to take action against companies that pay their workers a very low wage. When would be a good time to protest? The company would complain about the protest being to sudden, no matter how long of a notice they had, and also how the protest is happening at a bad time so they should postpone it until a later date, never.
I also agree with King’s other idea on doing nonviolent direct action. It shows that you are obeying the law while protesting an unjust law. I believe this is the best way to take action because it is safe. There is no force involved; there are no riots or people holding weapons; there is just plenty of people coming together, protesting what they commonly feel is wrong. I believe that King’s four steps of direct action are still used today. For example, many people are against the war in Iraq and want the troops to come home. They have all the data and information they need; they tried to negotiate several times. Now they started to take direct action. We see direct action happening all the time, in marches and in protests. These people make plenty of sacrifices to protest what they believe in. People are willing to go to jail, lose their jobs, and spend plenty of their time protesting.
I found King’s letter to be very interesting and thoughtful. He explains everything in the letter slowly and carefully, with great detail to show his position and show respect for the reader. All of King’s main ideas were stated clearly and were given several paragraphs to analyze and explain further. King added many examples and quotes to the letter for further evidence. For example, he used quotes from Jesus, Amos, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and St. Thomas Aquinas. Towards the end of the letter was the most interesting. King was apologizing for writing a long letter and taking the reader’s time. He was also asking for forgiveness if the letter overstates the truth and shows impatience. King shows that he tried his best and if there is anything wrong with the letter, then he is sorry. He wants to show that his intentions were not to be offensive, but to give a well thought-out reason for his purpose in Birmingham.

Curfew

In Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” one of the most prominent issues discussed is the definition of just and unjust laws. King provides a concrete example of what he believes to be the difference between the two. He writes:
An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. (17)
According to king, a law is unjust if a majority creates it in order to restrict a minority. Likewise, a just law is one that is followed by everyone in society.
Relating this example to life today, it has come to my attention that curfews are unjust laws. A curfew is a time in which minors (persons under the age of eight-teen) may no longer be allowed out of a residency without an adults’ company. This is unjust to minors for two reasons. First of all, referring to King’s example, the law is unjust because a majority group, adults, puts it into place, which restricts the right of minors to stay out past a certain time. This is a representation of inequality, and is also purely based off the stereotype that teenagers are only out late to cause trouble.
Secondly, curfew is unjust because the people it affects are not allowed to vote in order to change it. King discusses this in his letter. He writes, “A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law” (18). This is perfectly true in this case. Minors are restricted the right to vote due to lack of age, and therefore never enacted, or will ever be able to rule against the law. So, based on the fact that the majority in this circumstance created the law to restrict the minority group and the fact that the minority group cannot change it, curfew is an unjust law.

Justice for All, Not Just the Wealthy

Rawls believes there needs to be a new system of justice created. He thinks it should be one where everyone in society, chooses together, the principles which will assign the basic rights of society and will determine the division of social benefits. He feels an action should only be done as long as it does not affect even the lowest class possible or those who are the least situated. He calls these principles of justice, justice as fairness. Rawls also mentions that people are born into a certain position or place in society and the way they grow up and the people they are around affects what decisions they will make and what they see as acceptable.

Overall, I think Rawls’s idea is a very good one. I like how he wants to make sure that any action taken will benefit the upper class, middle class, and the lowest class possible. He doesn’t think it is acceptable to follow through with an action that benefits the majority but hurts the minority. If everyone would accept his idea, especially those who are wealthier, it would help out those less unfortunate. For example, those who have money and can afford to give up some material things could help those who are suffering for food and a home by donating money to them. People could be less greedy and more giving.
I do agree, however, that people are born into certain positions in society. Obviously those who come from wealthier homes believe they have earned the right to live above others because they worked at it and created that kind of lifestyle for themselves. They also see more material things as a necessity, whereas, people coming from a least stable home would find those same material things as unnecessary. If everyone cooperated with each other, I believe individuals could help one another out so everyone could live a sufficient life. I do think it is fair that those who have worked hard for their money and wealthy lifestyles deserve to live that wealthy life, but I also think there should be certain rules that help those less unfortunate.
I also, definitely think, if an action is taken no one should have to sacrifice anything. Everyone, including the lowest class of society should be able to benefit from that action. Therefore, those who work hard deserve their earnings but everyone should get an equal opportunity to work that hard.
People may think that it is not possible for everyone to live a sufficient life even if given equal opportunities. They may feel everyone has these opportunities but do not care to perfect the skills needed to actually be successful. A lot of people also may disagree with Rawls’s idea that not even the minority should have to suffer from an action being taken, especially if the majority benefits. A lot of people only really care about their family and close friends. Those people are most likely in the same class level as them, therefore, as long as their family and friends are benefiting as well as them, the action is ok. People need to reach out to those who they do not know and start caring about strangers. If they do this then a lot can be achieved.

A Theory of Justice

The main concept that Rawls’ is trying to portray, in the excerpt from his book, is the idea of the original position of equality. The original position is like the social contract that Rousseau proposed, but Rawls’ transformed it to be more social cooperation. The original position calls for principles of justice to be established. These principles are chosen by people from behind “a veil of ignorance.” The veil means that the people choosing the principles know nothing about what their place in society will be. This allows for them to choose principles that will benefit everyone equally. The principles of justice are divided into two categories. This first is that each person is to have an equal right to basic liberties compatible with similar liberties given to others. These basic liberties include the right to vote, freedom of speech, and other things of that nature. The second principle is more controversial than the first. The second principle is that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they benefit the least advantaged members of society the most.

The second principle of justice is something that can be related to today. As we discussed in the first unit, the wage gap between the classes is widening more and more. CEOs and other executives are making more money than they need while their employees are not making enough money to survive off of. Rawls’ would argue that this is unjust. He states “that social and economic inequalities, for example inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society” (paragraph 7). This means that any inequalities that would occur are only just if the least advantaged members of society are given something in return. Would Rawls’ support some kind of redistribution of wealth in the United States as a means of compensation? The redistribution of wealth would make the poor less poor and the rich less rich but it could have negative affects. One affect would be that people would begin to rely on others money as a means of supporting themselves. There will always be those people that take advantage of the system. Robert Nozick is a well-known opponent of any redistribution of wealth. He believes people should be treated as ends not means. He believed that the redistribution of money used people only as a source of money. Giving benefits to the least advantaged members of society is not only about money but about opportunity. Affirmative action is good example of doing so in today’s world. Affirmative action gives an advantage to those are considered to be “disadvantaged” in some form. We all had to deal with it when we were applying to college and we know its affects on those who do not benefit from it. I feel that it is a punishment for those who do not qualify. Is it right to punish people for things they have no control over?

Rawls’ presents his idea of the original position of equality with the veil of ignorance. He admits that all he discussed was a hypothetical situation. How would the principles of justice work when that ignorance is not present? Would people be selfish or generous? The answer cannot be known for sure. Overall, Rawls’ concepts are interesting but not practical. Humans are naturally selfish, so they are going to do things that will be in their best interest. I believe that we should help those that are disadvantaged but not at the expense of the rest of the members of society. Rawls’ argument sounds good in theory, but so do many other things, like communism and capitalism. Being a theory and being practical do not always coincide.

Friday's Discussion...

On friday one of the questions asked was something like why don't people stand up for what they believe in or feel is right? Now I know from my own experience when you disagree with something someone is doing or the way they are treating another person sometimes one wants to say something but because nobody else around that person is they question him/herself on why his/her feelings are different. People may also decide not to say something or do something about it because they could possibly see themselves doing the same thing in the future even though at the current time, they don't think they ever would. I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Thoreau's conscience

Henry David Thoreau’s speech, “Civil Disobedience,” is one of the most influential pieces of writing in history, inspiring great thinkers like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. It was inspired by Thoreau’s belief in the morality of the individual conscience and his opposition to majority thinking. The piece probably would never have happened if it weren’t for the day that Thoreau spent in jail as a result of not paying his war tax. Much of the speech is about the freedoms of acting for one’s self and not for the mindless benefit of the majority, as Thoreau experienced in this situation. His actions and thoughts have inspired many great ideas, and many questions as well.
Thoreau speaks of the conscience as if it is inherently good in every man, and that the majority corrupts this goodness by forcing laws and taxes on people, but is every conscience good? One might argue that no, every conscience is not good. If one was raised in a society that taught its children that lying, cheating, and stealing was acceptable, then his/her conscience would, by our standards, be considered bad. But I believe that Thoreau meant something different when he spoke of good conscience. A good conscience is not measured by the standards of the society in which it was cultured. Everyone’s conscience is different. What separates us is how often we can follow our conscience and stray from the thinking of the majority. What Thoreau is saying is that if you follow your conscience you can’t be wrong no matter what it’s telling you, because to you it’s right. If you were going against your conscience and with the majority, even if others believed your conscience to be wrong and the majority to be right, it would be wrong to you, and therefore would be inherently wrong. The reason Thoreau is saying that the conscience is always right is because he is really saying that if one can think for his/herself and see past the majority, then he/she can’t be wrong.
Thoreau spent a day in jail because he refused to pay a tax funding the Mexican war. He did not refuse to pay because he simply had better things to do with his money, or because he wasn’t a soldier, so he didn’t care. He refused to pay because he was morally opposed to the majority. This is slightly misleading because he states, “One must not fund that to which he is opposed,” which may lead some to believe that taxes shouldn’t be paid if they aren’t convenient to the citizen, but this is where the conscience comes back into the argument. The conscience must be used to distinguish, based on individual (and therefore inherently right) morals, what taxes are funding injustice, what taxes are funding the everyday life of the citizen, and what taxes are funding necessities for the good of the country, even if they may not be for the immediate benefit of the tax paying citizen.
It is important to look at Thoreau’s life and remember that he is a transcendentalist. While he does have definite beliefs on the subjects he speaks about, like slavery and the Mexican war, he is not a representative for absolute thought. He knows that everyone thinks differently, which is why he gives this speech in the first place. “Civil Disobedience” encourages individual thought. It is a call for the people of America to take back there lives and be wary of the majority and the government.

protest

I did not want to write a whole post on this, but no one has explored Thoreau or civil disobedience yet so....

Here a writer explores some historical connections and reasoning for physical protests in the face of "what good is protesting"?

Meanwhile LATIMES reports close to 100 thousand attend the war protest over the weekend and there were other protests around the country staged for those who could not make it to DC.

Yet, the leaders generally support the war with various nuances and or qualifications --- This comes back to the question posed: what's the point of civil disobedience? Will it make a difference?

I saw a little of the news coverage -- anyone want to discuss what that looked like?

EDIT: Received this and thought if you had a chance to pass by --

Please pass this on.
Join us for a
“Women and Men in Black”
Peace Demo
12:00 noon to 1:00 pm on Mon. 1/29
In front of Bowen-Thompson Student Union
We’ll stand in silence for the first half hour to protest war, rape, ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses all over the world. Mere words cannot express the tragedy that wars and hatred bring.
Wear black to mourn the loss of life and betrayal of democratic ideals
Bring protest signs
Sponsored by Amnesty International BGSU

Quote of the Week

Having started our unit on justice, I thought that these were appropriate. Feel free to comment.

"In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law ... That would lead to anarchy. An individual who breaks a law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

"Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love."

Martin Luther King Jr.