Thursday, July 24, 2014
The Arc of the Summer
Recently, Franny shared a post with me that has stuck in my mind. Check it out. It's stuck with me, in part, because I'm unsure what to make of it, or rather I suspect it has more layers than I've yet been able to peel back. It's about language, to be sure, and art and it's relationship with truth. It's also about the nature of history as fact, faith as a way of knowing, and is painfully pertinent to the world right at this moment. Humanitarian crises swirl in the Ukraine, Iraq, Gaza, Nigeria, along the U.S.-Mexico border, and beyond. This morning, listening to a news report of a fatwa issued by the members of ISIS, ordering all females in Mosul to undergo FGM (which, though it may be an erroneous report, is no less horrifying), I thought ruefully of some words of hope. Some arcs, I thought, curve so gently as to appear linear. I thought also, as we have before, together, of the intersection of truth and moral right with perspective. These are the times, in the face of horror, that I struggle to understand the other side. We must not, surely, be asking one another to honor every perspective. Isn't there, in some moments, an objective "right," and accompanying wrong? Here, then, is your challenge: pluck a situation from this week's news, one where you see a clear moral distinction. Defend it as such, then filter it through the origin of this post (the man on the bench). How do the two relate? End with a knowledge question, please, and post by your local noon on Wednesday, 30 July.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For my post I chose to report on my local news here in Jamaica. Recently there has been great controversy on the rise due to the growth of cross dressers and homosexuals on the island. Apart from the everyday news reporting the harsh treatment made on these cross dressers, on Sunday a special news documentary was shown interviewing victims of those being oppressed and their oppressors. This created a wave of discomfort and dilemma in Jamaica. The cross dressers felt as if they were being victimised because of their lifestyle. They mentioned that they would be simply walking on the road and when spotted would have to endure not only harsh judgemental words but also physical abuse. After the documentary was aired on television to be a voice for homosexuals, many Jamaicans increased their abusiveness on homsexuals and publicly admitted to stop viewing the channel the documentary was aired on. I think that morally because Jamaica is a Christian based society, homosexuality is not something that is tolerated. This is a bit contradicting because, rape, murders,thefts and other wrong things are not frowned upon as much as homosexuality. It is very contradicting as a matter of fact because if Jamaica is a Christian based society why aren't these other injustices frowned upon if all sin is sin? The homosexuals on the other hand said that they cannot control the gender they have feelings for and that they do nothing wrong. As far as morals they have their own justifying their actions.
ReplyDeleteJust like the man on the bench post the homosexuals think that what they are doing is morally correct. The Jamaican citizens think that homosexuality is immoral and therefore they are also correct hence there cannot be any crossroad in opinion to bring forth peace. As I was reading MLK Jr letter from the Birmingham jail he question the views on morals similar to the man on the bench post and many of the world events today. Because the world is so divided in its views there will be so many different languages (morals) which leads to the inability of different parties to understand. Just as individuals of the world speak literally different languages that cannot be understood if not by their peers, this is the same with differing moral opinions. Just as translators are able to clarify the languages to be easily relayed, but the message often times loses its value or does not take on the true meaning that individuals are trying to get across; this is the same way that different morals are often misunderstood by parties regardless of the mediator who may try to bring forth a leveled playfield of understanding amongst differing groups.
KQ: How can a common language amongst different parties be used to effectively justify and determine the truth?
KQ: To what extent can a knower's faith be used to dictate morals to a large group of people
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/world/middleeast/israel-gaza.html?ref=world
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses yet another burst of violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis. As more violence persists, Palestinians recently decided to seek safety in a refugee camp in Gaza. On Wednesday morning a United Nations school in the Jabaliya refugee camp was hit by, reportedly, four Israeli artillery shells. Reporters say at least 20 people were killed and one man was left with a home destroyed by flames and with no where to go. According to a military spokeswoman for the Israelis, this attack was in response to an event of Palestinian violence on nearby Israeli soldiers.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is full of moral question and debate, and this most recent event is no different. From this event, there is the question of whether or not the Israeli attack was justified. While some may believe that they had a right to attack the Palestinians because of the attack of their people, I would disagree. While I understand the anger and distain towards the attacks on the Israeli soldiers, I don't believe that violence is suitable revenge for violence. To me, it is immoral to kill anyone, by any means, for any reason. My morals say that no one deserves to have their life stolen from them, even if something or someone had been taken from me.
This event corresponds directly to the man on the bench. "For example, the word ‘terrorist’ and the word ‘freedom fighter’ are used to refer to the exact same people at the exact same time." To the Israelis, they are fighting to maintain their independence and status in the Middle East and in the world. They see their violence as an act of freedom. The Palestinians, however, see these acts of violence as terrorist attacks to destroy their chances at being independent. To the Palestinians, Hamas is an evil terrorist organization that is killing their people for nothing more than status in the world. To the Israelis, Hamas is a heroic organization protecting their reputation and independence.
So, I ask, to what extent is truth changed by perception and perspective?
KQ: How does experience/memory change the reason and logic behind revenge?
DeleteIn the past week, i have come across a piece of news presented by the chinese sinosphere. This news is that a 67 year old lady was arrested for "disrupting public order" at a police station. The lady was carried out from the station after screaming and demanding to see the person in charge.
ReplyDeleteA few days later, the family of the old lady sued the said police station
The moral distinction that I see here is that although this is a small issue and only a small injustice compared to everything else that is happening in the world, it brings up the question of the morality of laws.
The offense that the lady was arrested for is very vague, but the actions of the old lady was that while she sat in The waiting room of the police station, she demanded that she wanted to see the head officer of the station. Perhaps she was loud, and she could have disrupted people working at the station, but is is such a blunder that she deserved to be sent to jail? At least, from my parochial perspective, an old lady should not be sent to jail for voicing her discontent.
Trying to filter this situation though the man on the bench, I cannot say that what the lady did was right, but in This situation, no body is right. It is even less right to jail someone in the arbitrary way that the lady was arrested. However, the persecutors claims that they stuck to the law and their procedure. But to many people, the old lady did not deserve to be jailed for such a small and innocuous infringement of conduct rules. Then here is my knowledge question: where is the intersection of morality and legality? And does the law ultimately define what is moral?
Through emotion and perspective as ways of knowing, how can morality differ from legality?
Delete
ReplyDeleteIn the article I read, which focused on the continuous fighting and bloodshed in Israel and the Gaza Strip, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/world/middleeast/israel-gaza.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0, I began to gradually understand what the older man in the Humans of New York article spoke of. Truth, fact, and faith are to me, some of the main problems in this situation that has gone on and off for many decades. In the article I read, I learned of the many casualties on both the Israeli and Palestinians side (though the number of fatalities on the Palestinian side is significantly higher) through this now, 23 day war. What shocked me most however was the fact that this was no longer an attack of Palestinians against Israelis and Israelis against Palestinians, this war has in some ways also victimized the United Nations. Throughout Israel’s attempt to protect itself and remove the region of dangerous threats and plots against its civilians, the Israeli military has targeted and destroyed several UN buildings in the Gaza strip, meant to host and protect thousands of Palestinian refugees. While I respect both sides’ causes to strongly push for what they believe is right and their unending perseverance, I think there is a certain extent to which fighting is no longer moral or justifiable. I believe Israel’s choice to not only bring war to the territory of Gaza against a mass of innocent civilians, but to bring war to buildings owned by the United Nations of all, is a poor choice to make. Furthermore, Ben Hubbard and Jodi Rudoren, explained in this article that “‘Israel has hit 4,100 sites in Gaza, 1,566 of them connected to rocket-launching, 167 places that stored weapons and 746 “command-and-control centers,’” as stated by the Israeli military, which I think was completely unnecessary. Given that this is war, and “all is fair in love and war”, I understand Israel’s decision to fire against the 2,479 buildings which they justified as
basically, places which proved to be threats against them, however I do not understand the remaining 1,621 sites in Gaza which Israel hit without any reasoning. Here, in this situation of Israel and Palestinians, I think there is a lot of information to debate about morality with, however it all relates back to these people with significantly different faiths and language, which like the man on the bench explained, calls for different truths and facts that both sides live by but cannot use to find a compromise between their problems.
For this article, that really had me questioning people’s morality and strength to continue their fight for whatever their cause despite the fatal side effects which has been made clear, I came up with a knowledge question that I believe is important to understand: to what extent does the events which a person has visually perceived, affect their knowledge, faith, and future course of action?
To what extent does faith and knowledge affect a knower's perspective on an event they have seen first hand?
DeleteI’m not sure if you all have heard of the epidemic in Africa right now, but if you haven’t the epidemic is a disease called Ebola. Ebola is a virus that attacks the circulatory system, the respiratory system, the kidneys, liver and the nervous system. Since there is no one cure for the Ebola virus/ disease many people die from it. In this year alone there have been 672 people and counting who have died in the last 5 months. Unfortunately, there is not an abundance of research being put towards this cause, so once someone contracts the disease it is not likely that they will survive. This has become a problem for the world because people are afraid that the disease will find its way to their homeland so aid, nurses and countries are starting to turn away from West Africa in hopes that the virus will not reach their country. Nurses have left the clinics, aid has stopped going to West Africa and countries such as Liberia has closed their borders to keep the virus in and prevent more cases. I see this as the world being so worried about what will happen to them, when others are suffering. The question is ‘should people help or stay away so that others do not get infect?’ This is a question of self sacrifice because it is easy to sacrifice yourself, but a whole country is another story. I personally think that people should stop worrying about themselves and help those in need. My opinion on this comes from my faith and my emotion because I know that if I had a disease that did not have a cure I would want someone to help me find it...I mean... isn’t that what people are doing for cancer?
ReplyDeleteI guess the man on the bench represents what the right thing to do in this situation would be. I think it is helping, but others might think that keeping the virus away is the best answer. As bench man said, those with power hold the truth, or are right and since West Africa is not a very powerful region, the influential countries such as the U.S, United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, and China might make the call on what to do.I am afraid they might choose wrong.
To what extent can emotions influence one's perspective and impact their definition of morality which impacts their definition of right from wrong?
DeleteThis week in China, there is a big turbulence that one of the former most important members of the Politburo Standing Committee, which is China’s highest decision-making body, Zhou Yongkang has been investigated for “serious disciplinary violation”. Since President Xi Jinping came into power in 2012, he has launched an anti-corruption campaign. He aims to get rid of the corruption of the lowly “flies” and elite “tigers”. Thousands of corrupt officials have been nabbed, but Zhou is the first “tiger” who had been in such a crucial position in the Communist Party. As Xi became the president with the pledge of getting rid of corruption, the Communist Party starts to correct its own issues by itself. This is definitely a good thing for both the party and the general public. Zhou illegally used his power to run his business and to get more money. His son is nabbed this time as well due to illegal business. The money, which should be used to build the country, is now returned to the society. After Zhou’s investigation, a lot of other lowly “flies” are also caught.
ReplyDeleteXi’s presidency has won a lot of popularity these years. After this event, he further shows his dominating authority in the party. It has long been a problem that China is a single party state so there is a lot of corruption. Eliminating such corruption can absolutely better the political environment in China. First, Xi’s power is significantly enlarged. Secondly, it can deter further corruption. Thirdly, the general public will have more confidence towards the government. To most Chinese, Xi’s action helps to develop a better party/government and country.
On the other hand, Xi’s action exposed the dark history of the party. Zhou was famous for his plain lifestyle and his man-of –the –people style. Everyone in China was shocked when the news about Zhou’s corruption broke out. There are a lot of people start to question that how the government is really regulating its officials and important decisions to the country. For me, I could not accept the fact that a national leader like Zhou was so corrupted and had been in power for so many years. If there is one Zhou in the government, there must be much more officials like him. Personally, I am so disappointed. Thinking of terrible living conditions in the rural area in China, I could not imagine how people like Zhou could be so greedy for money and not be thinking about those people. There is just so much darkness in the government and maybe the whole society in China.
Speaking of Franny’s man, I can’t agree more with his statement that “Because without the existence of truth, the person who is most powerful become the person who is right”. Although in the situation of Chinese government officials’ corruption, there is no clear truth or lie. There is only right or wrong. Everyone knows corruption is bad. However, when there are “tigers” like Zhou become corrupted, the lowly “flies” would follow them and think they are just following the leaders. Although it is morally wrong, following the big “tigers” is definitely a right to choice to survive in that environment. Hence, a powerful man can change and control everything, not just distorting the truth.
KQ: To what extent can a knower’s ability of distinguishing right or wrong being influenced by stronger forces?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-07/30/content_18217524.htmhttp://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-07/30/content_18215962.htm
DeleteKQ : How objective can knowledge be described, when emotion is used as a way of knowing?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBy using reasoning, how rationally can the knowers be when evaluating something or somebody that has brought negative effects to them?
ReplyDeleteTo what extent can power influence one's perspective on the truth?
ReplyDeleteKQ: How does our knowledge of emotion have a role in ethics and morality?
ReplyDeleteIs that too specific?
If all knowers looked at situations from a neutral perspective, to what extent would problems be solved more efficiently?
ReplyDeleteHere is Qianqian's post:
ReplyDeleteSharing a weakness for James Franco and a facination towards North Korea, my knowledge question is: to what extent can the knower's reason and emotion limit and discourage his/her artistic expression?
Because apparently, not everyone is as brave or "egregious" as Seth Rogen in their artistic creation.
The article mentioned that North Korea calls the movie an act of war, and i cant help but wonder if that is the North Korean government.
Native Americans have been oppressed and the question thus becomes is it morally correct to "rectify" the mistakes made in the past by giving them the right to have advantages over other people now? We are all human, what are the consequences of moral relativism (having different moral codes and ethics depending on your culture)?
ReplyDeleteMoral relativism definitely plays into it, because as the oppressors we have ideas about just and unjust behavior based on what we have given to the Native American people. One could argue that we brought riches and education to America, the Europeans who oppressed the Native Americans gave so many more people better lives. These concessions, though, didn't help the oppressed. How does emotion affect moral relativism, both for the worse and for the better?