Reparations conversations

Penn and Teller:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7B9QZlr8YQ

http://youtu.be/ZmZ1yJSR1KI

Ogletree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6PBbbnPwfw

From the Democratic primary in 2008:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5XAvfgpesU

Our Loyalty

Well in class we saw two short videos. We saw the Bulgers brothers and David Kacynski. It was about loyalty. Was David Kacynski being loyal to family ties when he turn in his brother or to himself and society. Or Billy Bulgers who deny knowing where his brother was hiding. Each had their own loyalty dilemma.

In class we divided in small groups to discuss loyalty dilemmas in our own lives. I personally do not know what was discuss in other groups. I will tell you a little about my loyalty dilemma I had. I stop speaking to my 35 years old sister who had 3 children and was and still is unfit to be a mother. Her 3 kids were taken from her due to she left her oldest boy who was 6 years old to keep an eye on his 2 sister age 3 years old and a month old. When the kids w ere taken from her she came running to me to help her. I refuse to help because this was not the first time it happen and she was not going to learn anything. My two nieces were adopted by their foster parents but my nephew was given back to her last year. As of today she still live from house to house and she left her 17 year old living on his own. No money or a permanent place to live. He will be turning 18 on Dec . 14, 2011 and he told his mother he wanted to live with his older brother. He has been there 2 days already and they sign him up to get his GED.

My loyalty were to my nephew and nieces and I am happy my nieces are happy, safe, and just a joy to be with. My nephew is on the right track now and I am glad for him to realize that he was not going anywhere with his mother.

It is never easy to cut off loved ones but there is time that its needed for your own survival and peace of mind.

PSA: Expediting E-Portfolio Digication Recovery

Chapter 9 - Loyalty and Morals

If one is patriotic and loyal to their own nation, do they have an inherent responsibility to reconcile with past injustices of their past compatriots?

Where do assimilated immigrants and foreigners stand? Is it just and economically sustainable to pardon victims with repatriation for every crime? Are there exclusions and exceptions for those who are recluse and nonparticipant? Must we civilly sue each other as a way to maintain an integral society?

Can past injustices such as cruel treatment during the occupying of Manchuria by the Japanese, be ever forgiven? Wouldn't repatriation serving as a bribe, simply insult the victim? Does it only aid to clearing the conscience of the murder? Is repatriation a way of clearing the past sins for embracing a nation's economic fruition and sorrows amongst the victims?

Does this only serve as a mechanism to enable further acts of crime? Isn't it to say that recalling thousands of Ford Pintos, due to the small chance of an explosion of faulty fuel tanks, not worthwhile, because the cost-benefit analysis deems it so? Ford says it's cost-beneficial to repatriate, only when justice is brought against them. Does this deem Ford immoral?

England still hold very much of accumulated wealth, in addition to the economic uplift from their colonizing endeavors of past centuries. Should there be a ceremony and celebration when the England transferred the sovereignty of Hong Kong back to the People's Republic of China, in 1996, despite the history of the opium wars?

How does one about the event of victim refusing repatriation? Is it ever just for China to seek retaliation? An eye for an eye?

It's arguable to say that we're not always a collective human whole, when it comes to loyalty? Do we only serve loyalty amongst our six-degree of separation first, before others? What if one has no extended, nor a nuclear family? Is it perhaps, we only sincerely owe loyalty to ourselves?

Unabomber stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

Analysis from Washington Post of the Manifesto: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.summary.htm

The Manifesto: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

Loyalty

Some thoughts on loyalty in trying circumstances (we'll watch these today, 12/5)

David Kaczynski

The Bulger Brothers

Billy Bulger

Next time (12/7), we're going to talk about loyalty and solidarity obligations, like patriotism. On the menu: reparations. Yup, we're going there.

Purposeful Point-of-View? - Chapter 8

In Chapter 8, Aristotle presents his philosophical idea of Telos; justify the actions or desires based on inherent purpose.

Are ideas and beliefs completely absolute, or are they constantly being altering?

Referring back to Chapter 2; is the purpose of obtaining a college education, a scholarly desire, or is the means of a cost-benefit one?

Furthering this: Are we merely scholars who partake in research and expand the universe's knowledge for the sake of learning, or are we merely students here funded by corporate tuition reimbursements, to primarily further one's earning potential?

Are we to do more than to just simply eat, sleep, and work? Do we ignore the blessings of evolving cognition and language?

What if the purpose is to be find out our purpose here in life? What if life as we know it, is a journey, an embarkment of discovering one's purpose? What if we can't justify our purpose, in our lifetime?

What is one's purpose here, at Bunker Hill Community College?

Yet again,
Pre-Gamers

Reacting to Affirmative Actions - Chapter 7

It can be seen that Americans preach a sense of pride when they proclaim their country as "free", often referring to the founding fathers of the United States, and the amendments of our Constitutions and Bill of Rights. Incorporating the readings of Michael Sandel of Justice in Chapter 7, invokes the sudden question: how far does freedom of discrimination span?

In our 5th amendment; section 1:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Sandel provokes the widely held topic leading to modern-today: affirmative action. Is it just?

Countering this claim is the number of for-profit collegiate institutions that are arising, today. Most notable are The University of Phoenix, ITT Technical Institute, The Art Institutes, Academy of Art -- with their commercials and advertisement that plaster webpages and televisions -- nationwide. Has society become intertwined with disrupted belief of the necessity obtaining a college degree?

There is also Harvard Extension School, which was founded on the belief of serving the educational needs of the greater community. Are there two realms in segregated disguise? Exclusive and lucrative side that brings prestige to the famed leading institution: Harvard, and the less idolized cousin, Harvard Extension School, whom focuses its attention on serving (educating) the greater community and beyond.

Doesn't it seem like many corporations of today, share the same setup? Bank of America, an influential Fortune 100 company, is attacked from all angles; from excessive debit card fees, unsavory sub-prime mortgage lending practices, to obnoxious annual executive bonuses. Yet, there is the acclimating Building for Opportunity program that sponsors community development, plaguing the 'like' buttons of Facebookers all over. In the umbrella of this BofA, it appears that affirmative action is in effect, pardoned, low-interest, long-term loans to serve the "Energy Efficiency" to areas with low-income families.

Must Bank of America have their charitable arm and marketing department present a shining light amongst themselves? Is there a certain image, they feel obligated to maintain?

This response can be furthered, with the rise non-profit collegiate institutions embarking on massive global fund-raising campaigns, collecting often billions -- many times triumphing the surrounding entities and businesses. You can see MBTA advertisements, in addition to those found in the Boston Metro newspaper, that feature accelerated tracks for degrees in Masters in Business Administration, or the handful of specialized degrees tailored for company men and women, as to an academic scholar. Suffolk, Northeastern, and Boston University are no strangers to marketing and tuition reimbursements.

Universities today hold more power than ever, and it doesn't seem to come to a standstill. Are we to believe affirmation is merely superficial and hollow? After all, institutions do offer honorary degrees to those dropped-out or never attended, much to those of such to the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Despite changing the paradigm of personal computing as we know it today, these technological pioneers did not completely endure the scholarly efforts in hardship of research and indoctrination, yet their offerings were distinct and warmly appreciated.

Is this the case for Harvard Extension School? Do we live in a society where we feel compelled to overshadow the unsavory things we do on a daily basis, with the presentation of doing good? Or are we misconstruing a questionable identity, which we allow entities and institutions to partake in a puppet theater of a "double-life"?

Perhaps, community engaged, Harvard Extension School, and community colleges are intrinsically more favorable to attend than Harvard College and typical baccalaureate institutions.

If promoting diversity is the objective, rather than selectively lowering standards to those of minority and disadvantaged backgrounds (and by omission, raising the standards for outsiders), shouldn't universities base their admission practices on pure merits? Meritocracies in baccalaureate institutions are commonly found all over the world. Chinese and Korean students place their child and adolescent-hood on preparing for their nation's college entrance exam. There are rarely second chances, and if ever, they are certainly hard to come by for the average family.

If we restrict the growing, influential and powerful collegiate institutions from making arbitrary discriminative admission decisions, in favor for one based purely on merits, do we, say that it's just to live in a world based on inherited, blessed advantages? Are these advantages just, for they were immorally accumulated? How do we reconcile and rekindle beyond the past endeavors and suffering, engrossed by our respective ancestors and heritage, in a balanced way? Is it ever possible without bias and contempt? Does this obstruct identifying the entirety of one's character, background, adversity, and potential?

Once again,
Pre-Gamers

The limits of loyalty

For this week, along with chapter 9 of Sandel, please read:

"With all Boston Listening, UMass Leader Says Little" from The New York Times

"I Don't Want to Live Long," by Stephen J. Dubner (profile of Ted Kaczynski)

DIGICATION UPDATE (important)

Don't panic!

I know your portfolio might look like it has disappeared. It hasn't. Digication has encountered some technical problems--BHCC can't fix them, they're at the servers that Digication itself owns. I'm not clear about what exactly has gone wrong, but Digication assures us they are working on the problem. Right now, it looks like portfolios have disappeared; Digication is assuring us that your data has not been lost, and that its staff are working to restore the data.

I know this is probably disturbing and irritating to you as you work on your final portfolios. This is really irritating to me too--I know I promised to get all your portfolios back by Friday night, and I had planned to get them all back by tonight (Thursday night). Tonight is definitely not going to happen--we'll see about Friday!

We'll see how quickly Digication is able to get the portfolios back online. I'll keep you posted!

Late Half Time Post

Is it possible to make a perfect island/country with laws that both appease and help everyone?

Alex says: Perfection in itself is impossible to maintain, especially when in the creation of a society. Too many personal desires get involved and divide the final answer. I think instead of perfection, a society must reach a level of compromise that tends to everyones needs rather than everyones wants. Only then can a culturally combined society thrive under laws that protect everyones individual rights to exist as themselves.

As members of a society, are we constantly only thinking about ourselves or do we think of others and how are decisions may affect others?

In terms of your constitution groups, were the laws you created realistic to today's society, or just an outline of the perfect society we all wish to live in?

Would you consider having a veil of ignorance a positive or negative thing for society? Do the laws you constructed in groups somewhat reflect thinking with a veil of ignorance?

Service Project form

Please fill out this form documenting your service project. This is important both for my records and for the College's records.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dDFQOUJlOUh6aE1CUXprNWNUSkZIYWc6MQ#gid=0

It should take ten minutes or less, I expect!

REMINDER! Service project due WEDNESDAY at 11:59 PM!

Hi everyone!

Just a quick reminder: the service project is due tomorrow, WEDNESDAY, at 11:59 PM.

You can find the guidelines in the previous post. Briefly, by 11:59 PM tomorrow, please send me an email (profpoole at gmail dot com) with a link to your portfolio.

In your portfolio, you should have completed the "Service Project" section. In that section, you need to:

1. Explain what you did. Describe your project, complete with multimedia. Make your readers feel like they were there.

2. Explain how it impacted people--the people you served, your colleagues in service, and yourself.

3. (important but hard!) Explain WHY what you did was, morally speaking, the right thing to do. What is the philosophical justification for why what you did was right?

Tomorrow, Wednesday, 11/23, CLASS WILL NOT MEET AS USUAL. From 1:05-2:15 tomorrow, instead of class, I will be in my office (B-227-H at BHCC Charlestown), and available on Google Chat and email, ready to respond to your last-minute questions about the service project. This will PROBABLY be your last chance to be in touch with me before the portfolio deadline, as I teach Wednesday afternoons and evenings!

Service Project guidelines

Also: here are the guidelines for the service project, in case you have lost your copy.

Visit to TLITC for e-portfolio

Remember, tomorrow, Wednesday, we're meeting at our usual classroom and then immediately going to E-230, the Teaching, Learning, and Instructional Technology Center to learn about Digication, the e-portfolio app that you will use for your portfolios, where, among other things, you will display your SERVICE PROJECTS. (YAY!)

Please bring your photos, writing, etc for your portfolio so you can get started in creating your portfolio with your real stuff! You could use a flash drive, a cloud service like Dropbox, or just email the files to yourself.

Please make sure you have logged into bhcc.digication.com and made sure your login works before tomorrow's class! Your login is your entire BHCC email address (whatever@bhcc.edu), your password is your email password.

Half Time Post

In class we talked about equality; The concept that all people are not restricted by their means and are given equal chance to benefit their own life and society as a whole. Other definitions include equal opportunity in the military, jobs, education, and marriage.

1. In terms of the "veil of ignorance", Rawls says ignorance about ourselves will lead to a fair society for all people. Do we allow our class, race, ethnicity, and family background to interfere with the decisions we make towards society as a whole? Are we limited in life because of where we come from or how much money we have?

2. Does succeeding in todays society depend on whether you come from a wealthy background or any other type of social or economic advantage?

3. Regardless of family background or class, a person should be free to work and strive in any job in any society. Would our society today benefit from a merit based society, one in which people are rewarded for their efforts, not put down because of disadvantages we cannot control?

4. Will those with natural talents always get ahead of those with less of an advantage? For example, take two basketball players, but one with a natural born talent reaches the NBA and makes millions, beats out the other competitor who works hard to make himself better. How can we equal out the playing field to allow those with less of an advantage in life become just as successful as people with natural talent?

A really well produced version of Harrison Bergeron!!!

www.finallyequal.com

Harrison Bergeron

On video!

Harrison Bergeron

On video!

Pregame Post: John Rawls and Equality

Hello! Pregame team here with some questions posed from "Chapter 6: The Case for Equality / John Rawls" from Justice by Michael J. Sandell and Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.

What makes a contract just?
What kind of obligations does a seller have to a buyer?
Is it fair to take advantage of an uneducated buyer?
What is the advantages / disadvantages of a free-market?

Is individualized success always fair?
Is it okay to handicap our talented?
Should our successful be forced to share their wealth?
Is it possible to adjust an unequal society without serious repercussions?

What does an individual deserve?
Is "accident of birth" or "natural born talent" an unfair advantage / disadvantage?

What is motivation?
Is the individual born motivated?
Is incentive important to keeping talented individuals motivated to contribute to society?

Who decides what skills are valuable to a society?
Is it fair to pay an actor more than a teacher?

Should we accept the "unfairness" of life?
Can our differences be something to work with?

Equality? Really?

For this week please read:

Sandel, Chapter 6"

Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut


Also: HEY! Halftime group, postgame group, y'all are slacking! Pregame is leaving you in the dust!

I. "Just" Kant: Reject Utilitarianism

What Matters is the Motive/Immanuel Kant Chapter 5

In chapter 5 Michael Sandel introduces the important theories of Immanuel Kant who lived from 1724-1804. Kant challenged the concept of utilitarianism which treats people as a means to an end to achieve the maximum utility. Kant argues that people are rational beings capable of reason, and as such deserve respect and should be treated as an end in themselves.

Freedom

With this thought, we must also then consider his framing of freedom. He describes freedom as “autonomy” from desires, preferences, biological determination, or social conditioning outside of yourself. Where our decisions are not free Kant made up the word “heteronomoy.” Sandel uses the scenario of ice cream to show us the difference of acting heteronomously. It may seem like the decision between flavors is our own but it’s not! We didn’t choose our preference of one flavor over another.

How can we act autonomously? By simply having a preference of one action over another, can we ever achieve autonomy? Would making a decision against our preferences be considered autonomy? My example: it is very cold outside and I don’t want to be cold so I will put my boots on. My preference is for warmth so my action is not free, heteronomy. If I go against my preference for warmth and wear sandals is this autonomy? Kant claims on page 107 that “happiness contributes nothing whatsoever toward the establishment of morality.” Is there room for happiness in Kant’s philosophy?

Sandel sums up this concept of freedom in one important sentence at the bottom of page 109. “To act freely is not to choose the best means to a given end; it is to choose the end itself, for its own sake-a choice that humans beings can make and billiard balls (and most animals) cannot.”

Here is a comedy sketch about acting against our preferences.

Kids in the Hall - Bathroom Support Group

Reason

Where does our freedom, the capability of opposing a law forced on us, come from? It comes from our ability to reason, Kant said, which determines our will, separate from our nature and inclination. Kant's definition of reason is much different from that of other definitions at that time. The utilitarian definitions of reason describe it as being able to maximize utility by satisfying desires we happen to have. We can see immediately that this contradicts Kant's freedom.

Thomas Hobbes called reason the "scout for the desires," and David Hume called it the "slave of the passions." If reason were as simple as that then we would be better off with instinct, Kant said.

Kant recognizes that as long as we are able to act freely then it must prove that we are acting with reason.

Kant made the claim that because all human beings are capable of reason that we must therefore treat each other with dignity. What is our duty to animals who are not capable of reason?

Morality

Kant’s explanation of morality is easier to understand. Kant said that the morality of a person can be judged not by the outcome of their efforts or even the decision they have made but rather the motive behind that decision. You could make the right decision but for the wrong reasons. He claimed that only the actions made out of the “motive of duty” have moral worth.

Sandel questions the moral worth of deeds done out of compassion, like our service project. It is hard to tell if our volunteer work has moral worth because 1) we are compelled to do it for class. How many of us would be volunteering otherwise? 2) are we acting out of compassion? If so Kant said the compassion of the altruist (altruist being the devotion and interest in the welfare of others) “deserves praise and encouragement, but not esteem.”

5-way Kidney Swap

There is a complicated system for donating organs where a recipient has a family member willing to donate but isn’t a match. This system pairs compatible healthy donors with a person in need of an organ who does match. By willingly donating an organ, their loved one receives an organ in operations involving up to five transplant at once! Does the decision of the donor to give an organ lack moral worth when we look at the motive?

Half-Time Monday Recap

On Monday the 31st, we discussed our e-portfolios, learned how to start a movement, and discussed property;
To start a movement, a fearless and confident leader is necessary. Even more important is the first follower. That person transforms the lone leader into the beginnings of a group. Once the first follower (who must be treated as an equal) joins, a second, third, fourth, et cetera will follow. Once there are upwards of 3 people in the group, more will follow as there is less risk.

**Document (with screenshots of FB/Twitter/etc.) how you are spreading the word about your service**

John Locke's Labor Theory of Value: A person can own what is in the natural world (common, public land, things 'owned' by the Earth) by mixing labor with it or mixing yourself with it. For example, if you pick apples in a public orchard, the said apples are yours because YOU put in the work to pick them.
Locke's exceptions: There must be enough and as good for others (you can't pick every single apple and leave none for everyone else).
No waste! (Don't be greedy; you can't pick 35 apples when you only need 20 and let the remaining 15 rot)

Here are some of our miscellaneous notes from the lecture:
To give/sell something, that thing must be yours.
Once barter/trade economies got complicated, Locke believed that currency and a government was necessary ONLY to regulate property and property disputes.
Who decides a thing's worth?;
Capitalists: A market economy, supply and demand should determine prices/worth.
Socialists: The government should decide and enforce currency (incl. weights, measurements etc.) and regulate prices.

Question(s) posed in class, answered;
How far should the government go in regulating wealth? Wealth caps? Inheritance? Flat tax?
"I don't think we should tax millionaires/people with wealth more because it's not fair or just. Whether their money was inherited or earned, it's their money. Everyone should be taxed equally whether you are working class or wealthy. This makes me think of a past discussion we had in class about banning the color yellow. What it came [sic.] down to was, people would ban the color yellow on the reason that people didn't like it. If we tax millionaires more its like we're punishing them for something that may or may not have control over."
"I believe that a progressive tax is just and fair. For example, a flat 10% tax on a $20,000 income ($2,000) is so much more detrimental than $20,000 to a $200,000 income (They still have 180,000). People making 6+ figures can (typically) spare some money to help America and participate in our democracy, whereas working class families making barely-over-the-poverty-line do NOT have that kind of cash to spare. After groceries, electricity, bills, college tuition, etc., there just isn't money to spare. A flat tax is unrealistic. Take Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, studies have shown that over 86% of Americans would be paying more taxes than are being paid now. The "99%"/middle class, lower class, and the impoverished make up that 86% and we just can't afford it. Also, in response to my group-mate who sees taxes as punishment, I disagree. I think taxes are good. Taxes are necessary and one of the many ways we participate in a democracy." :)

What do you think?

SERVICE PROJECT PRESENTATIONS

I’m not really sure what exactly I’m suppose to write but just to sum up Wednesday’s class most of us talked about our presentations in front of the class and we got to hear some feedback not only from Prof. Poole but from our classmates. There’s a few of you who couldn’t make it to both of the days that we meet so be prepared on Monday to talk about whatever it is you want to do for your service project. If you don’t know what it is we’re doing for the next class meet or if you’re feeling a bit lost Click on this link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IkDfipRhsHacESF1a76KNUCERgQ5A258n83PsMfjHRw/edit?hl=en_US

And you could catch yourself up on what the guidelines are for this project.

Hope all of you are having a great weekend

GO JETS!

Service Project guidelines

Service Project guidelines! As promised!

Can't wait for more PRESENTATIONS ON WEDNESDAY!

Pre-Game: Constrasting Unalienable Rights and the Limitations of Consent

Inalienable rights you say? Eighteen-century English Philosopher, John Locke's theory is that of universal humanistic individuals should share fundamental "natural" rights, asserting, "we can neither give them up nor take them away from anyone else," presents colliding and conflicting thoughts with previously raised, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill's ethical theory: utilitarianism. We will provoke fundamental ideas of the past to pursue applied theory upon political and governmental hierarchical structures of modern-today.

Michael Sandel in Chapter 4 of Justice, raises the question on the lines of, "if you can get away without paying taxes, would you do it?"

With the exception of specific taxes, income taxes--majority of taxes--are pooled together and relocated to pay/fund government expenditures. Controversial ones are: foreign aid, military operations/occupations, subsidies, programmes, etc. that not everyone agrees.

Adhering to the principles of libertarianism, does paying taxes into the "system" that you may not completely agree to all segments/sectors of (the government), constitute as a violation of individual, naturalistic rights? Is it okay for the government to bear the position of being the de facto facilitator of redistributing wealth?

Current-day protests/riots take stance at the wealthiest, and particularly, the wealthiest of wealthiest: do wealthy owe it to the greater good, to be arbitrarily taxed of their wealth, to in effect, distribute it to the less wealthy?

- On the flip-side: is it okay for the powers of be--elites--to arbitrarily tax those of the non-wealthly "common-man (persons)" category?

--------------

Introspect: wouldn't the redistribution of wealth, continue to fund the utilitarian government expenditures in the future? After all, the majority of tax receipts are pooled together and reallocated--much like having a sole primary checking account. However, we have seen, and continue to see, political administrations/parties whom have exponentially ran, and continue to run, deficits to fund their agendas.

How far does one allow the utility of taxes to consume the fruits of their own labor? Is it possible to lose our incentive system (market capitalism), and transition into a declining stagnation (see: communism/socialism)? Introspect within an introspect: Does utilitarianism in the context of communism/socialism serve the greater whole? Contrast the differences of: East/West Germany; North/South Korea; USSR/Eastern Europe, Russia.

--------------

Investigating the conflicts of individual rights by way of utilitarianism in the reading of Organs for Sale reading by Sally Satel.

A kidney may save your life, or another person's. Perhaps more. The evidence is favorable. Is it okay for our society to object (regulate; disagree) to a market based incentive system (marketplace) for monetarily valuing (buying/selling: trading) organs? On a fundamental scope: a individual buyer and individual seller consents (agrees) to a determined price for a good/exchange of service (in this case: organ(s); is this morally just?

Prohibition for organs. Is utilitarianism counter-intuitive in this context? Does it truly maximize the "greater good" to deny an incentive system for consenting buyers and sellers to alleviate, with the high likeliness of meeting the demand of, the ever increasing, waiting list of organ-doner-seekers out there?

--------------

Extrapolating this further: is it wrong for someone who is in desperate need of a kidney (see: death) to [no pun intend] operate under the guise of a black market organ system, and/or to travel to another country--one with a organ marketplace un-prohibited?

Introspect: Should we object and shun the person for doing something that our utilitarian laws deem lawful? Or, is it justifiable? If justifiable, in this context and/or as an absolute, does it shatter the utilitarianism theory; when majority rule does not confer favorably (see: saving lives; cost/productivity benefit analysis) for the universal human whole?


Until next time,
Pre-Gamers

BunkerHill Community Engagement Link

http://www.bhcc.mass.edu/int-eng/enghome.html

It's been so long since we've met, I've forgotten what most of you look like!  :)

Kidding.

Today, we'll mainly work on thinking about the service projects.  Due to the holiday we really don't have time to do the stuff about money *and* talk about your service projects, and we've got to get started with the service projects!

Why is this so important?

You already know!  Next week, we'll devote class time to your 1-2 minute proposals about your service projects.  In class next week (10/17 and 10/19) you will introduce your service project and explain why you think it will make the world a better place.  Tell us WHAT you will do, HOW it will impact people, and WHY (philosophically speaking) it's the right thing to do.

Halftime feedback on cannibalism

The articles from Theodore Dalrymple, "The Case for Cannibalism" and BBC "German Cannibal Tells of Fantasy". We all read about Armin Meiwes' who placed an advertisement on the internet for a young man to be eaten alive. That young man name was Bernd-Jurgen Brande who answer the advertisement in March of 2001. The only reason that Meiwes got caught he place another advertisement and the police were alerted

Now here are some responses to some of the questions posted by the pregamers.

• In the case where cannibalism is used as a ritual, such as sacrificing and eating their opponenet as revenge....then, does that make the act of eating another's flesh okay.
  

Our answer to that is in our society it is not correct or legal. In other society we have to realize that some tribes do not know anything but cannibalism. It is a way of living and survival, they are fulfilling religious rites. Tribal practices that predate the society that we live in and they find it a normal thing to do.

• Should an individual's rights (freedom) be restricted if he/she is "emotionally ill?"

Yes the individual's rights should be restricted look at Bernd-Jurgen Brande who agree to be eaten alive. He most had been "emotionally ill" to agree to be eaten alive.

Locke Questions

• Is there such thing as total freedom?

No there is no total freedom in our society or other societies. If we had total freedom it would be the beginning of the end in an anarchistic fashion. We have rules for the sole purpose to protect our rights and allow us to live as "free" as we can amongst one another with all of our differences.

• Can one be completely free?
  No one is completely free we all follows rules and laws from our society.

HALFTIME FEEDBACK

In conjuction with the discussinon that we were debating about banning yellow in Boston the halftime group is against it. We were discussing if the majority votes to ban yellow it will lead to other issues that will infringe upon our rights. It's like John Locke's philosophy is based on natural right meaning that certain rights belong to all regardless of where they live. We all believe in life, health, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Spreadsheet!

Use THIS SPREADSHEET to sign up for your timeslot for next week's oral exam!

Pre-Game: Locke/Cannibalism

Hey guys, here are the questions that we came up for the reading. Hope that they get you thinking! :)

Cannibalism Questions:

• We are familiar with cannibalism as a source of survival- where human flesh is eaten to avoid starvation. However, cannibalism is also used as a source of dietary and rituals.

• In the case where cannibalism is used as a ritual, such as sacrificing and eating their opponents as revenge…Then, does that make the act of eating another’s flesh okay?

• Should an individual’s rights (freedom) be restricted if he/she is “emotionally ill?”

• If everyone were giving the choice to do as they please, how would that affect society as a whole? Would it be beneficial to society? Or would it destroy it?

• If both parties agree to a crime, where one of them is going to die, is a crime still being committed?

• If someone is mentally ill, should they receive the same punishment as someone who is “sane”?

• Should the government monitor the internet to make sure that ads that intail a crime being committed is not posted? If not, should the government be looked down upon more than the person that committed the crime?

• Germany lets the public see and hear about everything that is happening in any case. Depending on the nature of the crime, should this be allowed?

• Do you believe that the “individual, not the state, is the judge of his/her own interests”?

Locke Questions:

• Is there such a thing as total freedom?

• Can someone have too much freedom? How much freedom is too much freedom?

• Can one be completely free?

• Which is more important in a society: paternal society or political society? Which is the most effective?

• If it right for a government to have its citizens all live at the same level? Or should the levels be earned, like in a game of survival of the fittest?

• If you were told that you had to share your, hard earned, wealth with other people who were not trying to make money, would you be okay with this?

Post Game - The Color Yellow

In general, the class agreed on the idea of preserving civil liberties. However, after listening to the discussion from the pre-gamers, they introduced the hypothetical situation of the discrimination of the color yellow could lead to gang violence, hate crimes, and segregation. Upon our discussions, the post game group arrived at the concept of the majority not always being morally correct. Just because the majority has the highest number of supports does not always mean they are doing the right thing. In this situation, banning the color yellow infringes upon the civil liberties of the individual. The suggestion to ban the color yellow is felt by the post gamers to only pacify the needs and feelings of the majority and is not concerned with the civil liberties of the individual.

Readings for the week beginning 9/25

NEW READINGS HERE!!


Know your rights!



Sandel, Chapter 3
Excerpts from Second Treatise on Government, by John Locke
Cases on cannibalism, prostitution, and suicide:
BBC "German Cannibal Tells of Fantasy"
Theodore Dalrymple, "The Case for Cannibalism"
Please read this blog post from the Philosophy Talk folks, which covers some cool ideas about prostitution.
CNN feature on Blick v. Connecticut, "Dying with Dignity"






And, thanks to a suggestion that I should draw your attention to this somehow to differentiate it from other posts: I am inserting a semi-random video.  This is the most recent song on my iPod.  The main purpose it serves in this post is to make it LOOK DIFFERENT.  You are not required to listen to the song.)


(But it's actually quite a good song.  You might like it. :) )

Pre-Game Blog

Thanks for the great summary, Post-Gamers!

Here are some ideas we'd like to invite you all to explore for the coming week:

Why does it seem societies treat different age groups differently?
Why does it seem the loss of childlike innocence leads to the making of poor choices as adults?
As others get older and begin to understand right from wrong, do we - should we - hold them to a higher standard?


How do we know when an action is worth of punishment?
How much punishment is enough?
Should we stop if the offender feels remorse?
Whose responsibility is it to intervene? Why?

Who creates the norms of society?
Why we allow them this final say?
Should different groups be subject to different moral code?
How do we decide who is worthy of our love?
Why do we make these classifications?
Why must some suffer for the actions of others?
What does this say about a society that allows this behavior?

Does the sacrifice of one's own happiness ever create a better environment for the many?
Is it ever morally acceptable to put a price of a human being's life?

Why do we seem to value statistics and the greater good instinctively, but find it upsetting when these situations are put in front of us?
Why does the "out of sight, out of mind mentality" make peace of mind come easier than facing the situation?
Why do some choose to stay uninformed? Why do some do nothing even when informed?
Why does the price of morality come from the suffering of others? Why, only after we are outraged, do we act?
How can mankind be capable of such horrendous behavior and still judge others?

What happens if our "duty to our fellow man" proves to be more than we are capable of delivering?
Why do we allow ourselves to feel guilt - even if we can get away with what we've done?
Is a situation ever really helpless?


Enjoy! And Have a Great Week!

Post-Blog

The Constitution and Dudley&Stevens case both reflect the important ethical belief of whether or not it is more important to focus on the greater good or individual rights of society. We believe that both cases show that society is more focused on the greater good over the individual rights. The Constitution was made for the benefit of everyone but was not able focus more on specific problems of the individual. The ratification made in the constitution represent the concerns of the rights of the people as individuals in the community. The Dudley & Stevens case showed that the greater good prevailing over the individual rights. The two sailors that thought up the idea to kill the young man and eat him for survival; only because they felt it was either all of them die or they kill the young man to survive. The individual rights was less important then the greater good in that circumstance.

Readings for the week beginning 9/19:
Sandel, chapter 2
Excerpt from The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula K. LeGuin

Please DO NOT read Mill, Utilitarianism.  I've changed my mind.  Just make sure you read chapter 2 of Sandel very thoroughly.

Week 1:The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens

Hey, sorry everybody for the late post!! Hopefully all of those who regularly check the internet might see this before class begins.

Alicia had some really good questions in response to the hand out. Here they are.

- Should we rate the value of another's life in comparison to our own?

- Who are we to decide if someone's reasoning behind their actions is "justifiable" to the circumstances of their situation?

- Is taking the life of another ever a true "necessity"?

- Should justification play a role of greater importance in law or morality?

- Where does the line between the law and morality blur? (Gray area)

- Who should be responsible for punishment? .. Should the individual's remorse be taken into consideration?

- When should empathy and mercy be shown when it comes to punishment?

This question of cannibalism reminds me of the story of an airplane carrying a rugby team that crashes in the Andes. The survivors sustain themselves on the bodies of the dead. They were stranded for over 70 days high up in the mountains. Here is a link to a documentary about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA2zYwp4XzY&feature=related

Pre-game team!  I'm dying to read what you've got!  Please post soon--I and your classmates are really hoping to hear from you soon to help us prepare for Monday's class! If you need any help, you know where to find me!

Hi all! Thanks for a good first class today! I'll look forward to resuming our introductions on Monday!

 Just a reminder: for next class, please make sure you read the first chapter of Justice, our textbook for this class, as well as The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, which I handed out in class today. You can read it here online if you missed the handout.

 Please also make sure you fill out the Google form linked on the previous post so you can get access to this blog.

 If you have any questions about the syllabus, as ever, ask me!

 PREGAME team: please make sure you post by 6:00 PM on Sunday! We're all counting on you to get us off to a good start!

Welcome!

Welcome! This is the blog for Ethics at BHCC with Prof. Monica Poole.

Please fill out this form: This is how you will get access to this blog, among other things. Filling it out BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST WEEK is important.