Libertarianism and Scenarios Cont.

Libertarianism: I believe that I do live by this principle, more than any other one we have seen so far. I think that the government should be there to support and control its citizens, but that too much interference hinders on our on freedom and liberty. With too much government, how do you have a true society that is formed from the wishes of its citizens? Also, as long as you are keeping in mind the rights of others, you should be able to do what you want with what you have and to pursue anything you put your mind to. Thats what dreams are all about, aren't they?

Scenario 1:

With the assisted suicide, I feel that it is only right if the person is in serious pain and there is no other solution to their impairment. It does save a lot of money and takes people out of the "waiting game." But if a person has a full life ahead of them and there might be a way to live, I don't see the point in this.

Scenario 2:

With the kidney situation, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, just the thought of selling a body part seems unethical. But on the other hand, this could potentially save thousands of lives because it can be very difficult to find a donor a lot of the time. Also, people who sell their kidneys probably need the money really badly, so this could help them. So based on the fact that it could potentially help both parties, I would agree with selling kidneys.

Scenario 3:

I believe that same sex marriage should be allowed because we shouldn't forcefully limit someone else's happiness. Same sex marriage isn't hurting anybody, so why should we stop it? We should allow everyone to reach their full potential in life, with the people they truly love. And if that person is the same sex, that shouldn't be a problem.

Scenario 4:

I truly believe in heterosexual marriage. Not only does it bind two people together, but it also gives them benefits they wouldn't have on their own. It shows a true commitment to your partner. But one thing that shouldn't happen, is having those "quicky" marriages where they have no respect for the civil union.

Scenario 5:

I see how a privatized marriage would benefit the feelings of two people, and they would be able to show how much they care about each other, but in order for a marriage to be real, I do feel it needs to be government sanctioned. This way all people can get the benefits that they deserve when they get married.

Malcolm X

In my opinion, Malcolm X was not a human rights activist. When I think of human rights activism, I think of a peaceful and nonviolent approach for attaining equal rights. It would make sense that you would go about it this way if you were fighting for human rights. It isn't exactly right to be violent. But with Malcolm X, his approach of "whatever means necessary" brings violence. It is almost hypocritical to persuade people to fight whites, when that is exactly what you are trying to overcome. I feel that Martin Luther King Jr. had the correct approach to the Civil Rights Movement, and that is why he was so successful. And of course Malcolm X was successful, but there is a reason we do not learn that much about him in school. His went about things in the completely wrong way.

Major Legislation for the Civil Rights Movement

The major legislation that was a breakthrough for all those fighting for Civil Rights was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This piece of legislation found the Jim Crow Laws unconstitutional and "separate but equal" was no longer in place. Blacks were now legally integrated into society, including in schools and all public places. It gave citizenship to all blacks and guaranteed their equal protection under the laws of the U.S. Constitution. This was such a breakthrough for the Civil Rights Movement because they had finally achieved what they set out to do in the beginning. They were now open to legal representation and equal treatment. Of course, society didn't just change immediately and accept blacks as completely equal, and it still doesn't today. But at this time, blacks were now legally a part of society.

Letter From a Birmingham Jail

Martin Luther King Jr. was in Alabama at this time fighting for civil rights. He was invited to Alabama to participate in a non-violent protest along with others who are a part of an organization. Alabama was possible the strictest and worst southern state at this point. His style of fighting was almost peaceful, yet the white violence toward him made it harsh. He wanted to fight at the center of it all and get to the core of the problem. He wanted to be arrested so that a statement could be made to the entire nation, that things were wrong. His message of never giving up hope and fighting for justice came through in his letter and he urged those fighting to not fight back, but instead just stand there and accept the violence that came toward them. Also he wanted to show that people are equal no matter what their skin color is and we should all treat each other that way and love each other that way.

Utilitarianism

Personally, I believe in utilitarianism and I follow this principle for most aspects in my life. But it almost seems to easy to make large decisions by just weighing the costs and the benefits. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that everything you think about when making a decision can be categorized as a cost or benefit. Whether this effects someone else, whether your parents will be proud of you, what this will do to your reputation- all of these are either costs or benefits. And I do believe that we need to try and be happy in our lives, otherwise what do we have. You could have everything you ever wanted in the world, but be miserable.

Scenario 5: City of Happiness

I would just let the child be, and not interfere. You have to make sacrifices in life, and if you sacrifice the life of one child for a whole city, then I think it is worth it. But I also feel like this would almost make the city unhappy, because some people must have guilt riding over them because they know of the secret. I still think that the benefits outweigh the costs, though.

Scenario 6: Hampsterdam

I don't agree with just putting the crime aside because police are there to serve and to protect the citizens, whereas by doing this, they are just giving up. It shows defeat. Also, their duty is to serve and to protect all citizens, including those that do wrongly, so how in any way is this manifesting these ideals? I see the benefits, but you're never going to progress in society if you just put things aside and ignore them, they will arise again.

Scenario 7: The Price of a Human Being

I am pretty disturbed with all of these situations, just because I seriously disagree with the practice of putting a price of the life of a human. No human is worth any amount of money to another. It is just so wrong to say that you should sacrifice a life because it will make you money. I could never live with myself if this happened. Also, I am shocked at the Ford Pinto situation because they knew that people were going to die, but all they cared about were their own profits. That is honestly just sad and shows how self-centered and deprived these people were of moral values.

Has my view changed?

My view hasn't really changed that much, because I feel that I was troubled by some aspects of the principle at first, which turned out to be the main flaws. I didn't think you could apply this to everything because of moral values etc. Everyone has different values on things, so it can't be standardized. But I thought you could fit morals into the costs and benefits. However, you can't. It is just a straight mathematical equation. But life isn't like that. Life is complicated and involves so many different aspects that need to be accounted for. In this way, I don't agree with utilitarianism. But in other ways, I do. For small decisions that don't involve hurting others I believe that it is okay to apply this principle. When you are taking into account another person's free will or life, that is when it gets complicated.

Justice

What does the word justice mean to you?

For me personally, justice means that every action done to another person is fair and right. Not one person should be treated unfairly and as if they are inferior to others. This can be applied to almost any situation in society. But for one example, torture is extremely unjust and by torturing someone, you are treating them like they aren't human. In addition, justice to me means that everyone gets a fair chance at something. That not one person is ahead based on silly circumstances. But of course, this is the way our society works and I don't know if everything can be just in our world.

Scenario 1: Price Gouging

I believe that the government should intervene if the prices of essential items increases to a point where it becomes ridiculous because in an emergency situation there are different procedures than in a normal situation. But for things that aren't essential, putting a price ceiling to effect the prices would create too much inefficiency and would in turn hurt the economy more than helping it. They should intervene to an extent.

Scenario 2: Bank Bailouts

I think that the government should intervene to a certain extent. For those certain companies that are essential to the economy, they should save. Not only do these companies employ millions of workers, but in the long run, the consumer would be worse off without these certain companies. In addition, assuming that these companies make up an oligopoly, the start up costs for another firm to enter the industry and take up the space that was just created from a company going under would be so great that it would take as much if even more capital than needed to save that company. But there definitely is a line that needs to be drawn where if there is a company that is past saving, you have to let it go.

Scenario 3: Runaway Trolley- Driver

I believe that the trolley driver should switch the tracks in order to save 4 people. Although he is still killing one, by not switching, he is actively choosing to kill those extra 4 people, which is basically equal to him actively switching the track and killing that one single person. Given the choice, you would want to kill one person over 5.

Scenario 4: Runaway Trolley- Observer

I honestly can't choose for this situation. On the one hand, the fat man will probably die pretty soon anyways, and you would be saving 5 peoples' lives. But I don't think in the moment that I would be able to actively cause someone else's death. You are not responsible for the runaway trolley, but by pushing the fat man off the bridge, you would be responsible for one death, which is more than you would be responsible for without doing anything. But then the argument comes in that you had the choice and you didn't do anything, so can choice be an action? I can't decide!

Scenario 5 : Afghan Goat Herders

I would shoot the goat herders, because it is a soldier's job to serve his country and it is military protocol to stick to your mission. If in the end the mission is compromised, it would come down to this choice. In this situation, you can't take the chance. In addition, although it is just capturing one deputy, it is a step towards capturing the leader. And you could gain valuable information that could save other lives and you need to take certain steps in order to achieve the bigger mission. This is one step that can't be given to chance.

Multiculturalism - "The Sneetches"

What I will remember most about reading to the Lower School is probably how quickly they latched on to the main idea. Right away we asked them what the main point is and they immediately talked about how differences shouldn't cause different treatment. And when we asked about the students at QK, they hadn't had the impression that I would have thought they would have of them. They just thought they were other students who go to a different school with a uniform. Also, when they were talking about differences between people they know, they didn't talk about skin color. All they discussed were things like hair styles, likes/dislikes, and religion.

After hearing the children speak about "The Sneetches", it made me think of how if 1st graders can treat people the same despite their differences, how come there are certain people that can't? What is it that changes us so quickly and causes a change in our core values? And we discussed this in class, how it can be your family or the media for example. I think that because children are so vulnerable, the are probably at the most important time in their lives, and the most difficult. If they are corrupted from a young age, it is that much harder to change. My view specifically about the story didn't really change because the students just pointed out things that I had already realized, but it did make me have a greater appreciation for children's stories, which have such a strong purpose in teaching moral values.