Authority figures are thought to be people who carry out justice. When you think of police officers, teachers, and parents you often think of safety and justice. There are some cases in which authority figures make their personification of justice seem contradictory. For example, Adolf Hitler was an authority figure who convinced his followers to exterminate all Jews. He was setting a type of law for people to follow, yet he was not being ethical. The same goes for parents who abuse their children, teachers who rape their students, and police officers who break the law. These people are all contradicting what they stand up for.
Take, for instance, the movie I Spit On Your Grave. This is a movie about a woman who goes to a small, remote town to get away from people so she could focus on her writing. During her visit there, she encounters a gang of men who assault her. In an attempt to escape from the men, she runs out into the woods, where she runs into some hunters. One hunter, she finds out, is a police officer. He takes her back to her cabin where the men assaulted her and the men, along with the police officer, end up raping her and leaving her out in the woods to die. She trusted the police officer to bring justice to her and to those men but the police officer proved to her to be untrustworthy. In an unfamiliar place, it is easy to trust people who wear uniforms of justice or people who bear titles of justice. However, there are times when this form of judgement proves to be wrong. Although cases like this are probably pretty rare, it is a sad encounter when justice of the law is not administered by those whose job it is to carry out the law, much less be ethical in their practices.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Justice in Schools
In an earlier blog post, I had mentioned how bystanders of any type of abuse who did not report the abuse of a defenseless person was being unjustifiable. At this time I would like to expand on that discussion and put it into a new context: justice in the schools.
It is not uncommon to hear of bullying in schools. Children of all ages pick on each other and usually the defenseless ones are the victims. When students witness other students bullying or being bullied, their first reaction usually isn't to stand up for the bullied student. Instead, their first reaction is to run as far away from the bully as possible or to even join in the bullying. But this seems odd. How could one, or even a group of students, witness bullying in action and join in the on the bully's side? One reason is because they are afraid of going against the bully, no matter how badly the feel for the one being bullied, and they don't want to be deemed "weird" by the other students for walking away from an issue like that, much less to report it and be called a "tattle-tale". In fact, this happens all the time in schools. Name calling is one form of bullying that is easily over looked by people in schools. If one person start calling another person a "freak" or a "loser", a lot of times the bystander students will join in calling that same person a "freak" or "loser".
Name calling is a form of bullying that students usually get away with in school. Teachers don't normally catch the students who mutter under their breathe at a student the word "freak" and they don't see text messages going around calling someone "loser". But what happens when a teacher does witness this form of bullying and doesn't do anything about it? Normally, teachers will hear a bad name being tossed around and they yell at the students with a simple "That's enough" or "That's inappropriate" and continue on with their work. This is no more than a tiny slap on the hand. Students aren't afraid of being told something is wrong by their teachers. The only way to stop bulling fully is if true punishment follows after every bullying occurrence Since this may be close to impossible, teachers should do more than just tell a kid to stop. These students bullying other students are not being justifiable. But the adult teachers who witness these occurrences and do nothing about it are being beyond unjustifiable. It is teaching bullies that they can get away with any crime when facing an authority, bullied students to not have faith that their authority figures will protect them, and bystanders that it is okay to face unjustifiable situations like this and let it happen without bringing justice to the people involved.
It is not uncommon to hear of bullying in schools. Children of all ages pick on each other and usually the defenseless ones are the victims. When students witness other students bullying or being bullied, their first reaction usually isn't to stand up for the bullied student. Instead, their first reaction is to run as far away from the bully as possible or to even join in the bullying. But this seems odd. How could one, or even a group of students, witness bullying in action and join in the on the bully's side? One reason is because they are afraid of going against the bully, no matter how badly the feel for the one being bullied, and they don't want to be deemed "weird" by the other students for walking away from an issue like that, much less to report it and be called a "tattle-tale". In fact, this happens all the time in schools. Name calling is one form of bullying that is easily over looked by people in schools. If one person start calling another person a "freak" or a "loser", a lot of times the bystander students will join in calling that same person a "freak" or "loser".
Name calling is a form of bullying that students usually get away with in school. Teachers don't normally catch the students who mutter under their breathe at a student the word "freak" and they don't see text messages going around calling someone "loser". But what happens when a teacher does witness this form of bullying and doesn't do anything about it? Normally, teachers will hear a bad name being tossed around and they yell at the students with a simple "That's enough" or "That's inappropriate" and continue on with their work. This is no more than a tiny slap on the hand. Students aren't afraid of being told something is wrong by their teachers. The only way to stop bulling fully is if true punishment follows after every bullying occurrence Since this may be close to impossible, teachers should do more than just tell a kid to stop. These students bullying other students are not being justifiable. But the adult teachers who witness these occurrences and do nothing about it are being beyond unjustifiable. It is teaching bullies that they can get away with any crime when facing an authority, bullied students to not have faith that their authority figures will protect them, and bystanders that it is okay to face unjustifiable situations like this and let it happen without bringing justice to the people involved.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
"Same Love"
The new hip-hop song "Same Love", by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, is about how homosexuals fit into American society. They point out to listeners how unfairly homosexuals are treated by society as they show viewers of the music video the journey of one gay man trying to find his place in society. This song contains so many examples of unjust treatment of homosexuals.
One example of the way homosexuals are treated by society pointed out in the song is the use of derogatory names. "Faggot" is just one of these examples that Macklemore and Ryan Lewis sing about. They also sing about how people use terms like this publicly, such as on the internet. Using derogatory names is not ethically right or just. The people that use them are not being justifiable. There is no reason to call people such a harsh name and the people using them probably know that. Where is the justice in calling homosexuals "faggots"? There are so many people that use this term on the internet, which is easily recorded. Isn't it our job as Americans to make all people feel equal and bring justice to our fellow citizens? Getting people into trouble who victimize homosexuals on the internet would be relatively easy with proof from the internet. The problem, though, is this: people are too afraid to make a stand and fight for the justice of someone that is NOT themselves. This problem is also pointed out in "Same Love" in the lines "When everyone else is more comfortable remaining voiceless rather than fighting for humans that have had their rights stolen". If a person is witnessing unjustifiable acts, such as using derogatory names in order to hurt an individual, and that person does nothing to stand up for the victim, are they behaving in a justifiable manner? Are they being any better than the perpetrator themselves? Although it is not in our nature as human beings to go out of our way to help an individual in situations like this, it will continue being a problem if people don't stand up for each other. The justice system has no strict laws, if any laws, on protecting humans against vulgar and demoralizing language. But serving justice means so much more than doing what is lawfully right; it is doing things that are also ethically right. That being said, I think a bystander would be unjustifiable in letting actions such as this happen. This specific statement can be applied to a variety of situations, such as witnessing a hit-and-run car wreck, or watching someone being murdered, and never reporting what you saw or carrying out justice for the sometimes defenseless victim. Using derogatory names is simply a less extreme version of those incidents. America will probably never become welcoming of homosexuals until perpetrators of abuse like this are stood up against by everyone.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Revenge
A question was brought to my attention when discussing the graphic novel V for Vendetta, written by Alan Moore, which is about a man who was abused in a resettlement camp and is now seeking revenge against all of those who participated in abusing him. The question was this: when is revenge justifiable and when is it not justifiable? It was difficult to come up with a solid answer to this question because of how vague the question was. For the most part, it depends on the situation this question is applied to. In some cases, it might be justifiable to seek revenge and in other cases it might not be justifiable at all. It also depends on a person's perspective of each issue that this might apply to and the person's overall understanding of what is considered justifiable.
To prove that something is justifiable, one must be able to show that it is right or reasonable. In which cases is it right to seek revenge? It is common to think of revenge as going out to commit an act that will harm someone in someway that has harmed you or someone you know. For instance, if someone killed someone else's mother, the victim might seek revenge by killing the perpetrator's mother. Another example of a common revengeful act is if someone stole something from someone, the victim might steal something back or they might even try to do bodily harm to the person. Another way of looking at this question, though, is in terms of the justice system. When a victim of a crime presses charges against the perpetrator of a crime and they are punished for their actions, doesn't that count as revenge?
The problem with this question is that revenge comes in so many different forms. Sometimes, revenge is done at the same level at which the original crime was done. Other times, the revenge is a worse act than the original crime was done. In my opinion, in order to make revenge justifiable, it must be done on a reasonable level, meaning that it must be equivalent to whatever the first act done was.
To prove that something is justifiable, one must be able to show that it is right or reasonable. In which cases is it right to seek revenge? It is common to think of revenge as going out to commit an act that will harm someone in someway that has harmed you or someone you know. For instance, if someone killed someone else's mother, the victim might seek revenge by killing the perpetrator's mother. Another example of a common revengeful act is if someone stole something from someone, the victim might steal something back or they might even try to do bodily harm to the person. Another way of looking at this question, though, is in terms of the justice system. When a victim of a crime presses charges against the perpetrator of a crime and they are punished for their actions, doesn't that count as revenge?
The problem with this question is that revenge comes in so many different forms. Sometimes, revenge is done at the same level at which the original crime was done. Other times, the revenge is a worse act than the original crime was done. In my opinion, in order to make revenge justifiable, it must be done on a reasonable level, meaning that it must be equivalent to whatever the first act done was.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Freedom Fighters vs Terrorist
A topic analyzed in a previous blog was the meaning of the word justice. This topic can be applied to a variety of situations but in almost every case is ambivalent. Depending on which point of view a person takes in a certain situation, they will argue in support for that definition of justice. In situations dealing with the law, justice can often divide people into two different categories: freedom fighters and terrorists. A freedom fighter is a person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially to overthrow their government. A terrorist, on the other hand, is a person who uses violent acts to frighten people as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. Notice that the two definitions are very similar. That is because freedom fighters and terrorists are virtually the same. The only real difference is how a person feels about their actions, and they will name them according to how they feel.
I'd like to use the trilogy The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins, as a reference to the conflict of the definition of justice and how it leads to the names of freedom fighters and terrorists. The Hunger Games is set in the country of Panem that is divided into twelve districts. Every year, the capitol of Panem draws two children from every district and the government forces the children to fight to the death until one stands as victor, an event the government ironically calls the Games. As the Games carry on, it is being taped and showed to all of the districts in Panem, who mourn the loss of their children, and to all the people in the capitol, who treat it as a celebration. This event serves as a warning to the districts to obey the government and reinforces the authority of the capitol of Panem. This method generally works; the people of the districts are too scared to fight against the government, at least until one girl, Katniss Everdeen, rises as the face of rebellion to the government of Panem.
It is easy for readers to see Katniss Everdeen as a freedom fighter, as the story is written from her point of view, which makes readers better able to understands Katniss' perspectives. Because of the society we live in and our high regard for children, it is also hard for readers to imagine cruelty towards children, making it even easier to see Katniss as a freedom fighter. Most of the people living in the districts would also claim that Katniss is a freedom fighter because she is fighting on their side and for their benefit. The government and all of the citizens living in the capitol, though, would argue that Katniss is a terrorist. She is going against the laws established by the government, which by definition would suggest that she is not serving justice and, therefore, would make her a terrorist. One could say that Katniss was fighting for the ethical side of justice, not the lawful side. But what about the perspectives of the citizens of the capitol? If they had been raised to believe that forcing these people's children to kill each other wasn't really a bad thing and were never forced to put themselves in that situation, they would honestly believe that Katniss wasn't fighting for justice at all and that she was a terrorist.
Is there a final answer to the question of which title Katniss Everdeen holds in The Hunger Games? If there wasn't such a conflicting definition to the word justice, it is possible that there would be. However, it is too controversial to claim Katniss Everdeen as a freedom fighter or as a terrorist. By definition, she could be called both.
I'd like to use the trilogy The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins, as a reference to the conflict of the definition of justice and how it leads to the names of freedom fighters and terrorists. The Hunger Games is set in the country of Panem that is divided into twelve districts. Every year, the capitol of Panem draws two children from every district and the government forces the children to fight to the death until one stands as victor, an event the government ironically calls the Games. As the Games carry on, it is being taped and showed to all of the districts in Panem, who mourn the loss of their children, and to all the people in the capitol, who treat it as a celebration. This event serves as a warning to the districts to obey the government and reinforces the authority of the capitol of Panem. This method generally works; the people of the districts are too scared to fight against the government, at least until one girl, Katniss Everdeen, rises as the face of rebellion to the government of Panem.
It is easy for readers to see Katniss Everdeen as a freedom fighter, as the story is written from her point of view, which makes readers better able to understands Katniss' perspectives. Because of the society we live in and our high regard for children, it is also hard for readers to imagine cruelty towards children, making it even easier to see Katniss as a freedom fighter. Most of the people living in the districts would also claim that Katniss is a freedom fighter because she is fighting on their side and for their benefit. The government and all of the citizens living in the capitol, though, would argue that Katniss is a terrorist. She is going against the laws established by the government, which by definition would suggest that she is not serving justice and, therefore, would make her a terrorist. One could say that Katniss was fighting for the ethical side of justice, not the lawful side. But what about the perspectives of the citizens of the capitol? If they had been raised to believe that forcing these people's children to kill each other wasn't really a bad thing and were never forced to put themselves in that situation, they would honestly believe that Katniss wasn't fighting for justice at all and that she was a terrorist.
Is there a final answer to the question of which title Katniss Everdeen holds in The Hunger Games? If there wasn't such a conflicting definition to the word justice, it is possible that there would be. However, it is too controversial to claim Katniss Everdeen as a freedom fighter or as a terrorist. By definition, she could be called both.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Who reaps the benefits of forgiveness?
Many people would answer this question without really thinking too far into it. Most people would think this has any obvious answer. Why, of course the person being forgiven reaps more benefits than the person that forgives. To be forgiven holds a feeling of satisfaction, people might say. Nobody likes to have grudges held over their head. These arguments are generally true. But what about the person that does the forgiving? Don't they have any benefits at all?
I'd like the analyze this question in terms of the novella The Body Artist, written by Don DeLillo. Throughout the story, the main character, Lauren Hartke, is dealing with a number of issues that she must overcome. One issue that she faces is dealing with the suicide of her husband, Rey Robles, and trying to forgive him for taking his life. If Lauren is trying to come to terms with and forgive someone who is dead, would the person being forgiven reap more benefits? Probably not. Lauren is trying to forgive Rey, not to help him, but to help herself move on with her life. The second issue that Lauren deals with is trying to forgive herself for her mother's death. Lauren's mother died when she was nine years old and although Lauren is now a grown woman, she has never been able to convince herself that it wasn't her fault, an issue that most kids who deal with death face. Again, forgiving herself would not benefit anyone other than herself. Also, the fact that she is forgiving herself is just going to help her move forward in life, it is not actually going to give her the satisfaction of being forgiven like everyone else always assumes. At the very last scene of the story, Lauren throws open a window in a room, an act that can be interpreted as moving on and moving forward, an act of readiness to come to terms to with everything. Lauren, in this scene, is finally able to forgive Rey for leaving her and herself her mother's death. This is the only time when the benefits of forgiveness are actually shown in the novella and it only shows Lauren's benefits, or the forgiver's benefits, not the forgiven's benefits.
So, who does reap the benefits of forgiveness? I think it safe to assume that Don DeLillo, based on his novella The Body Artist, would say that the forgiver reaps the benefits.
I'd like the analyze this question in terms of the novella The Body Artist, written by Don DeLillo. Throughout the story, the main character, Lauren Hartke, is dealing with a number of issues that she must overcome. One issue that she faces is dealing with the suicide of her husband, Rey Robles, and trying to forgive him for taking his life. If Lauren is trying to come to terms with and forgive someone who is dead, would the person being forgiven reap more benefits? Probably not. Lauren is trying to forgive Rey, not to help him, but to help herself move on with her life. The second issue that Lauren deals with is trying to forgive herself for her mother's death. Lauren's mother died when she was nine years old and although Lauren is now a grown woman, she has never been able to convince herself that it wasn't her fault, an issue that most kids who deal with death face. Again, forgiving herself would not benefit anyone other than herself. Also, the fact that she is forgiving herself is just going to help her move forward in life, it is not actually going to give her the satisfaction of being forgiven like everyone else always assumes. At the very last scene of the story, Lauren throws open a window in a room, an act that can be interpreted as moving on and moving forward, an act of readiness to come to terms to with everything. Lauren, in this scene, is finally able to forgive Rey for leaving her and herself her mother's death. This is the only time when the benefits of forgiveness are actually shown in the novella and it only shows Lauren's benefits, or the forgiver's benefits, not the forgiven's benefits.
So, who does reap the benefits of forgiveness? I think it safe to assume that Don DeLillo, based on his novella The Body Artist, would say that the forgiver reaps the benefits.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
The Word Justice
What does the word "justice" mean? By dictionary definition, justice is the administration of what is just (as by assigning merited rewards or punishments) or the administration of law. If all laws were just, meaning ethical, honorable, right, and good, this definition might be perfectly true; however, as human beings we know that not all laws that were ever created were just. Therefore, is the definition of justice an appropriate definition?
Some people would argue that all of the laws we have in place today in America are just. Back when it was legal to have slaves, the majority of white Americans would have said the same thing. Slaves could not argue with this; they would be punished severely if they ran away from their masters and found. Which act would have been more justified, under the definition of justice, for a white person who found a run-away slave to be: either return the slave to the owner to be beaten and punished or help the slave run away even further? At that time, the white person would have brought justice to the owner of the slave by returning the slave to them; but was this the morally, ethically, honorably and right thing to do by the slave himself? Now, we would say that the white person would be more justified in helping the slave escape further.
The term "justice" has such conflicting definitions that it is hard to decide what actions to take in a situation such as the one presented. Laws are not always morally and ethically good but one definition of justice is the administration of the law. Would choosing either what is morally just or choosing to follow the law an act of justice? Some would say it would depend on the situation. Some would say to always follow the law and others yet would say people should always do what is right. It is our job as human beings to create a more clear definition for the word justice so that type of conflict does not arise anymore.
Some people would argue that all of the laws we have in place today in America are just. Back when it was legal to have slaves, the majority of white Americans would have said the same thing. Slaves could not argue with this; they would be punished severely if they ran away from their masters and found. Which act would have been more justified, under the definition of justice, for a white person who found a run-away slave to be: either return the slave to the owner to be beaten and punished or help the slave run away even further? At that time, the white person would have brought justice to the owner of the slave by returning the slave to them; but was this the morally, ethically, honorably and right thing to do by the slave himself? Now, we would say that the white person would be more justified in helping the slave escape further.
The term "justice" has such conflicting definitions that it is hard to decide what actions to take in a situation such as the one presented. Laws are not always morally and ethically good but one definition of justice is the administration of the law. Would choosing either what is morally just or choosing to follow the law an act of justice? Some would say it would depend on the situation. Some would say to always follow the law and others yet would say people should always do what is right. It is our job as human beings to create a more clear definition for the word justice so that type of conflict does not arise anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)