After reading “The Central Human Functional Capabilities”, it was apparent to me that Martha Nussbaum believed that every government should allow its citizens to have a voice in the decisions that it makes. It was a VERY tough reading to understand, and many times, I had no clue what she was talking about; but it seemed as though she was really stressing the idea that if a government doesn’t allow its citizens to have a “voice”, than it’s basically taking away their rights as human beings.
She also stressed the fact that a government should make certain the things it does is accepted by its citizens. However, in today’s society, rarely is this ever the case. Many times, decisions are made in which the majority of the population don’t agree with, but it doesn’t seem to matter, because nothing changes. I also noticed that some of her main ideas piggy-backed on some of our recent readings. For example, in Dr. King’s letter from jail, he stressed the importance of racial equality. In fact, he and many others were thrown in jail as they fought for equal opportunity, and let their voice be heard. They took advantage of their rights as human beings and American citizens to stand up and be heard, and I think that’s what Nussbaum to trying to get across: that having a “voice” in government as a citizen is critical to the success of any society.
Thankfully, as Americans, we have the right to vote, which is why it’s imperative that each of us take advantage of it; because if we don’t, we give up our right to make changes.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
I must say, after reading John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice”, I stand corrected; his rhetoric was far more difficult to understand than that of Henry Thoreau in “Civil Disobedience”. From what I was able to understand, his main premise in “A Theory of Justice” was that justice should be fair, and when it is, society is a much better place. Obviously, I agree with his belief that justice should be fair; but, with that said, who determines what’s fair and what’s not? My definition of fair may be completely different from another person’s, so how would you determine whose definition is right? For example, I’m sure some people believe the justice thus far in the Jena 6 case has been fair. Now, just imagine if those same people sent people to jail everyday, imagine how unfair society’s justice would be.
I also agreed with Rawls in the sense that he believed the disadvantaged people in society should have just as big a voice in government as the well-off. He didn’t agree with laws and policies that were made with only the middle and high-class people in mind. I think if we overlook deprived people as if they aren’t there, then society is only headed for failure. All in all, I think Rawls made some good points on justice as fairness, although I was confused on most of them. I think he was right in his belief that no individual should ever have to sacrifice their rights under any circumstance, regardless of whether or not it’s “supposed” to help society.
I also agreed with Rawls in the sense that he believed the disadvantaged people in society should have just as big a voice in government as the well-off. He didn’t agree with laws and policies that were made with only the middle and high-class people in mind. I think if we overlook deprived people as if they aren’t there, then society is only headed for failure. All in all, I think Rawls made some good points on justice as fairness, although I was confused on most of them. I think he was right in his belief that no individual should ever have to sacrifice their rights under any circumstance, regardless of whether or not it’s “supposed” to help society.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Stanton: Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions
In the “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions”, Elizabeth Stanton discusses how society has essentially withheld basic rights from women for far too long. From what I gathered, all she does is vent about how society treats women unfairly; but she never gives concrete examples, which, in my opinion, takes away all of her credibility. It’s possible that as a male I wouldn’t understand, but some of the things she was claiming, I thought, were just false.
For example, she says, “He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.” WHAT? Excuse my ignorance, but I don’t understand how a man has the power to FORCE a woman to do that!! If YOU have so little confidence and assurance in YOURSELF that you “allow” a man to put you in a place where you aren’t comfortable, then that’s something YOU need to work on, but it isn’t the man’s fault. In addition, she complains about women being taxed to “support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.” Excuse me, but doesn’t EVERYBODY have to pay taxes. It was almost like she pointed at things that were fairly sensible, and turned it into an “it’s because I’m a woman” thing. Insignificant criticism just took away ALL of her credibility in my mind, but I guess some people may agree with her. I, however, am not one of those people!!
For example, she says, “He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.” WHAT? Excuse my ignorance, but I don’t understand how a man has the power to FORCE a woman to do that!! If YOU have so little confidence and assurance in YOURSELF that you “allow” a man to put you in a place where you aren’t comfortable, then that’s something YOU need to work on, but it isn’t the man’s fault. In addition, she complains about women being taxed to “support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.” Excuse me, but doesn’t EVERYBODY have to pay taxes. It was almost like she pointed at things that were fairly sensible, and turned it into an “it’s because I’m a woman” thing. Insignificant criticism just took away ALL of her credibility in my mind, but I guess some people may agree with her. I, however, am not one of those people!!
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Dr. King's Letter from Birmingham Jail
First, allow me to start by saying that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a GREAT man. Not only for obvious reasons like his leadership or his relentless push for racial equality, but also for his patience and endurance when it came to racism. I, for one, could not see myself living back in those days. The prejudice that African-Americans had to endure on a daily basis is beyond belief, and I’ll NEVER understand how they tolerated it for so long. It baffles me sometimes how people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks fought for racial equality for SO long, and endured SO much discrimination, but never became violent. Every time they were discriminated against, they turned the other cheek, and took a non-violent attitude. I would’ve probably taken a different approach to say the least, but without peaceful figures like Dr. King, who knows where society would be today.
Dr. King’s tranquility really came through in the letter he wrote from Birmingham jail. In this letter, he explained himself, although he shouldn’t have had to, to 8 clergymen who had criticized his actions in Birmingham. So, let me get this straight: Dr. King went to Birmingham to take a stand against racism, gets thrown in JAIL for fighting for equal rights, which the Declaration of Independence “supposedly” ensures, and then, instead of “losing it” like I probably would’ve, calmly EXPLAINS himself to the racists that believed his imprisonment was fair. That in itself shows how GREAT of a man Dr. King was. His determination to stand up for what was right, regardless of the consequences, played a tremendous role in the advancement of African-Americans; and although racism still occurs today, I’m sure it’d be MUCH worse if people like Martin Luther King Jr. never came along.
Dr. King’s tranquility really came through in the letter he wrote from Birmingham jail. In this letter, he explained himself, although he shouldn’t have had to, to 8 clergymen who had criticized his actions in Birmingham. So, let me get this straight: Dr. King went to Birmingham to take a stand against racism, gets thrown in JAIL for fighting for equal rights, which the Declaration of Independence “supposedly” ensures, and then, instead of “losing it” like I probably would’ve, calmly EXPLAINS himself to the racists that believed his imprisonment was fair. That in itself shows how GREAT of a man Dr. King was. His determination to stand up for what was right, regardless of the consequences, played a tremendous role in the advancement of African-Americans; and although racism still occurs today, I’m sure it’d be MUCH worse if people like Martin Luther King Jr. never came along.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Thoreau: Civil Disobedience
I must say, this was probably the toughest reading to date!! I was lost, literally, from the first paragraph, but I digress. From what I DID understand about Henry Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”, he was a man that believed that the best type of government is one that “governs the least”, and doesn’t seek tremendous power over its people. Clearly, he has a lot of critical things to say about the American government, some legitimate, yet some unreasonable.
One thing I did somewhat agree with Thoreau about was his outlook on people disagreeing with the government. Frankly, he believed that if a citizen doesn’t agree with something the government is doing, or a decision they make, they should outright rebel against it. This, I can understand, and even agree with; maybe not to the extent that HE talked about, but to some extent. If someone doesn’t agree with something that the government is doing, they should definitely stand up and be heard about it; however, he just took it too far with some of his suggestions. He went on to say, “A wise man will only be useful as a man and will not submit to be “clay” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away…” Basically, I understood that as saying no person should live whole-heartedly by the rules and policies their government sets. This, however, is where he started to lose me!! With that type of attitude in today’s society, you’re bound to end up in jail, which is a place I’m not trying to go!!
While I realize I only discussed a snippet of some of Thoreau’s viewpoints, I came to the conclusion that he was incredibly radical and, for lack of a better word, crazy, early into this reading. Then again, I was confused, so maybe I didn’t understand him; either way, it is what it is!!
One thing I did somewhat agree with Thoreau about was his outlook on people disagreeing with the government. Frankly, he believed that if a citizen doesn’t agree with something the government is doing, or a decision they make, they should outright rebel against it. This, I can understand, and even agree with; maybe not to the extent that HE talked about, but to some extent. If someone doesn’t agree with something that the government is doing, they should definitely stand up and be heard about it; however, he just took it too far with some of his suggestions. He went on to say, “A wise man will only be useful as a man and will not submit to be “clay” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away…” Basically, I understood that as saying no person should live whole-heartedly by the rules and policies their government sets. This, however, is where he started to lose me!! With that type of attitude in today’s society, you’re bound to end up in jail, which is a place I’m not trying to go!!
While I realize I only discussed a snippet of some of Thoreau’s viewpoints, I came to the conclusion that he was incredibly radical and, for lack of a better word, crazy, early into this reading. Then again, I was confused, so maybe I didn’t understand him; either way, it is what it is!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)