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.

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!!

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.

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!!

Carter's Separation

In Stephen L. Carter’s piece, “The Separation of Church and State”, he basically talks about the impact that religion has on politics in today’s society, and whether or not it’s handled correctly. He delivers a compelling argument about his belief that the first amendment in the Constitution was created to protect religion from the state, rather than the state from religion. In many cases throughout American history, it seemed as though the government was trying to protect the country from certain religions, as opposed to protecting religious beliefs from the country. He cites the best known case in which the government struck down organized prayer in public schools. Honestly, I think that the separation of church and state is a good thing, as long as it isn’t taken out of context.

Carter, on the other hand, believes that the government shouldn’t be so intolerant when it comes to religion and religious matters. Frankly, I think Carter misunderstands what the First Amendment was actually put into place for. He believes that government, by upholding the First Amendment, is promoting anti-religion, which I disagree with. In my opinion, any citizen of this country should be able to exercise their religious freedom at any time without consequence from anyone; and, to my understanding, that’s what the First Amendment ensures. I think what Carter was trying to emphasize was his belief that the government should be more accepting of the different religions it’s citizens have, and try to find a better way to handle religious matters.

Hannah Arendt: Total Domination

After reading Hannah Arendt’s “Total Domination” piece on totalitarian governments, I’ve come to the conclusion that the totalitarian style of leadership is completely ridiculous, and shouldn’t be used under ANY circumstances. To put people through such torture and anguish JUST to keep them in line is outrageous in my opinion. Personally, I couldn’t imagine having to live through a totalitarian regime, as many people were forced to, so it’d be silly for me to say what I would’ve done. But, there’s no doubt in my mind, that I wouldn’t have been able to tolerate it for long.


When I sat back and looked at just what a totalitarian government “was” and consisted of, I realized that without concentration camps, totalitarian governments had no power. Hannah even mentioned that “these camps are the true central institution of totalitarian organizational power” (Arendt 89). So, without them, that style of leadership was rather insignificant to put it nicely.


On another note, one thing I did disagree with, and had a hard time understanding was Hannah’s difference between murder and the mass death that occurred in concentration camps. From what I understood, she was saying that when a murderer kills someone, they take away that person’s life, but they don’t destroy the fact that they existed; but then, she went on to explain how what the Nazis did was different? Personally, I think murder is murder, whether you kill 1 person, or thousands, but maybe that’s just me!! In any event, I was pretty confused through this entire reading, but some of it did make sense.

Hannah Arendt. “Total Domination.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2006.pp 85-97.

Machiavelli: extreme, yet understandable

So, after reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s, “The Quality of the Prince”, and Lao-tzu’s, “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching”, I can honestly say that I’m torn between both ideas. On one hand, Lao-tzu raises some extremely good points about how a leader should govern, as he emphasized the importance of maintaining a happy citizenry, and the belief that the less a leader intervened, the better off things would be. Then again, on the other hand, Machiavelli made sense in a lot of ways as well.

Although he was radical in his beliefs, I understood why Machiavelli felt the way he did, and why he believed his approach to leadership was as it should be. While he was somewhat irrational in his belief that a leader should focus on war more than anything else, I did agree with the emphasis he put on a leader remaining disciplined at all times, staying informed, and always being prepared. Needless to say, I think it’s obvious that our leader today hasn’t always been fully informed when he did some of the things he did, but I digress.

Secondly, although I hate saying it, I agree with Machiavelli when he says, “Hence it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity” (Machiavelli 40). In my opinion, he’s not saying that a leader has to be immoral to govern well, but to act as though the people in this world are 100% honorable and just would be incredibly naïve. So, it would only help for any leader to acknowledge that fact when making important decisions.

Overall, although they’re beliefs are completely different, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli both made strong cases as to why their methods are correct, and why any others are fallible in every way possible.

Niccolo Machiavelli. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobus. Translator. Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2006.pp 35-51.