This assignment is for Honors Civics, Period 6.
The weekly assignment consists of five parts:
1) Read the assignment. This week's reading is Chapters 2 and 3 from Sandel's Justice.
2) Take Cornell Notes on the reading. I will collect these notes on Friday in class.
3) Find another credible source on the internet that connects to part of the reading above or to the class topic from this week ("Is America living up to our ideals?"). You can use any of the sites I have listed on the right, or more general news sites like nytimes.com.
4) After you read the source that you find, answer the following questions as a blog entry below:
- Write a summary sentence for the text you found.
- How does the text connect to that week’s topic or to the other text you have read?
- What evidence do you have that the text you found is credible?
- Does the author present strong evidence to support his/her argument? Provide an example.
- What would the author of your text say about the class text from that week?
- What would the author of the class text say about your text from that week?
Keep in mind that everyone else will see what you write below, so please keep it professional. This post is due Thursday, 9/20, by 5:00pm.
5) Come to class on Friday ready to discuss the reading and the text you found!
If you need support or have questions, my office hours are Monday and Wednesday from 3:15-4:15 in Room 229.
Utilitarianism is an ideal that all individuals use; some knowingly and some without noticing. For a long period of time, individuals have been accommodating their lives and actions in order to spread happiness for a greater whole rather than spreading pain. However, in order to take those steps, an individual decides whether or not they want to participate in spreading happiness for the general welfare of the people.
ReplyDeleteThis is where the ideals of libertarianism come in; essentially, one should be able to make their own decisions that have a negative or positive effect on themselves. Their decisions should be done to their own discretion as long as it doesn’t affect others or cause pain onto them. In Michael J. Sandel’s novel “Justice”, he describes libertarianism as being able to have “the right to do whatever we want with the things we own, provided we respect other people’s rights to do the same,” (60). If it were for this theory, then individuals should have the right to do what they please with their money, body, and soul. If actions are made, actions which nonetheless are voluntary, then why should one be told that they are doing wrong?
If you begin to look deeper into the ideals of libertarianism, one of the most intriguing ones are being able to do with your body as you wish. In his novel, Sandel gives two examples of this ideal; one example that is fairly reasonable and another one that, to readers, might be absurd. The first example is the right to sell your kidneys. The argument for that is “If I own my body, I should be free to sell my body parts as I please,” (71). The same argument for example number two is used for if one wants to kill themselves. If they do, then they should have the right to do so.
In “Ron Paul Launches Presidential Campaign with Libertarian Ideals”, Z. Byron Wolf submits an article to ABC News that contained Ron Paul’s presidential speech which incorporated libertarian ideals. ABC News is a national news broadcaster that is known throughout the country. Their information is very precise and always up to date. In Wolf’s article, Wolf includes many quotations cited from Ron Paul’s speech. Being that Wolf does this, readers are able to acknowledge Paul’s precise statements and thoughts. They are also able to read Paul’s arguments and his ideals which are a complete reflection of libertarian ideals.
In his speech, Paul says, “We control our intellectual and spiritual life, why should we concede to the government what we do with our own bodies?” If government had no say in what we do to ourselves as individuals, then the amount of freedom we have will drastically increase. Paul even makes the argument that government shouldn’t “crack down on those using hard illicit drugs.” In a sense, he is correct. According to the freedom individuals are given with natural rights and amendments, the idea of being able to do with your body as you please should, essentially, already have been established. In another sense, his ideals will eventually become the catalyst for moral chaos. Individuals will not always agree with these ideals. In our modern day, if an individual attempts suicide and fails, they are branded as a “sick individual”. Most often, they are sent to asylums or put on suicide watch. If we were to follow libertarian ideals, the action of those “sick” individuals immediately becomes valid. Sooner or later, taking drugs and committing suicide will no longer be seen as a taboo, but a lifestyle accepted by society.
Both Sandel and Paul agree with the ideals given from libertarianism. “If my life belongs to me, I should be free to give it up,” says Sandel (73). But, when do the ideals of libertarianism reach the point of taboo? Based on the argument that Sandel and Paul present, wouldn’t suicide then become acceptable along with consensual cannibalism? Is it then when the ideals of libertarianism reach an extreme? But even then, the ideals of libertarianism remain strong. If you commit suicide, it was because you wanted to. After all, you had the right to.
The text I found this week was from the Annenberg classroom
ReplyDelete(http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/a-guide-to-the-united-states-constitution). This text is about what the constitution says and the true meaning behind it. In other words, analyzing the specific amendments and the meaning they actually have, versus what we perceive they are. This text connects to this week’s topic ("Is America living up to our ideals?") for numerous reasons. America’s fundamental ideals are republicanism, freedom of speech, private property, etc. In this text, the eighteenth amendment banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol. Therefore, this text connects to our topic because it is giving us evidence for a few of our “American ideals”. The evidence that I have this text I found is credible is that it is from the Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics. This text is credible, because the institute of civics wouldn’t want to post lies, and lose visitors to their site. The author does present strong evidence to support his argument because he makes it clear what the founding fathers wrote on the constitution, and then he states his position and argument. For example, according to the first section of the eighteenth amendment, “After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.” The author then states, “Ratified on January 16, 1919, the Eighteenth Amendment prohibited the making, transporting, and selling of alcoholic beverages. Adopted at the urging of a national temperance movement, proponents believed that the use of alcohol was reckless and destructive and that prohibition would reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, decrease the need for welfare and prisons, and improve the health of all Americans. During prohibition, it is estimated that alcohol consumption and alcohol related deaths declined dramatically.” As we can see, the author is giving us an example of the amendment, but then he is stating his argument for what he thinks the amendment is saying and the effect the amendment had on society at the time. On the other hand, this week we read various excerpts that all related to political campaign and costs. For example, “We know that money is not equally given by all Americans. There are very few Americans who can afford to write the kind of big checks that candidates depend on. What surprised us when we did this analysis was just how incredibly concentrated this giving was.” (Lee Drutman, the Sunlight Foundation). The authors of the Leonore Annenberg classroom would probably argue that due to the amount of individuals paying the political leaders, we may have a chance of having our voices silenced. I believe the authors would also argue that with the large amount of money they are contributing maybe their voices would be valued more than the 99% lower class. Similarly, Drutman would probably argue that once individuals hand off tons of money to political leaders, our voices would no longer be heard. We get in a way, overthrown due to financial reasons. The 99% actually gets silenced, and that is when the laws are altered to favor the 1% who can pay for the campaign and the 99% with little to no money gets silenced due to financial restrains.
The essay “The Rise of Government and the Decline of Morality” discusses the issues of government interaction in society and questions how morality has changed greatly since government began taking part in the lives of the individual. This essay is suggesting that America is not living up to its ideal of individualism. This essay is from James A. Dorn the Vice President of Academic Affairs at the Cato Institute.Which is a qualified person with years of experience on this topic what has given lectures on the topic which is what the essays based on.
ReplyDeleteThere is statistical evidence provided to argue that government is not living up to the ideal of individualism because it had become more highly involved in the economy. Dorn states “ government spending was less than 10 percent of GNP(at the beginning of the 20th century)” Which has changed now compared to the “$100 trillion( spent) in unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare” Therefore the government is not accurately following the belief in individualism because there basically proving a living for individuals instead of them working for themselves. Which would not be morally correct of the individual because there being supported by government.
Dorn would argue that America is not living up to its ideals and agree with Sandel that utilitarianism which is to try and maximize overall happiness of the people “fails to respect individual rights”(37). Because utilitarianism allows government to control aspects of an individuals life. For example the use of the tax dollars bailed out banks in order to bring the most beneficial outcome for a county as a whole which would not be
William Barrett will agree with Dorn and introduce how “no truly poor individual ever has became president of the United States”. Because of how much government is controlled and even created by rich individuals. Therefore all individuals do not have equal rights and majority of them by creation of government rely on government. That violates the rights of individualism because all individuals can not do as they please like running for president. Therefore American is not living up to its ideals of individualism.
Wesley J. Smith’s article titled, “Assisted suicide is bad medicine” is a piece that expresses why he believes assisted suicide should be banned from the United States and why permitting it would be harmful to our society. This topic relates to Michael Sandel’s chapter 3 in Justice. This chapter focuses on libertarian ideals and how we as individuals have the right to decide what to do with our own lives as long as it brings no harm to others. Smith’s article is based on the idea of assisted suicide, a topic Sandel explains in his book. The text I found is credible because it is from The Seattle Times, Washington’s largest daily newspaper founded in 1891. This newspaper has to make sure its news is accurate to avoid losing the great amount of readers it has in the Washington area. Also, Wesley Smith, a lawyer for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture, wrote this, which shows he has had extensive experience and insight concerning assisted suicide.
ReplyDeleteIn Smith’s article, he uses statistics to prove that he believes it is wrong to choose assisted suicide, especially if it is caused by a lack of money and insurance of poor families for medical care of high caliber. Smith writes, “The number of medically uninsured is at crisis stage and those with coverage usually are in health-maintenance organizations that make profits by limiting costs. The drugs used in an assisted suicide would cost less than $100. Yet, it could cost $100,000 to provide quality care so the patient doesn't want suicide.” Evidently, Smith is conveying disregard for the idea of assisted suicide, especially because the government is not providing the needs of its people in order to reject the option. Smith is suggesting that he believes it is immoral to allow suicide just because it is less expensive as opposed to providing quality care for patients to prevent it. It seems Smith does not believe values on lives or medical costs should be a factor that determines a person’s life or death.
If Smith were to read chapter 3 of Sandel’s Justice, he would dispute Sandel’s example of a libertarian perspective because it instills degrading and self-loathing thoughts in individuals and the values of their own lives. In his article, Smith claims, “But placing the law's seal of approval on some suicides would send an insidious message to dying patients that they are burdens; that their illnesses do make them less worthy of being loved…it would signal the broader society, including young people, that suicide is right in some cases.” Clearly, Smith believes that if government were to allow the passing of laws supporting assisted suicide, individuals of all ages would develop low self-esteem and a false sense of morality. If the government decides to permit being able to take ones own life, it would be correct to do so resulting in a possible increase of suicides, and also wrongly convey an unpleasant idea of suicide being an acceptable value in America. Yet, Sandel would reply that the acceptance of assisted suicide by the government would in fact strengthen American values instead of convey false ones. Sandel emphasizes libertarian ideals when he claims that our individual rights allow us to own our labor, its rewards and ourselves. If the government forces us to do things involuntarily, they are violating our individual rights and causing individuals to sacrifice their own rights for the welfare of others. Libertarian principles focus on free choice and self-ownership, which assisted suicide provides. If ill patients or people of society can legally take their own lives and have others reach a consensus with them, the government would be allowing people to fulfill their own beliefs, and simultaneously express the government’s support of individualism, liberty, right of property and freedom of speech and religion, all very significant American values.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57514734/almost-200-arrests-in-nyc-as-occupy-wall-street-marks-first-anniversary/
ReplyDeleteWithin an article entitled “Almost 200 Arrests in NYC as Occupy Wall Street Marks First Anniversary”, the descriptions of the events that happened that day shed light on the question: is America living up to our founding ideals? This article comes from CBS News, a major news subdivision within America’s commercial broadcasting network, CBS. CBS News holds a reputation as one of the most trusted news reporting networks throughout the country. The article connects to this week’s topic of America’s original morals. Our nation’s values and founding ideals are set in stone within the United States Constitution. Among these morals are republicanism, constitutionalism, individualism, equality, private property, and freedom of speech. However, is America living up to these ideals? If one looks at the scenario during the Occupy Wall Street protests from Monday, September 17th, 2012 (the movement’s first year anniversary), one could say that America is clearly steering away from the original principles.
As the protests occurred throughout New York City, it becomes clear that the protesters’ rights are being denied. Protesters who were “chanting loudly about the ills of Wall Street” ended up being arrested. Are we not allowed the right to freedom of speech? The protesters are conveying one of their rights from the First Amendment – the right to freedom of expression from government intervention. The protestors did so by arguing against the social and economic inequality they feel is corrupting America’s government. This idea is expressed within the third chapter of Michael Sandel’s book Justice, entitled “Do We Own Ourselves?/Libertarianism”. Sandel states, “The richest 1 percent of Americans possess over a third of the country’s wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent of American families” (58) along with the fact that “Economic inequality is steeper in the United States than in other democracies” (58). Statements like these not only fuel the protests, but also show how the American value of equality is weakened. The protesters go against the inequality that is shown between what we know as the 1% (individuals with high incomes) and the 99% (individuals with low incomes). Protesters also express the value of individualism by representing themselves and several other Americans as the 99%. However, it’s not so easy to clear up this debate, especially when there are two sides that argue about it constantly: utilitarians versus libertarians. According to Sandel, if money were transferred from the rich to the poor (redistribution of wealth) through high tax rates on the rich, a utilitarian would argue that there would be a reduction in “the incentive to work and invest, leading to a decline in productivity” (59). A libertarian would argue that the taxes would be “unjust because it violates a fundamental right…taking money from [the rich] without their consent, even for a good cause, is coercive” (59).
If CBS News were to read the class text from this week, I believe that they’d be able to connect it fairly easily to the struggles faced within our economy today. Of course, the most obvious connection would be to Occupy Wall Street, but there are also several examples of the obstacles individuals face on their own whether they are in the 99% or in the 1%. Also, CBS News would be able to debate on the ways that our government has either gone with or against the nation’s founding ideals through the various scenarios that have occurred within the past year. If Sandel were to read the article I had chosen for this week, I believe that he would be able to see exactly where the line between justice and injustice lies within our government. Clearly, there is a separation between individuals who have higher incomes than others. Sandel would prove the ways in which this problem could be fixed, but would then explain oppositions that would turn down any hopes of fixing the imbalance within America.
This text is about the Supreme Court trying to prohibit corporations and labor unions from speaking about the government and politics. The Supreme Court is attempting to limit these groups rights, specifically by targeting their right of the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech.
ReplyDeleteThis text relates to the class' topic because Freedom of Speech is one of the first founding ideals of America. Freedom of Speech is a political right that allows individuals to oppose/disagree against the government. This also relates to our primarily question, Is America living up to our ideals, because this text is implying how America is not. Joel M. Gora states, "First, we should never have to get the government's advance permission in order to criticize the government" in order to emphasize how the government will be violating the people's first amendment right. This implies that these corporations and labor unions shouldn't have to ask for the government's permission in order to share their opinions on the government because the ideal of Freedom of Speech already allows them to oppose the government.
The text I found is credible because it’s posted by the New York Times. The New York Times is a prestigious news organization in the United States. The source is also credible because it cites other sources, websites and it consist of citations. If this source wasn’t credible it will lose the millions of readers it has. Furthermore, before stating Supreme Court Judges names, Gora writes "Justice" in order to make the argument better as well as using statistics such as year dates.
The author does present strong evidence in order to support his argument. One evidence that he presents is when he uses the words of Justices when they imply the ideal of Freedom of Speech. Gora writes, 'The people have the final say...The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation.It is therefore important...That all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained...' Gora states this quotation in order to suggest that "three greatest liberals" of the Supreme Court argues that no one, no point of view should be barred or ignore because they are part of the nation and their opinion is important.
The author of this text will say about the class' text of this week that morality is important. Morality is the principle which allows to maximize happiness, the balance of pleasure over pain. Gora will agree with morality because in order to maximize happiness you have to express your opinion. If you believe the government is doing something wrong and it's going to hurt your business, yourself and/or your nation then you have to have the right to decide what's the right thing to do for you can maximize utility.
The author of the class' text will say about my text that he will oppose the Supreme Court trying to prohibit limiting corporations and labor unions right of Freedom of Speech. Sandel uses Jeremy Bentham to interpret the idea of molarity. Jeremy Bentham founded the doctrine of utilitarianism. He implies that the moral argument equals to the principle of utility. This connects to my text because Gora writes, "The First Amendment has always been based on the idea that the more speech we have, the better off we are, as individuals and as a people". This explains that the people will increase their happiness if they express themselves. Expressing themselves will prevent them from suffering.
In “Romney on Federal Debt: Don’t Expect ‘Huge’ Tax Cuts” the idea of what is doing best what is best for the nation hangs in the balance. This brings up the question “Is America living up to our ideals?” In Romney’s proposal he does not plan to make large tax cuts to decrease national debt. Romney appears to have to alternative to decrease national debt. To decrease national debt America’s ideals need to be kept in mind. In addition this can be related to chapter 2 in Justice because utilitarianism plays a role in politics not just in societies morals. By applying utilitarian concepts to politics it can ensure the best results for the nation.
ReplyDeleteThe source from which “Romney on Federal Debt: Don’t Expect ‘Huge’ Tax Cuts” originates is validated. One reason this source is credible because it is about the 2012 election and it quotes Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The source cannot give inaccurate information because it could jeopardize the presidential nominee chances of becoming president. Furthermore, this is from the NationalJournal. A nationwide news organization like that would be unwise to be misleading and damage their reputation.
In “Romney on Federal Debt: Don’t Expect ‘Huge’ Tax Cuts”, Sarah Huisenga quotes Romney. Huisenga cites, “Our individual income taxes are ones I want to reform, make them simpler”. He further states “But by bringing rates down, we’ll be able to let small businesses keep more of their money so they can hire more people”. By targeting to help small businesses private property is protected. In addition, this remark can be considered to be under utilitarian ideals by aiming to accomplish what is better for the majority. The quotes provide adequate evidence to support the writers claim on Romney’s plan on federal debt.
Huisenga would agree that what Romney’s plan on federal debt takes on principles of utilitarianism. Romney won’t impose huge tax cuts because that would not help the nation get out of debt. He still needs reasonable rates to help push the nation forward. By helping small businesses it would be the result of a cost-benefit analysis. By accepting the proposed lower rates the benefits would outweigh the cost, by outweighing the cost the nation’s debt will decrease. It is evident that utilitarianism is present in current day politics. In chapter 2 of Justice the founder of the utilitarian doctrine would agree with Romney’s plan to reduce federal debt. Sandel writes, “Bentham thought his utility principle offered a science of morality that could serve as the basis of political reform” (35). Bentham believes that government should maximize happiness for the community. By reducing rates, helping small businesses, and reducing federal debt the happiness of the nation is maximized. The objection of this could arise when the different social classes are affected differently. Who would get the reduced tax rates, the middle class or high class? This plays into the utilitarian and libertarian debates. If the middle class gets the reduced rates then the high class would be opposed to this. The high class would say that it is a redistribution of wealth. It is unfair because from a libertarian standpoint the liberty of the wealthy to do what they want with their money is violated. Sandel states that a libertarian objection to utilitarianism is that it violates a fundamental right. He states, “Their central claim is that each of us has a fundamental right to liberty-the right to do whatever we want with the things we own, provided we respect other people’s rights to do the same”(60). Romney is more inclined to take this stance because he believes in private property. It would be a contradiction if he supports utilitarian values because he opposes the idea of redistributing wealth. By maximizing benefits to the most people through exercising republicanism and protection of private property America is living up to some of our ideals.
Reference
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-on-federal-debt-don-t-expect-huge-tax-cuts-20120926
URL: http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/first-amendment
ReplyDeleteThe text I found for this week is about the Amendments and the real significance of each. I specifically focused on the first amendment, freedom of speech. The text connects to this week’s topic of “Is America living up to our ideals?” in various ways. This week we focused on all the ideals of the American. We specifically focused on Individualism, Republicanism, Private property and Freedom of speech. We read sources that included examples of how America wasn’t living up to its ideal. The text I found is related to the week’s topic because it shows how the government can have control over the first amendment; freedom of speech. “For example, the government may limit or ban libel (the communication of false statements about a person that may injure his or her reputation), obscenity, fighting words, and words that present a clear and present danger of inciting violence”. This statement shows how the first amendment of freedom of speech isn’t absolute. The text I found is credible because it is a part of resources from The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics therefore the institute shares and publishes accurate and relevant information because the institute wouldn’t want to lose visitors to their site. The author does provide strong evidence because before he introduces the first amendment, he includes specific dates of when Congress proposed twelve amendments to the states. As shown, “On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the states twelve proposed amendments.” Also my author uses strong evidence because he goes in depth of the meaning of Freedom of Speech. The author of my text would agree with the text of this week “Restoring Free Speech in Elections” because the text from this week shows how freedom of speech isn’t an absolute amendment given to every individual. The author of my text would also say that freedom of speech contributes to the value of individualism because if an individual can’t use freedom of speech then the citizen’s value of individualism isn’t being protected or being valued. The author of the excerpt “Restoring Free Speech in Elections” would agree with the points being argued in the resource from Leonore Annenberg’s institute because Gora also believes that the First Amendment should be given to every citizen because it is a part of the ideas of our Founding Fathers. This is shown when Gora uses expertise Justice Holmes and Brandeis to say that “… First amendment rights have to be universal and indivisible”. Therefore, America is not living up to the ideal of Freedom of Speech.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKarla Arroyo
ReplyDeleteHonors Civics
9/27/12
The text I used for this week is the 1968 Nixon vs. Humphrey vs. Wallace presidential campaign commercial. This text and video elaborates on the main downfalls of the Vietnam War and the large impact that Nixon’s presidency would have on it.
This text connects to Justice, by Michael Sandel because the ideals of American society, such as liberty and equality are violated during the Vietnam War. In wartime, rights/values are limited due to preservation of the country. For instance, a racist comment to a political leader during wartime may result in a much more serious penalty as oppose to a country that is not. In relation to Justice, Sandel suggests that the ideals of American society are something to strive for, and striving is done on a continuous basis. Over time, as ideas coming from government itself get more “radical”, which entitle others to dissuade themselves from their promising ideals that America is not living up to.
This text and video are both credible because they state and show pictures of actual events that have occurred in America. If you date back to those who have survived after the Vietnam War they can tell you the excerpts of the war they saw every day during the 1960’s-1970’s. Adding on, this text does not take any side in political campaigns- it has a section for each campaign for each political leader from 1952 through 2012.
The author does not provide strong evidence to support his/her argument for various reasons. The author states vague points and virtually summarizes the rising tension of the 1968 election. For example, the author states, “The Republicans nominated Richard M. Nixon, who was attempting a political comeback after losing the 1960 presidential election and the 1962 California gubernatorial race...and he promised a return to the stability of the Eisenhower years.” which just gives a broad image of Nixon’s political actions. The author’s statement would've been stronger if he/she was able to use more analysis and describe why the Republicans nominated Nixon for president.
The author of this text would suggest that Sandel’s ideas of one being able to express their values and take advantage of them are in fact relevant, and ideal for someone who is pro-American values. Sandel would argue and suggest that the author of this text doesn’t preserve the American ideals because he/she mainly expresses America’s tumult and does not emphasize on the values each individual is given during America’s hardships.
Source: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1968
The article “Beware of Little Expectations” written by John M. Gora talks about how freedom of speech may be judged by the government if they identify it as “bad” but must satisfy the First Amendment. This text connects to this weeks topic of "Is America living up to our ideals?" because freedom of speech is an American ideal that is spoken about in this article. Gora writes,” Are we comfortable having the government decide that some speech under some circumstances is so “outrageous” as to warrant criminal or civil punishment?”, this quotation implies that this American ideal is not being lived up to because the government shouldn’t have a role in deciding what is appropriate speech and what is not. This source is credible because it is written by John M. Gora who is a professor at Brooklyn Law School and has been a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. It is also credible because it was published in the New York Times which is a newspaper organization that has been around for many years and by including false information they would be ruining their reputation and business. The author does present strong evidence because it includes a scenario where a parody was made regarding Rev. Jerry Falwell, it also includes the number of senators, 42, which have not agreed on a decision in the last six months and have urged the court to give Congress and the states the right to create legislation that would protect the sanctity of military funerals. The author of this source would say that the American ideal of Freedom of Speech is not being lived up to because by having outside intervention individuals do not have complete freedom of what they are allowed to say, also because the government may have bias in what they categorize as appropriate speech. The author of the class text would also have a similar opinion because the societies best interest is being jeopardized since they may have a limit to the way government may be critiqued.
ReplyDelete-Karina Tavarez
The article “A Dream Deferred” by Ronald Brownstein is about how Brownstein believes that the working class has a chance to work and eventually become part of the business class. The topic relates to Michael J. Sandel’s chapter three in Justice. In this chapter Michael J. Sandel focuses on the idea of libertarianism and how individuals have the freedom to keep or give up their lives without harming others. However, Brownstein’s article is based on the idea that skill and social class influence whether or not the individual will be able to succeed or not and this is an idea Sandel discusses to prove that there is inequality between the people that have to work and those that are just born rich. The article I found is credible because it is from the National Journal, an American magazine that informs people about current politics and emerging policy trends since 1969. This text is also credible because the writer of this article is the editorial director of National Journal and in polls he has noticed that a great majority of Americans still belief that the American Dream is achievable. In addition, this source is also credible because Americans read the magazine to stay informed with what is happening in the government and if the information is not accurate, then the amount of readers of this magazine in the United States will decrease.
ReplyDeleteIn “A Dream Deferred” Ronald Brownstein uses the trends that he has seen in polls as well as the responses he receives from people about the American Dream to support that he does believe there is a chance for people to improve their socio-economic standing in society. For example, the response Brownstein received from Isabel Sawhill, codirector of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution was “Because differences in income in the U.S. are believed to be related to skill and effort, and because social mobility is assumed to be high”. With this piece of evidence Brownstein is conveying that there is a split between social classes in America not only because of the way in which you are born but because of how hardworking one is and the qualities that make one unique. Clearly, it is evident that even though Brownstein has a good standing in society he recognizes that most people have to work in order to have a better life in the United States and just his qualities reference Sandel’s next idea in Justice. This idea is utilitarianism which is about how individuals accommodate their actions to emphasize the idea that happiness is better for the welfare of the people than pain.
Dianitza Continued response:
ReplyDeleteIf Brownstein were to read chapter three of Michael J. Sandel’s Justice he would agree with Sandel because he believes in libertarianism and seems to embrace it by the way in which he writes about people and their opinions. In his article, Brownstein writes “the faith that hard work brings success has been one of the elements in our culture that’s kept the peace”. This represents that American culture has successful individuals and the benefit of this is that not only are they happy, but America as a nation is also satisfied because it has representatives that show the strength and determination of the country to continue being in the lead of most successful countries. On the other hand, if Sandel were to read Brownstein’s article he would be convinced that Brownstein is a man of excellent character and he would also agree that people who work towards improving their position in society are the ones that are able to make the most justice because of their actions. Here, Sandel would see his idea of utilitarianism being embraced because a small amount can make a whole difference for a large group. In chapter three Sandel writes “This…makes them a part-owner of you; it gives them a property right in you”(65). This statement clarifies that those of the working class are capable of becoming part of the business class and protecting citizen’s rights as long as those citizens are influenced to better their position in society too. Both Brownstein and Sandel can agree that ideals such as those of libertarianism and utilitarianism are factors that contribute into making society more just and keeping the American Dream alive.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/no-penalty-for-torture.html?ref=editorialsandopinion&_r=1
ReplyDeleteThis article, “No Penalty for Torture”, is about how prisoners were tortured by interrogators and yet they weren’t convicted for it. It shows how the use of torture is defended and no one wants to try and go against the unjustifiable. In the book Justice, Michael Sandel mentions utilitarianism in the second chapter. In the subtopic, “Is torture ever justified?, Sandel talks about how torture can be seen as justifiable by utilitarians when a terrorists has planted a bomb somewhere and it could kill millions of people. The interrogators have little time to stop the bomb so torturing the terrorist for answers would be a good solution. Utilitarians care about the happiness of the people as a whole and not the individual rights. By torturing the terrorist, one inflicts pain on an individual but it brings happiness to everyone because they were able to save the lives of millions. The lives of many outweigh the lives of one-especially if the person is to blame for causing pain on others. This article was published by the New York Times who is a very well known newspaper company in New York. If they were to publish any false information then their newspaper would lose all of its credit in fame because it ruined its reputation as a trustful newspaper. Thus, this article is credible because it was published by a very reliable newspaper-the New York Times.
The New York Times editorial board, the writer of the article, refers to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. who “announced that no one would be prosecuted for the brutal deaths of two prisoners held in C.I.A. custody.” Aside from using an expert on these cases, the editorial board uses statistics to prove that government is justifying certain torture cases. They state, “In June 2011, Mr. Holder said that about 100 cases of detainee treatment had been reviewed and none warranted further investigation.” This shows that there are cases where detainees are being tortured but it no investigations have been done in attempt to convict the torturers. The torturers are being left alone even though torture is widely seen as wrong across America since it goes against the American ideal, individualism-which we talked about in class. A prisoner is being tortured in order to save others but his rights as an individual are being violated.
The editorial board would agree with Sandel that torture is based on the fact that torturing prisoners are only justifiable when one assumes that the prisoner is guilty of endangering someone’s life or the lives of a group of people. Sandel writes, “The moral force of the case for torturing him depends heavily on the assumption that he is in some way responsible for creating the danger we now seek to avert” (39-40). Sandel clearly believes that the only reason people find torture to be alright is because the person being tortured is guilty of causing pain to others. As Sandel mentions earlier in the book, “The highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, he overall balance of pleasure over pain” (34). The main focus on the people-and the thing they keep in mind when making life decisions-is that pain must be avoided and pleasure-or happiness-must be achieved. So if someone is endangering the pleasure of others and trying to inflict pain, like a terrorist, then it is perfectly fine to torture that person in order to save many. Similarly, Sandel would agree with the editorial board when they state, “In these egregious cases, it appears as though the C.I.A. interrogators tortured prisoners to death, going beyond even the harsh techniques authorized by the infamous torture memos cooked up by Justice Department lawyers to try to justify the unjustifiable.” Sandel mentions on page 40 in Justice, “…terrorists are bad people who deserve to e punished.” People are trying to justify torture when it is concluded that as long as the person being tortured is bad and is endangering the lives of others.
The text I’ve found is from the Bioethics, a group of people who advised the president on matters of biochemical advances and ethical issues related to them. The text I’ve found at times to be against utilitarian beliefs “preserving certain ethical limits against treating the body as property and the newly dead as simply natural resources.” While in Sandel’s second chapter utilitarianism a flaw recognized is “it fails to respect individual rights.”(37). So if we think about the American Ideal of private property to link these two texts it can be said that while the found text talks about the elimination of thinking the human body has a piece of ‘property’ which goes against the thirds chapters view of self-ownership “If I own my body, I should be free to sell my body parts as I please” (71). Which coincides with the American view that your body is your private property and your to do as you please with thus conflicting with the current view that seeing the body as property, like it does now because you cannot be arrest without due process, that is argued in the found text and which is conflicted with the utilitarian view that the utility of giving organs to one person will raise the overall utility of both the donor and the one receiving the organ and their family.
ReplyDeleteThe text I found is credible because it is from a government run group and quotes from other books and doctors to support their claims. It connects to this week’s reading since it talks about the right of the ‘self’ in selling their ‘property’ (their organs) and how to best respect basic human rights. The text uses pieces of information gained from one of the congress meetings, “the 107th Congress (2001 – 2002), a number of bills aimed at promoting organ donation and increasing organ supply were proposed. Some bills would have provided formal recognition of donors with commemorative medals. Other bills offered tax credits to individuals who donate organs (or credits to their surviving families) or reimbursement of the costs incurred by living donors.”. Also there a endnote at the bottoms of the page listed all the other sources used in the text which leads me to believe that the author used real evidence to back up their claim in form of quotations. I believe my author would agree with Sandel’s view on selling organs since but not as extreme has when he says “If we truly own our bodies and lives, it should be up to us to decide whether to sell our body parts, for what purposes, and a what risks to ourselves.” Since my author believes in donating organs because it’s the right thing to do and not to detriment ourselves to mere ‘property’.
http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/background/org_transplant.html
DeleteThe article I found was “Ashamed For Joe Paterno and Penn State’s Leaders, But Still Proud of My School.” This article discusses the recent Penn State scandal about the students who had been molested by the assistant football coach and the group of faculty members that kept quiet about this for years.
ReplyDeleteThis article relates to Chapter 2 of Justice by Michael J. Sandel, in which three men are stranded at sea with their fourth crew member who is sick and dying. They decided to kill him and eat him since he was bound to die anyways. This is an example of utilitarianism because it was a matter of weighing in the pros and cons of the situation to see if the benefits outweigh the consequences, without considering any proper ways to treat human beings. Although the situation of the article isn’t the same, the concept is still similar. In this article, the cons include the molestation of students attending Penn State University by the assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky. The pros include maintaining the good reputation of the university and the ability to keep playing football because if people found out about the rapes, Penn State would be temporarily banned from playing football. It’s also utilitarianism because Sandusky and the other faculty who chose against reporting Sandusky because they felt as though the pros outweigh the cons. It was more important to keep playing football than to serve justice. Similarly, it was more important to kill the dying crew member for the survival of the remaining crew members than to keep him alive because it would have been “the proper way for human beings to treat one another” (Sandel 33).
The article I found is indeed credible for various reasons. The Washington Post has continuously been receiving different Pulitzer Prizes since the 1930s. It is also the oldest and most widely circulated newspaper published in the Washington D.C. area. Not only is the newspaper credible, but the author is as well. LaVar Arrington, the author, was a student at Penn State who also played football for the university. This allows him to give the readers an inside scoop of what it was actually like to work with the faculty that is being charged for molestation.
The author of this article, LaVar Arrington provides statistics to make his argument strong and valid. In the section at the top of the article that provides readers with a gallery of photos matching the event of the article, he mentions the immense success of Joe Paterno, the head football coach. He states that although “Paterno won 409 games in 46 years as the head football coach for Penn State University,” it is not enough to let him off the hook for covering up Sandusky’s crime. Arrington uses statistics to show that success does not protect you from the law and whatever punishment he gets is well deserved no matter how many games he has won for the university.
The author of this article would approve of Jerry Bentham’s ideas of utilitarianism. In his article, he argues that “Our chant is ‘We are Penn State.’ Not ‘he is’ or ‘she is.’” Here, the author tries to show that the public is blowing the scandal way out of proportion by having a bias against all Penn State students. He says that Penn State should not have to suffer for the wrong doings of just one person. The author claims that he still has “Penn State pride,” despite the scandal that the few faculty members have caused. He believes that people shouldn’t blame the whole school for what happened when it was only a few people in charge of the scandal.
Jerry Bentham would also agree with LaVar Arrington because he would use his utilitarianism ideas to prove that the majority of the people would be happier if only Joe Paterno was punished. He would argue that the whole school does not deserve the bad reputation that the faculty was trying to prevent by keeping the crime a secret. Bentham would say that this is an example of utilitarianism gone wrong because the public is not maximizing welfare by criticizing the whole school just because a few people did something bad.
http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/10218
ReplyDeleteThe text I found is about the debate of whether officials should legalize prostitution. It discusses the ethics of prostitution as beneficial to most from a utilitarian perspective.
This article, by Michael Cook, connects to ‘Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism’ in Justice. He infers that things should be done for the pleasure of an individual and what maximizes happiness, as the “highest principle of morality.” The idea of utilitarianism is discussed in terms of what is right or wrong, and if it is acceptable if something is done that goes against what people think are human “morals,” but bringing happiness to one or many others, in other words, doing something “immoral” for the benefit of the majority. My article argues just that. Should prostitution be legalized? It’s considered immoral, but from a utilitarian perspective, the ethics of prostitution can be beneficial to most, “One benefit of prostitution is that it renders it possible for young people—who are the ones most likely to be poor—to earn a significant income without education and without investment costs, and to do so while keeping substantial parts of their spare time free to pursue other goals.” Bentham and Cook share the idea that things should be done simply for the enjoyment of you, the increase of self-happiness and pleasure, despite the claims of what might be “immoral” to society.
This text is credible because it belongs to a weekly informational news site which provides subscribers to high-quality, up-to-date issues and news in bioethics from around the world. The author, Michael Cook, did a BA at Harvard and became one of the world’s approximately two bioethics journalists. His work has been published in Australia, the UK and the US in several news sites and magazines.
Michael Cook presents strong evidence to support his argument. He uses statistical data from the ETHXWeb bioethics database at Georgetown University to show that there are ten times as many articles on surrogacy than on prostitution, even though they are in some ways related, which raises the question of the morality of surrogacy, and why it is considered acceptable while prostitution is not if it is all being done for the happiness of those who ask for it. He also includes testimonies from Norwegian academic Ole Martin Moen, also referred to as Dr. Moen, “…we believe in the acceptability of casual [intercourse]. In this paper I argue that if casual [intercourse] is acceptable, then we have few or no reasons to reject prostitution.”
If seated in a room, Bentham and Cook would have a progressive discussion on similar ideas about utilitarianism. Bentham would suggest that “Every moral argument… must implicitly draw on the idea of maximizing happiness,” while Cook will enrich that statement by inserting his example of the legalization of prostitution, with its different moral views on it, it maximizes happiness to those who want it. Surely both will agree that by subtracting all the costs, as Sandel states, from the policy of enjoying pleasure and pain, and take all benefits, happiness will be produced, which continues the question if happiness outweighs morality.
Link:http://nytimes.stats.com/ifb/story.asp?i=20120718133953990000101&ref=hea&tm=&src=EUSOC
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the transfer off famous football player Zlatan Ibrahimovic from AC Milan to Paris-Saint-Germain (PSG). He talks about his motivation for playing in his “dream team” and not to mention the amount of money he would be making which is around 17 million.
This article connects to this week’s topic of utilitarianism from chapter 2 of justice. Ibrahimovic’s 3 year contract signing can be seen as good thing for the player himself, since he is making more money than his previous teams and is now the second most paid football player in the word. Consequently is contract signing also has a negative part to not only the fans but for French sports Minister Valerie Fourneyron. Utilitarianism in this aspect only brings happiness to Zlatan and French soccer supporters but not to the whole number. When Ibrahimovic was in AC Milan he let down thousands of Italian supporters down not to mentioning the club itself.
This article is credible because it talks about an actual football player who is known nationwide. It also mentions well-known football clubs from different parts of the world like Italy, Spain, and France. The source is also from the New York Times which is a well-known newspaper source which cannot be tampered by anyone who is not an employee.
The author of this article which is the STATS LLC and Associated Press uses statistics to show the impact of Zlatan Ibrahimovic on the soccer universe. One of the stats used is the amount of money he is making which is 17 million, in which case without any explanation shows why he joined PSG. STATS also uses the amount of goals Zlatan made which was 28 m in one the seasons to show his skill levels. The author also uses the club’s money to show its importance and why they were able to afford Zlatan in the first play. PSG total money is around 137 million just for its players.
The author of this article would have nothing to say to the idea of utilitarianism created by Jerry Bentham. The author of the article writes in a general point of view stating the good and the bad about the moving of Zlatan Ibrahimovic to PSG. The author writes in a neutral tone that you can’t distinguish his point of view almost like Sandel but not quite.
Now what Jerry Bentham would say about the author of the article is a whole different story. Based on what I read from Justice, Bentham would think that Ibrahimovic decision to move to PSG violates his idea of utilitarianism. When Ibrahimovic signed the contract he only thought about his needs and not the need of the whole, in this case the supporters and the members of his previous team AC Milan. Bentham, since the author wrote in a neutral point of view, would persuade the author to see the “injustice” in this transfer through the idea of utilitarianism which Bentham would probably explain even though it brought happiness for several people it didn’t give it to the whole. Just like Sandel mentions when he uses the ship metaphor and the crew members and how the crew ate the smallest member for the happiness of the rest.