Journaling: Was Malcom X a "human rights activist" or a "terrorist"? What are your thoughts about Malcolm X and his methods to address inequalities and oppression during the Civil Rights Movement?
In my opinion, Malcom X was a human rights activist. I think his methods were somewhat radical however his motives were very clear and although they were direct, I think they were necessary and appropriate for the time he lived in. I think that the directness of his speeches and his addresses were what gained him so much support but also they were what gained him criticism. In times as momentous as the Civil Rights era, a combination of peaceful protesting like Martin Luther King Jnr. and radical protesting like Malcom X were what pushed the movement forward.
Monday 26 December 2011
Wednesday 7 December 2011
Important Legislation in the Civil Rights Era in 200 Words
What was the major breakthrough legislation from the Civil Rights Era?
The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts signed into action by President Lyndon B. Johnson were the major breakthrough legislation that was passed in the Civil Rights Era. These acts ended racial segregation in different areas, including schools, voting registration, and in workplaces and with public facilities. Controversial from the beginning, President Johnson was aware that supporting these bills would cause the South to revoke their support for the US Democratic party. Socially, it was controversial as well; this legislation tore apart societies, especially in the South, and often the backlash and conditions resulting from the bills' passing were more severe than they had been prior to it's establishment. The United States endured murder, protests, conflict, and social disruptions for years after the legislation was passed. Events such as the bloody march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama on March 7th 1965, raised mass awareness of the horrors that were taking place in America when footage was released and broadcasted on national news. For years the country was divided and although the legislation passed did make the first steps toward civil rights for all, it is still an issue even today.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts signed into action by President Lyndon B. Johnson were the major breakthrough legislation that was passed in the Civil Rights Era. These acts ended racial segregation in different areas, including schools, voting registration, and in workplaces and with public facilities. Controversial from the beginning, President Johnson was aware that supporting these bills would cause the South to revoke their support for the US Democratic party. Socially, it was controversial as well; this legislation tore apart societies, especially in the South, and often the backlash and conditions resulting from the bills' passing were more severe than they had been prior to it's establishment. The United States endured murder, protests, conflict, and social disruptions for years after the legislation was passed. Events such as the bloody march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama on March 7th 1965, raised mass awareness of the horrors that were taking place in America when footage was released and broadcasted on national news. For years the country was divided and although the legislation passed did make the first steps toward civil rights for all, it is still an issue even today.
Monday 28 November 2011
Libertarianism
Libertarianism: The Freedom Principle
I think that there are aspects of libertarianism that I agree with however I think that having a libertarian society would have a negative affect because people need regulation to a certain extent. I agree with the libertarian ideas of moral legislation such as the marriage age and right to chose abortion, but I think that without specific government regulation society would crumble under its own power.
Scenario 1: Kidney Market
I think that people should have the choice to sell only one of their kidneys. Selling two ends your life and that is essentially suicide if you are aware of this. I think that if someone wants to go through the process of removing one of their organs in order to either make money off of it or to help someone, the most important thing is that someone who needs a kidney can now receive one and their life may be saved. The libertarianist would say that the person donating the kidneys has the right to chose to sell one or both and therefore this should be legal despite the fact that it will kill them if they donate two.
Scenario 2: Same Sex Marriage
I think that I would take the utilitarianist route on the same sex marriage scenario. I think that everyone should be able to chose who they marry and it should not matter what sex you are. It almost feels as if banning same sex marriage is like banning a person's right to marry someone from another nation or of a different race. It is based off of traditional values that men should marry women and start families that way but who decided this was the correct way to live? I think that in free countries the option of who you marry should not be limited to the other sex, you should be able to marry whomever you want.
Scenario 3: Assisted Suicide
I think that people should have the right to go through assisted suicide but only under incredibly strict regulations and they should need to be counseled and questioned before they finalize their decisions. It should only be made allowed to people who are terminally ill and have been proved to be terminally ill and I don't think their family members should have a say in it. If, after going through all the regulations and processes necessary for assisted suicide, a person still wants to go through with it then they have their own reasons and who is anyone else to judge their decision. We are not experiencing a terminal illness and are therefore not in the position to judge anyone and say that it is morally wrong, because perhaps to them staying alive and enduring their illness seems morally wrong.
I think that there are aspects of libertarianism that I agree with however I think that having a libertarian society would have a negative affect because people need regulation to a certain extent. I agree with the libertarian ideas of moral legislation such as the marriage age and right to chose abortion, but I think that without specific government regulation society would crumble under its own power.
Scenario 1: Kidney Market
I think that people should have the choice to sell only one of their kidneys. Selling two ends your life and that is essentially suicide if you are aware of this. I think that if someone wants to go through the process of removing one of their organs in order to either make money off of it or to help someone, the most important thing is that someone who needs a kidney can now receive one and their life may be saved. The libertarianist would say that the person donating the kidneys has the right to chose to sell one or both and therefore this should be legal despite the fact that it will kill them if they donate two.
Scenario 2: Same Sex Marriage
I think that I would take the utilitarianist route on the same sex marriage scenario. I think that everyone should be able to chose who they marry and it should not matter what sex you are. It almost feels as if banning same sex marriage is like banning a person's right to marry someone from another nation or of a different race. It is based off of traditional values that men should marry women and start families that way but who decided this was the correct way to live? I think that in free countries the option of who you marry should not be limited to the other sex, you should be able to marry whomever you want.
Scenario 3: Assisted Suicide
I think that people should have the right to go through assisted suicide but only under incredibly strict regulations and they should need to be counseled and questioned before they finalize their decisions. It should only be made allowed to people who are terminally ill and have been proved to be terminally ill and I don't think their family members should have a say in it. If, after going through all the regulations and processes necessary for assisted suicide, a person still wants to go through with it then they have their own reasons and who is anyone else to judge their decision. We are not experiencing a terminal illness and are therefore not in the position to judge anyone and say that it is morally wrong, because perhaps to them staying alive and enduring their illness seems morally wrong.
Monday 21 November 2011
Happiness
Utilitarianism - the greatest good for the greatest number.
I studied this principle in Philosophy class last year. When I was learning about it, I thought it seemed to be more wrong than right for the majority of the time. We were given situations where we had to determine if choosing the utilitarian route was really the best way to ensure happiness among everyone, and about 70% of the time the situation led to a mutual agreement that utilitarianism is not necessarily realistic happiness. I do think that generally it is a nice principle is you are on the receiving end.
Scenario 1: City of Happiness
I understand that locking up and having one person suffering would be weighed out by the fact that hundreds of other people would remain happy and the city would remain thriving and positive, but I hate seeing or knowing that people are suffering. I think that it is wrong for anyone to suffer, because that would mean that the entire city is not necessarily realistically happy.
Scenario 2: "Hampsterdam"
The utilitarianist would say that it is a good idea to transport crime so that it is not affecting the general public, however I don't agree with this idea because I don't think it fixes anything. Hiding or moving something is not necessarily a long term solution; the crime rate will eventually ascend to the level it was at before and perhaps even surpass that level. The police need to be more diligent with this matter instead of simply giving the impression that they are simply giving up.
Scenario 3: Putting a Price on Humans
I think that placing a value on a life of a human being is an exceptionally difficult thing to to. I don't think that anyone is in liberty to actually evaluate and decide on a number for someone else's life, although this happens all the time with law injury settlements and life insurance. I would never be able to decide what another person's life is worth because I don't think it's fair.
Has your opinion changed?
No, because I knew how I felt about this before. This class has definitely solidified my opinions though. I think that it is unrealistic to live life with a utilitarian outlook.
I studied this principle in Philosophy class last year. When I was learning about it, I thought it seemed to be more wrong than right for the majority of the time. We were given situations where we had to determine if choosing the utilitarian route was really the best way to ensure happiness among everyone, and about 70% of the time the situation led to a mutual agreement that utilitarianism is not necessarily realistic happiness. I do think that generally it is a nice principle is you are on the receiving end.
Scenario 1: City of Happiness
I understand that locking up and having one person suffering would be weighed out by the fact that hundreds of other people would remain happy and the city would remain thriving and positive, but I hate seeing or knowing that people are suffering. I think that it is wrong for anyone to suffer, because that would mean that the entire city is not necessarily realistically happy.
Scenario 2: "Hampsterdam"
The utilitarianist would say that it is a good idea to transport crime so that it is not affecting the general public, however I don't agree with this idea because I don't think it fixes anything. Hiding or moving something is not necessarily a long term solution; the crime rate will eventually ascend to the level it was at before and perhaps even surpass that level. The police need to be more diligent with this matter instead of simply giving the impression that they are simply giving up.
Scenario 3: Putting a Price on Humans
I think that placing a value on a life of a human being is an exceptionally difficult thing to to. I don't think that anyone is in liberty to actually evaluate and decide on a number for someone else's life, although this happens all the time with law injury settlements and life insurance. I would never be able to decide what another person's life is worth because I don't think it's fair.
Has your opinion changed?
No, because I knew how I felt about this before. This class has definitely solidified my opinions though. I think that it is unrealistic to live life with a utilitarian outlook.
Thursday 17 November 2011
Justice
What does justice mean to me?
Justice is being treated fairly. Justice is treating others fairly. Justice is one of the most important qualities a nation can have. Righteousness in the law, treatment of humans, and all areas of life. Equality is important and just. America values justice in all areas of life and Americans will fight for what they believe is right.
Scenario 1: Price Gouging
The government has an obligation to protect its people, however the United States is a free country, people have a right to charge what they want for items to a certain extent. The government cannot attempt to control this, unless it affects the nation as a whole. Charging $12 for a gallon of gas in all of the US is different to charging $10 for a bag of ice in one area of one state. The economy in the affected area will eventually return itself to normal after the supply v demand settles to a sustainable rate.
Scenario 2: Bank Bail-Outs
The US unemployment rate is currently at 12%. Huge corporations employ hundreds of thousands of jobs; the government is somewhat responsible for maintaining justice in this area and following through with their responsibilities by taking care of their nation. Saving companies like GMC from going bust also saves jobs. There is a line that has to be drawn however. Using taxpayer's money to save other companies can only go so far.
Scenario 3: Runaway Trolly Driver
Saying that saving 5 peoples' lives is worth more than 1 person's life is incorrect, each persons life is just as important as anyone else's. The difference here is that saving 5 people's lives saves 5 families grieving compared to 1 person's family grieving. If the driver makes the decision that 5 is greater than 1 and switches the tracks to kill that one person, then the case will be traced back to the driver and he may be accused of murder. I still think that saving 5 people would be the way to go though.
Scenario 4: Runaway Trolly Observer
I don't think that we have the right to play God in this situation, however if one was to weigh out the options the samaritan decision would due to save the 5 workers lives and sacrifice the man on the bridge to stop the train. I think that no matter what, you would feel bad with either outcome but the difference is how much force would you feel if there were 5 people dead when you could have saved them compared to 1 person.
Scenario 5: Afghan Goat Herders, 2006
I think that the US Special Forces Unit should be more careful and not let the 2 goat herders see them in the first place, however if they run into them and cannot avoid the situation, the best thing to do would be to let them go. Killing them could backfire, they are innocent men unassociated with the Afghan military or government and the US has principles. Killing innocent human beings out of fear they will rat them out will give the US a bad image and is morally wrong.
Justice is being treated fairly. Justice is treating others fairly. Justice is one of the most important qualities a nation can have. Righteousness in the law, treatment of humans, and all areas of life. Equality is important and just. America values justice in all areas of life and Americans will fight for what they believe is right.
Scenario 1: Price Gouging
The government has an obligation to protect its people, however the United States is a free country, people have a right to charge what they want for items to a certain extent. The government cannot attempt to control this, unless it affects the nation as a whole. Charging $12 for a gallon of gas in all of the US is different to charging $10 for a bag of ice in one area of one state. The economy in the affected area will eventually return itself to normal after the supply v demand settles to a sustainable rate.
Scenario 2: Bank Bail-Outs
The US unemployment rate is currently at 12%. Huge corporations employ hundreds of thousands of jobs; the government is somewhat responsible for maintaining justice in this area and following through with their responsibilities by taking care of their nation. Saving companies like GMC from going bust also saves jobs. There is a line that has to be drawn however. Using taxpayer's money to save other companies can only go so far.
Scenario 3: Runaway Trolly Driver
Saying that saving 5 peoples' lives is worth more than 1 person's life is incorrect, each persons life is just as important as anyone else's. The difference here is that saving 5 people's lives saves 5 families grieving compared to 1 person's family grieving. If the driver makes the decision that 5 is greater than 1 and switches the tracks to kill that one person, then the case will be traced back to the driver and he may be accused of murder. I still think that saving 5 people would be the way to go though.
Scenario 4: Runaway Trolly Observer
I don't think that we have the right to play God in this situation, however if one was to weigh out the options the samaritan decision would due to save the 5 workers lives and sacrifice the man on the bridge to stop the train. I think that no matter what, you would feel bad with either outcome but the difference is how much force would you feel if there were 5 people dead when you could have saved them compared to 1 person.
Scenario 5: Afghan Goat Herders, 2006
I think that the US Special Forces Unit should be more careful and not let the 2 goat herders see them in the first place, however if they run into them and cannot avoid the situation, the best thing to do would be to let them go. Killing them could backfire, they are innocent men unassociated with the Afghan military or government and the US has principles. Killing innocent human beings out of fear they will rat them out will give the US a bad image and is morally wrong.
In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same. - Albert Einstein
Monday 7 November 2011
Multiculturalism in the Lower School
1. What will you remember most about your visit to the Lower School?
The kid's reactions and how they were so engaged in what we read will stay in my mind. They were very perceptive for 1st graders and they picked up on the negative and positive aspects of the story immediately. These children realized that it does not matter how we all look because being different makes the world interesting.
2. How did your view about what "The Sneetches" was about (i.e. the messages) change after hearing from the children?
I didn't think they would pick up in the money abuse issue in the story but they did and it shocked me. I also didn't think they would be able to comprehend the message of The Sneetches so well, but they were successful in that too. I think that before I heard what the kids said about the story, I believed that it was simply about what is wrong and what is right but they made comments like it's okay if some of the sneetches are different because that's what prevents the world from being, as they said, "boring".
The kid's reactions and how they were so engaged in what we read will stay in my mind. They were very perceptive for 1st graders and they picked up on the negative and positive aspects of the story immediately. These children realized that it does not matter how we all look because being different makes the world interesting.
2. How did your view about what "The Sneetches" was about (i.e. the messages) change after hearing from the children?
I didn't think they would pick up in the money abuse issue in the story but they did and it shocked me. I also didn't think they would be able to comprehend the message of The Sneetches so well, but they were successful in that too. I think that before I heard what the kids said about the story, I believed that it was simply about what is wrong and what is right but they made comments like it's okay if some of the sneetches are different because that's what prevents the world from being, as they said, "boring".
Wednesday 26 October 2011
Myself in 60 Seconds
I am a girl. I'm Irish. I'm American. I'm 1/4 Australian. There are some Swedish genes in there too apparently. I was born in Dublin. My favorite seasons are winter and fall. I love Environmental Science. I hate Math more than anything. My favorite ice cream flavor is mint chocolate chip. I love puppies. I love babies. I bake for fun. I love skiing. I love birthdays. I want to live in South Africa at some point in my life. If I could travel for the rest of the year I would. I used to play field hockey. I go to yoga whenever I can. Green is my favorite color but I also like blue. I am allergic to bees. I love ASL. I love watching rugby. I love watching ASL rugby. I'm a huge Pittsburgh Steelers fan. I can't wait for college.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)