cAPITAL punishment?

When a person takes the action of killing another human being, does that person deserve to continue living? If not, do they need to be punished and “reformed”? What does that look like, prison? Three square meals a day and having a roof over your head does not sound like punishment for that level of crime. So would that mean that death is the ultimate punishment? Many people would argue that death is too easy, or that is not our place at all to sentence someone to death. However, by removing someone from the earth that has willingly taken another human beings life, you are insuring multiple things. First you are insuring that they cannot ever take the life of another human being and that they no longer pose a threat to society. Secondly, a standard is being set by saying that when a person chooses to kill another person, that persons due punishment is death. Maybe this will not always deter people from killing one another, but I can guarantee you that a lot more killing would take place if there was no punishment whatsoever. The argument many people use against capital punishment of “why do we kill to show killing is wrong”, is weak because the one thing most people do not want to do, is die. So by setting this standard, it not only shows how wrong murder is in the eyes of the justice system, but it also hopes to make some would be killers think twice before committing the act of murder.

Whichever side you choose, for or against the death penalty, I think we can all agree that murder is wrong. Many grey lines start popping up when dealing with drugs, alcohol, etc, both those are all best left to be interpreted by individual cases.  

Three Fingers...Pointing Back at YOU

This week in class, we watched White Bear. This episode of Black Mirror was a bit disturbing because it brought many questions to my mind. The woman in the film was being “watched” , but she did not know why. At the end, the film revealed she was being tortured because she aided her boyfriend in kidnapping and killing a little girl. I think we can all agree that she is a horrible person for that, however, these people at White Bear that were torturing her were morally wrong for both torturing her and for going to watch her get tortured. Torturing the woman was not helping her and the only effect it had on her was that she did know what in the world was going on, she was clueless. Yes, she is a horrible person for what she did to that little girl but she was not learning a lesson. The woman had no memory of what she had done. In class we talked about punishing a person versus reforming a person.

            In her case, she was only getting punished, although what she did was wrong I think that it was not fair for her to get her memory erased after each day of torture because she knew what she was being tortured for but only for a short amount of time and then had no previous memory afterwards. Throughout the film, except, the end, she was confused and disoriented about her surroundings, so in my opinion if she was going to get tortured day after day, she might as well have her complete memory so she can actually suffer (it sound harsh but come one, deep down inside us we all have an opinion about what she did and in my opinion she did deserve getting punished. )

            Moving on to the people that were filming and watching her get tortured; they are the same as she is. She filmed a little girl get tortured, and then they were filming her get tortured, To me it is the same thing. The Bible mentions that no sin is greater than the other, so pretty much every sin is the same no matter what it is. In their eyes those people were “justified”, but in essence what they did to her is exactly what she did to the little girl. I just dint see the point of lowering yourself to a murder’s level, knowing you are much better than that. Things would’ve taken care of themselves.  He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her (John 8:7).  I use this quote because just because someone did something extremely wrong….it does not give ANYONE the right to judge or take matters into their own hands. I think that is why the woman getting tortured was morally wrong… because no human being should judge someone else because they have baggage too…like they say.. While you point one finger..you have three pointing back at you.

Catfish Documentary

On the Internet, a "catfish" is a person who creates fake personal profiles on social media sites using someone else's pictures and false biographical information to pretend to be someone other than themself. These "catfish" usually intend to trick an unsuspecting person or persons into liking/loving them. In class, last week, we watched the documentary that started the whole process of the show Catfish. Nev Schulman was contacted by and 8-year-old girl named Abby on MySpace. Abby then painted a couple painting for him and then Nev developed a friendship with the entire family. But then Nev got into a serious relationship with Abby’s sister, Megan. Nev asked for a rendition of the song “Tennessee Stud,” once Megan sent it to him, he looked it up and realized that it wasn't her. Eventually, Nev and his brother took a trip to Michigan and meet the whole family, except for Megan. The lies just kept building up, so Nev confronted Angela. Angela told him part of the truth but continued to lie. 

My take on this would be that it is not right to lead somebody on and act like somebody you are not. Its completely fine to “online date,” but that means that you need to be honest about who you are and what type of person you are. I know Angela had a tough life and just wanted a way out, but she could've done it in a better way. In a way that wouldn't hurt other people. Plus, even when Nev figured out that she was lying about everything and trying to be 15 different people, she still continued to lie. Also, it just completely blows my mind that she was able to fake being so many people and never mess up. She had 2 kids with disabilites, I don't know how she was even able to have time for anything else. 

Why the Girl?

Why did the White Bear facility choose the female criminal instead of the man, who was probably the one who actually did the raping? Was it because raping a man would be too graphic for viewers, but there are ways to inspire the same emotions of raping someone other than rape? Was it because the man was bigger and stronger than the female and therefore more of a threat? Does that mean that the weakness of someone was used to punish them more than the actual rapist, or was there another place where they punished the boyfriend but wouldn’t they have mentioned that? The White Bear facility didn’t choose the person who committed the worse crime, but the person who was easier to punish.

            Justice should be blind, not measuring who it would be easier to put through hell. The White Bear facility was unjust not because of the way they punished her, but because of the way they chose her. They chose the weakest person of a high profile case even though she wasn’t as bad as the actual rapist. The White Bear facility used the idea that a woman would be easier to control and prevent from harming the viewers than the man. The White Bear facility took advantage of weakness and let someone off easy because of strength.

Injustice for the Benefit of Others?

The White Bear facility was not established to promote justice but instead to promote profit by giving people what they want to see, an eye for an eye, or at least that is what it seems like, but is it wrong to punish someone without the intent of justice? The White Bear facility seemed at first to be a perfect justice. They made the criminal feel the same way their victim did, but at a certain point, they go to far. They don’t allow the woman to remember her crime then compare her experience as the victim with her wrongdoing then let her wallow in what she’s done and grow as a human being then eventually reform her and release her into society even though the society we live in today doesn’t allow for the redemption of criminals. Something else to consider is that she may or may not have reformed after experiencing the same pain as her victim. After all, there are many cases of someone undergoing a painful experience and then still forcing others to undergo that same experience, and she has already committed the crime once.

            The White Bear facility though offers punishment/torture for the entertainment of others. There is no reform, just pure entertainment for profit, but is that wrong? Is it wrong to make money off the suffering of criminals in what looks like justice? The White Bear facility would make the government a large amount of money, money that could be used for the benefits of other noncriminal citizens. It could go into education or getting healthcare on its feet or keeping social security on its feet. The suffering of a criminal could bring about the joy of others.

Moral Justice

This week we watched a short film in which a women wakes up without any memory of who she is or previous events in her life. In an attempt to figure out who she is, she walks outside and discovers people around her recording her every move on their cellular devices. They seem hypnotized, distant, and unresponsive. She finds herself being chased by a masked stranger carrying a shotgun and finds two people who seem normal and alert. She makes an escape with the woman who explains that a television signal has caused everyone to behave in this way and many of those who are not affected have taken over. They conduct horrible crimes involving torture of those in fear and vulnerability. She is victim of their desire to hurt others and shows her anger, frustration, and confusion towards the bystanders who continue to record in amusement without trying to help her.

As her journey continues she recovers certain pieces of what seem  memories but nothing is really clear.  At the end of their journey, when she feels there is no escape, the walls and theatrics are removed and she finds herself  standing on a stage, with a cheering crowd, again holding their phones to record her, she is tied down and presented with a video showing who she really is and an explanation of what is going on. She is a criminal who assisted her now dead fiancé in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of an innocent six year old girl. She was determined guilty by a jury due to the evidence of her own recording of the events and torture of the little girl. As we learned, The events he experienced that day were meant to teach her a lesson and were seen as justice to her crime.

I do not agree this punishment was the best way to achieve true justice. It is frightening to see the inhumane treatment of individuals and the lengths they will go to achieve what they believe is correct. Although I do believe she definitely deserves a punishment for her appalling acts, I do not think people in general should lower themselves to the level of such a low and immoral human being. Although the events did cause her to see her mistakes and even become appalled by the people with the recordings symbolizing her own acts, there isn't anything that can be done that can undo the crime committed. Taking these actions only allowed those in charge of the amusement park and participants to be contaminated by the hatred, and psychopathic mindset. If everyone in the world took actions into their own hands this world would be lost. I believe people who commit acts such as hers will be judged one day and receive a punishment greater than anything they could experience in their lives.

Fishing For Catfish

Although I only was present in class only one day last week. I learned the main point of the movie Catfish and also I even got the opportunity to hear some great explanations of the motives of Angela. Mostly what I believe is based on opinions that were brought up in class last Friday. So my opinion of Angela is that she wanted to feel appreciated and also have a feeling of happiness. It's not easy to run a household were your husband is not the brightest and your step-children are incapable of taking care of themselves. The main point  is every human being wants to feel some type of security and happiness within their lifetime. However, instead of trying to pursue happiness as a sake for its own Angela tried to pursue happiness for the sake of something else. In Aristotle's virtue ethics he tells us that true happiness cannot be pleasure. Angela tried to gain happiness by using Nev to pleasure and fulfill her thoughts of what was needed to gain and obtain happiness so that she could feel secure and appreciated in her situation. Had she wanted to talk to Nev just to have a friend she would've done that in the beginning instead of playing with his feelings for her own emotional gain. 

Catfishin'

In the documentary "Catfish", an excellent point that was made was that catfish are just like people in the world nipping at toes and keeping others fresh and on their feet. Which is exactly what Angela in the story did. By creating multiple profiles and acting first as a young girl to gain the trust of Nev, and then as a 19 year old and so on, she lied and tricked Nev into loving someone who never existed. It is evident at the end of the movie that Angela has a tough life that is not necessarily what she set out to have, and for that reason, many sympathize with her and tend to think that what she did was justified. I don't believe in this case her situation justifies her actions. I believe that sometimes it can be necessary to lie, but in this case I think there are better ways she could have handled her situation. Lying and cheating on her husband were temporary solutions that hurt Nev and eventually her husband as well. For that I think that what she did was immoral and not justified on the basis that her life isn't what she wanted.

According to Mill, morality is based on whatever causes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. I believe that besides Nev becoming famous, no one benefited from Angela's lies and some were actually hurt by it. A point brought up in class that Angela brought a child into her lies makes her actions even worse and harder to justify.

THERE REALLY IS NO PLEASING PEOPLE

I'm pretty sure that everyone has heard of the protest to raise minimum wage to $15 dollars. I just read one of my peers' (a few blogs below mine) about minimum wage being raised and I really don't think that would be smart. I agree that there are serious problems in our economy today, but raising minimum wage would probably be the worst idea possible. There is a poverty issue and I am not trying to sound heartless, but if minimum wage is raised then so will everything else. If a person that gets paid hourly pays attention to their check stubs, depending on how many hours you have, the more you make. This is definitely a fact… but the more hours, and more money, also comes more taxes you have to pay. The economy is not going to be fixed by the government just throwing money to employees of hourly wage jobs. If the minimum wage is raised to $15/hour then you will be paying more taxes and potentially taking home a little more, if not the same amount. People will be out of work because they will now have to pay one person what they were paying for two employees. ($7.25+$7.25=$14.50 < $15). There really is n pleasing people because no matter what happens there is going to be someone complaining about something. There is not a way to change ONE single thing in the economy, unless everything became free, that would satisfy everyone in the U.S.

                                                     The Idea Behind the Film Catfish.

This week we watched a film called Catfish, which I found to be very interesting and informative. It was about a young man named Nev who meet a girl, Avy, that painted photos that he sent her. The film then develops a climax when the sister of Avy, Meagan, comes in the play. Maegan starts to send Nev texts about how much she likes him and they both begin a relationship online. Then Nev finds out that Meagan is been lying to him, when she plagiarizes on some songs. Nev and his friends then decide to travel to Michigan where "Meagan" and "Avy" live. When they get there, they get to meet Angela, the mother of Avy, but she is a very mysterious woman that constantly mentions the art work of Avy. Later in the film Nev finds out that Angela has been the character behind Meagan and Avy. Nev of course becomes surprise and a little scare when he discoverer all the lies that Angela had wisely planned. Throughout the film I had very little empathy for Angela until I found out the real reasons for her lies. She used the characters to portray her real life dreams by making Avy the artist and Meagan the dancer. She explained to Nev that she had so many dreams, but with her marriage and her two disabled step kids, all of her dreams where ruined and she wanted to find a way to get them back. I cannot blame her for that, because we all deserve to have goals in order to make life purposeful. However, she hurt the feelings of a lot of people, especially Nev's. In a way she became selfish without caring about the feelings of others. I am not perfect and I have committed errors in the past, but did is just my opinion and I do not think is correct to play with someone else's feelings.

Is emotional cheating worse than infedelity?

What do you think? I believe emotional cheating is worse. This takes so much time, energy, and effort. It also takes more contemplation to cheat emotionally. I believe we can all agree that cheating is morally wrong. However, is emotional cheating "morally worse"? Or is there even a difference? Is cheating simply cheating? In my opinion, as stated before, I believe cheating emotionally is slightly worse. With infidelity, there are some many things you can blame the act on. This is not the case with cheating emotionally. Let's take catfish for example, the person doing the "catfishing" is deliberately making a decision to hurt the person they're in a relationship with, in the event that they're in a relationship. The mere fact that a person took all of the time, and energy to make up this false person is more hurtful than, let's say, a one night stand. What are you thoughts about this?

Digital Identities and their appropriate settings

In the movie Catfish, Angela used a fake identity in order to act as another person. Because she decided to do this over social media, people generally say that what she did was wrong. Interestingly, they argue this as if the act was a reason in itself. I think that the reason people got upset with her is because she chose to be somebody else over social media, where it is expected that people will interact with each other online as themselves. Another reason I believe people get upset about this is that by being deceptive about who you are and building relationships with other people through social media, you could potentially hurt the other person participating in the relationship emotionally. Additionally, people act as though behaving as someone else is universally wrong, but these same people probably wouldn't find a problem with the same behavior if it were to take place during an online game. In an online (or role-playing) game, it is expected that you fulfill the role of another person while you play, and it is understood that a game is taking place, and that what goes on should not be taken seriously, whereas websites like Facebook carry the expectation that you are telling the truth about yourself and what's going on in your life. What it comes down to is that there is a time and place for this kind of behavior. Unfortunately, there are no official guidelines that someone can print off and keep around their computer to tell them, "If you present false information about yourself or who you are on these sites [websites listed here], people will be upset with you and stigmatize you for it in the event that they find out. Here are a list of websites and situations in which it is appropriate to lie about yourself online [websites and situations listed here]."
Of course, I could come up with a list of exceptions that would please me, but I can't come up with a list of exceptions that would please everybody (or the most people). What types of rules do you think should be officialized for conducting yourself online?

Catfish

In the documentary, Angela “catfished” Nev in that she deceived him and pretended to be a lot of different people such as her daughters and other friends. I do, however, feel a little bad for her because she seems to have had a rough life in that she is lonely and has a lot of emotional stress from her two disabled step-sons. On the other hand, she did commit some major moral wrongs, such as lying, telling her daughter to lie, and cheating, at least emotionally. Because of this, she did not appear to be in order as Plato would say, and therefore could only do wrong based on her situation and no good could have come out of her actions. Her desire to have a relationship with someone other than her husband resulted in what seemed to be a game for Angela where Nev thought he had a genuine relationship with Abby and her family. In the process, Angela took the role of her daughter “Megan” and began an intimate relationship with Nev as that daughter. In this way she emotionally cheated on her husband even though she was not acting as herself. She also never lied about her and Nev’s relationship to her husband and told him Nev was commissioning her paintings. Angela then continued to lie when Nev showed up at her house in order to deceive him by saying that there was at least some truth in the lies and it seemed to work until Nev found out that those were lies too. Through Kant’s eyes, all lying is bad and therefore even though she attempted to keep some of the “truth” behind her lies and keep some of her credibility, it is absolutely wrong for her to do. In my opinion, the worst thing she did was manipulate Abby into lying too because she is still very young and does not know any better yet. By lying and manipulating her daughter, she is setting a bad example for the future. Even though I do sympathize and feel pity for her, I do think that what she did is morally wrong.

Sartre and free will.

Last week we had symposium and I was chosen to be Jean Paul Sartre. Possibly the most radical philosophical proponent of free will was Jean Paul Sartre, who taught that human beings are completely free to choose, with no excuses. “Man is condemned to be free,” Sartre taught. “Condemned” is an appropriate word if Sartre is right in saying there are no objective criteria that make a decision right or wrong, and all decisions are at bottom arbitrary. Sartre praised authentic persons who wholeheartedly commit themselves to a set of values, which they have chosen arbitrarily but live up to without hypocrisy. By his standards, I’m not an authentic person. My belief in free will is selective. If I think that I exercise free choice, I take responsibility for my actions and try to improve. If I think my actions are predetermined, maybe I do and maybe I don’t. When I do something of which I am proud, I give myself credit for the good moral character as well as the ability that made my achievement possible. When I do something of which I am ashamed, I think of all the reasons why I couldn’t help doing the bad thing. I was tired, so I think; I was under pressure; I was afraid; I was needy; I didn’t think, and I wasn’t myself. The law holds people responsible for their actions, but defines some people and some circumstances in which people are not responsible. I’m responsible for my actions when driving while intoxicated because I supposedly had the choice not to become intoxicated, but if somebody drugged me without my knowledge, I wouldn’t be responsible.

Catfishing Morality

Catfish is an urban term used to describe a person who keeps one on their toes and is often associated with the fabrication of online identities. Watching the ultimate "catfish" story was incredibly eye opening due to the extent to which the woman went to in order to fulfill some unsorted issues in her life. In my opinion, there were plenty of moral issues concerning this film though the woman could easily be sympathized with; however, the most prominent is that she lied. Yes, this is immoral and can be exemplified by Kant's viewpoint. He basically left his theory to two questions: "Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act?" and "Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes?" If the answer to these two questions is no then the action should not be done and consequently is morally wrong. A point was brought up about how was Angela's actions any different then alterations such as filters on personal photos on social media. I feel that what Angela did and changing settings on pictures are two completely different things. There is no degree of alteration to distinguish because Angela didn't alter anything. She replaced who she was with fake people and lied about everything that she said. It doesn't matter that portions of the truth were there if you lied about everything surrounding it. Also, filters aren't changing your image to the point that you look like someone extremely different and are lying about who you are as a person, and there is no sneaky hidden agenda behind it. I guess the conclusion is that as long as the altered form of yourself is extremely close to the "real" you then there is no harm done.

Serve em up!!!

The Catfish documentary really helps you realize how people like to minipulate the power that they have over the internet. The internet gives some people comfort because they can hide their faces and feelings behind a computer screen. People that do such things, as the woman did on catfish, usually do not care who they hurt or tamper with. The pleasure that the sender of the false information only grows with each message they send. From watching the show Catfish on television, it is not hard to see that people fall for this type of thing on almost a daily basis.

On one episode I recall a man sending a girl, that he thought he was in love with, several checks and cash to "pay her bills". Personally there is no way that I would send money to someone if:

1. I have not met them in person
2. I do not know them on a personal level
3. I do not actually know that they would pay me back
4.  I DON'T KNOW THEM

The moral of this post is you can not trust someone you don't know and you have to watch the ones you do know. To catfish someone you have to get them psychologically first and then capture them emotionally. The process is not easy, but there are smart people that do this on a daily basis. It is morally wrong because she used her child, she cheated on her husband, and she lied the whole time. That in itself is the problem with free will on the internet and people getting catfished.

Sometimes when you are alone you make irrational decisions, because of these irrational decisions one would make what is considered a wrong decisions. This week we saw that unfold in a series of online messages and made up personalities. Some would consider what Angela did wrong but others could sympathize with her and her mistakes. She did CATFISH Neiv, deceived his emotional side but the thing about her deception was rather strange. She lured him in by making him feel safe with paintings “made” by her daughter. There is the first red flag! It is one thing to lie but Angela pretended to be a LITTLE GIRL in mail and through paintings. She then used her daughter as an in to Neiv, then through phone calls, THEN introduced her husband and younger (same age as Neiv) daughters.

This was a premeditated relationship. She planned out how she would interact with him then made up more and more unique stories like it was a game, and that’s what it was at the end, a game for her. You can tell she was not going to stop by the way she became so defensive when Neiv called her out for stealing a song off youtube, she could have stopped and admit what she was doing but she prolonged it for her own emotional gain.

At the end of the film you can clearly tell by her facial expressions that she enjoyed toying with his emotions and creating this fake relationship. She gained emotional stimulation from him and knew she would never meet him but pulled him closer and closer to the surface of the water like a hooked fish.

Union labors/Fight for 15

It is very obvious that minimum wage, $7.25, an hour is not enough for us humans to survive on, especially in this economy. We have tons of bills to pay and other payments we need to handle and $7.25 is nowhere near suitable. Some people have to get two or three jobs just to get by. I work for minimum wage at the job I am employed at now, and even though I still live with my parents and they pay all of the bills, I seem to run out money so quick because my paycheck is just simply not enough. So, because of the $7.25 being the minimum wage, a campaign called “The Fight for 15” has been started by fast food workers who work for minimum wage and are trying to get it raised to $15 an hour. They leave their jobs to strike and protest for this movement. Police have arrested plenty of workers because they are protesting in the middle of the streets, but that still has not stopped them. While they are protesting, others think that more problems would occur with raising the minimum wage. Brad Jones, Missouri director of the National Federation of Independent Business, says, “if these folks have to increase their wages by $5 an hour, it’s really going to be detrimental to them.” He also thinks that if minimum wage was increased restaurants would hire fewer people. I agree with the strikers, but Brad Jones does have a point. The restaurants would hire less people because that is less employees that they would have to pay. Then, more people would be unemployed and the poverty rates would go up even more, but raising it could be a benefit because it could potentially help the poor, less wealthy, and poverty-ridden families.

The Sartre Way

This week in class our symposiums took place covering three different philosophers: Nietzsche, Marx, and Sartre. The philosopher who I was assigned to is known as Jean-Paul Sartre. He was well known for being an existentialist and took part in the movement along with a few others. When it comes to life he believed that we as human beings are free to give meaning to our life. We were placed here with no prior purpose and the actions we perform make us who we are. This goes against what I've known most of my life. I was taught that I was born to fulfill something that was installed in me and I had to discover what that was. As I have gained knowledge and formed my own views I do agree with giving my life meaning occurs through my actions. However, I do feel like everyone has a place in society and some find it while others never do. Sartre believes that whatever choices you make you make them as a free being and that you have to take full responsibility for them. I also agree with this because as a conscious being you are able to decide what is right or wrong and you're able to weigh out how that will affect you, as well as those who may be affected by your decision. One of the things that many people could relate to is when it comes to working at their jobs. If you don't enjoy the job position you hold, you don't have to continue working there. According to the views presented of Sartre you could change the situation by finding another job or maybe even creating one. We are not objects we are subjective creatures who are capable of transcending in what ever ways we see fit.

Existentialism

Jean Paul Sartre founded the concept of existentialism, which states that people are free agents that are responsible for their own freedom and actions. The way humans exist is very different than the way other animals exist. Since we are rational beings, we are able to determine our actions and usually the outcomes of those actions. Even though we are free, some people are afraid of their own freedom. Jean Paul Sartre uses a waiter as an example of someone that is qualifying themselves as an object and lying to themselves, as well. To an extent, the waiter is an object, since he has to put on an act like he is chipper and wants to serve people. This could be the same for any other service worker.  But the fear of ones’ own freedom is best described by using examples of workers. Most workers that have lower paying jobs will tell you that they can not afford to lose their job. This is true, because unfortunately, we have to pay to live on the earth that we could not help but to be born on. The worker does have the freedom to choose to other options by which they can do., such as go to school or go through an apprenticeship to be able to work a better job. But, the worker also has the freedom to be able to choose to stay at their current job.

I really like the idea of existentialism because I like the idea of people being autonomous, free people. Life can be miserable if someone is dictating your every move. This idea of existentialism also holds people responsible for the things that they do, because it is understood that they choose to do it themselves. It is a good way to hold people accountable for their actions, whether they are right or wrong.

Nietzsche's View on Mental Illness

According to Nietzsche, the controversy of whether or not someone who has a mental disorder or addiction should be tried as a normal person, someone after committing a crime would simply not exist because they were simply born weak, and they have no right to turn that weakness, their mental disability, into a strength. Somebody’s weakness whether they are born with it or the weakness develops over time should not be specially considered within the court system because it is not the Noble view of thinking, but instead nothing more than a Slavish view. 

It may be harsh, maybe even overly harsh, but special consideration should not be given to people who can’t help committing the crimes that they commit because that will only overtime weaken society. A crime is a crime whether committed out of strength or weakness and should be treated as such. It doesn’t matter if they committed the crime due to a chemical imbalance or because they went into some sort of drug induced rampage, the crime should be punished without the defense even remotely thinking that it should be possible to lighten the punishment for the crime because the criminal was all things considered mentally weak.

A society run purely under Nietzsche’s philosophy probably wouldn’t have a justice system, but that doesn’t mean that the justice system can’t take a page out of Nietzsche’s book and not allow people to profit off of their weaknesses, but it also probably wouldn’t let people profit off of their money or position because if they were caught then they obviously weren’t very great and deserve no leniency.

Let Freedon Ring!

            Freedom by definition means having the power or right to act, speak, or think as you please without any inhibiting you from doing so. This last week we discussed the view of philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre. Sartre’s point is about the moral undertone about being responsible. He points out subjects and objects. Objects are based on facticity and subjects are based on both facticity and transcendence –freedom. He also discussed that lying to oneself is not possible because in order to lie you need to know the truth and if you know the truth you cannot lie while knowing the truth to yourself, or at least that is what Sartre says.

            During our second symposium we discussed whether or not a mentally ill person was fully responsible for his or her actions. The class came to a conclusion that mentally ill people are not fully responsible because they are not “free”. Since they are “mentally” ill, depending on the type of illness, the person can either think or not think which according to Sartre; one is free just as long one has the freedom to think. Now with this in mind, we can agree that there are certain things that an ill person is not responsible for, however what about when he or she knows what is best and clearly understand the point of it. For example when an ill person decides not to get help or take medications, they know they can change their mental state with helps but yet do not take it. According to Sartre, they are free to do as they please whether the outcome is good or bad, but what would be you guys’ opinion on someone who is ill, mentally, but yet does not know that he or she is ill and continues living his or her life as if nothing were wrong? Would it be the same as the mentally ill person, which is that they are not fully responsible on certain actions/decisions that he or she chooses to take?

Bourgeoisie v Proletariat

The struggle of capitalism divides society into 2 classes, producing more agression: bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and proletariat (workers). Although both classes participate in the active production, the mode of distribution of the goods doesn not correspond to the contribution of each class. There are differents types of values. Firstly production value, which is how much it took to make the product. Secondly surplus value, which are the profits (sales income less the cost of materials used up). Thirdly market value, which is the cost in the market.

All this conditions produces violence. Conditions get worse and worse, being more poor people and few rich people. There is only one way to change this: with a revolution. 

What marx claims is that the existence of classes is bound up with particular historical faces in the development of production and the class struggle nececessarily leads to proletariat (rule of working class). He also claims that proletariat is only a transition to the evolution of all classes.

Morality

Nigtzhe sees morality as an attempt of the weak to surpass the strong. By displaying strengths as weakness they allow themselves better chances and benefits in life. He does not believe moral values are necessary to make decisions because they can be based on good and bad without the concern of evil. He does not think it is fair for the weak to demand the strong to be weak when there is no way to demand the weak to suddenly be strong. For NIgtzhe, moral values are just excuses to favor the weak.

Philosophers such as Marx and Sartre may argue towards the optimistic view of moral values and consider them a necessity to carry on with life. Marx discusses the unfair treatment of workers and the fact that equality will one day result from clash between the weak and strong or proletariat and bourgeoisie.  Eventually the strong and weak will be seen as the same and will have equal opportunities. Sartre argues the freedom behind every individual and the decisions he or she takes. He explains everything we do, say, act out , and projects we set out to do define who we are and make us responsible for the things happening around us.

I believe moral values help us define who we are. They lead us to make decisions which will allow us to further develop habits and define our purpose. They allow us to take responsibility of our actions and face the consequences because we have a basis on which to base our decisions off of. We can judge whether the action and its consequences align with our moral values. It allows decisions of  actions to be made because we are able to determine what we will and will not do. Moral values provide the basis of the path we take in life.