Institutional Racism and the Laquan McDonald incident

Ever since the events in Ferguson, MO, police have been under scrutiny over their clearly statistical discrimination approach.  Groups such as the Black Lives Matter movement have been leading the charge to bring awareness to the institutional racism i modern society today.  Even though there has been some progress on this front, the problem of police having statistical discrimination in police forces still exists.  The most recent affair happened in Chicago, where a police officer shot Laquan McDonald 16 times.  On November 24th, a video of the incident emerged showing that while McDonald was armed with a knife, he walking at an angle away from the uniformed police officers and many would not consider him a threat.  In an article published by the NY Times Monica Davey wrote, "It showed Mr. McDonald seeming to try to jog or walk past officers, then veering at an angle away from them before being shot, again and again, even as he lay on the pavement."  If McDonald was 'veering' away from the cops, then why would they consider him a threat?  Of the course the answer is, institutional racism.

This type of incident is exactly what Charles Mills was talking about when he wrote, The Racial Contract.  His whole argument is based on the fact that modern society is built upon white people and doesn't take people of other races and backgrounds into account, and this leads to the institutional racism we have today.  Wells would argue that the police officers in this instance are not racist its just that the training they received had institutional racism and had them act the way cops do in these situations.  Institutional racism is the problem and it needs to be addressed.  

Movements for Equality

http://blog.becauseiamagirl.ca/

The above posted link leads to a website called Because I Am A Girl.  This website has several different facets.  It tries to provide equality for women of all races and ethnicities.  It is primarily focused on young girls, starting them early on knowing that they are equal in society.  I found this website interesting because there are blogs done by young girls telling their own stories.  It's interesting to see such young girls being taught about equality and equal rights for women.  It is an interesting theory to start teaching them so young, and using this website to change the next generation as early as possible.
This website made me think of the reading and discussion that we had on Okin and her beliefs on justice and inequality.  I wondered what she would think of a website and movement such as Because I Am A Girl.  I don't believe that she would think it was as efficient as the movement thinks it is.  She believes that inequality rests in the family, therefore, little movements such as these are just putting a Band-Aid on the bigger issue at hand.  She believes that government and family are essential and need to be combined in order for equality to become real.  She thinks that movements such as these and laws set by government create a false equality because the roots still lie in family.  How effective do you think websites such as this are in the movement for equality?  What do you think Okin would think about the effectiveness of these movements?

Racial Issues on College Campuses

http://time.com/4112169/college-university-protests-school-racist-privilege/

The article above includes a video that highlights segments from the many protests, rallies, and marches that have broken out across America in regard to racial issues. The outbreaks have primarily been students expressing their frustration with their colleges or universities ignoring incidents of racism and abuse of privilege on their campuses. The students in each event have asked that their campuses recognize and acknowledge the discrimination that is happening and they have all stated different demands they want their campuses to follow. In the demands listed by students, some have asked that their president of their school resign. Both the University of Missouri president and the dean of students at Claremont McKenna have since resigned after their students demanded them to.

This video and small article made me think about the discussion we had in class about "Black lives matter" and the Charles Mills article, both of which address the issue of racism in America. In our class discussion we talked about what "Black lives matter" means to all of us. Although it was not considered a protest, rally, or march, each student had the ability to express how they felt about the issues they see in America and on our Dickinson campus. In Mills article he explains his belief that the past perception of white supremacy in politics has lead to the issues of racism today. Mills used examples such the segregation of white and black citizens in America and African American colonialism to exemplify how he thinks these situations have lead to racial tension. By having such events in the past, Mills believes that the governments in charge of allowing this were the ones responsible for leaving room for racial issues. Mills having the opinion that issues of race are because of our past history, do you think he would have any hope for our future of eliminating racial issues?

Two mothers are often better than one

http://tinyurl.com/zgw6tck

As the chart and the link posted above show that as the number of single mothers in the United States has soared and the cost of living has increased, more and more single mothers have embraced the house sharing arrangement. According to this article, the house sharing arrangement not only eases the living burden of single mothers but also help them to feel less lonely. When this arrangements works, it can benefit the children as much as the mothers. Having another adults in the home is very helpful to the kids since a second adult can balance out the first one, for example, their weaknesses and bad moods. Moreover, research shows that moving in and out of too frequently can be harmful to children since it is necessary to offer children a sense of security and let them know that there is a “family” that they are able to count on.

This article reminds me of what we read from Okin’s Justice, Gender, and The Family. The Author Okin argues that any just society must start with the family — and can only happen when the family is just. Currently, the unequal sharing between the sexes of family responsibilities is one of the unjust issue that needs to be solved. “The standard of living of divorced women and the children who lived with them plummets after divorce, whereas the economic situation of divorced men tend to be better than when they were married,” (Okin, 4). Clearly, as I mentioned previously, the house sharing arrangement becomes popular since it made two singles mothers share the burden together. Moreover, as Okin argues that: “we are not born as isolated, equal individuals in our society, but into family situation: some in the social middle, some poor and homeless, and some supper affluent, some to a single or soon-to-be-separated parent, some to parents whose marriage is fraught with conflict, some to parents who will stay together in love and happiness,” (Okin,16) Clearly, families which parents are of the same gender is different from the others. Currently about 120,000 women across the United States are registered to share housing. Since families are almost all still thoroughly gender structured institutions and have vast influence on the moral development of children, do you agree or disagree that the gender structure of this new type of family can be regarded as equal? Will a new and special family like this influences the moral development of children? 

Racism and actions of the countries youth

We have seen protests on college campuses all over the country from large universities to our very own Dickinson College. Even though the tactics of students across the country have been different they all have similar goals in mind. All of the protest have called for acknowledgement of discrimination in the country, presence of racial tensions, the experiences of racism that African American students have endured in colleges. The youth of America have been increasingly many different issues such as protesting s police brutality, harassment against minorities, and the expanding and inclusion of marginalized groups in academic areas. This article then states that the youth of the country feel alienated by mainstream political parties and traditional institutions. This article feels that with a large amount of youth protesting on college campuses it can then translate into institutional reform.

This article made me think about the Charles Mills article that examines racism in the country. Mills believes that it is the history of white supremacy in politics in every political system that has created racism in todays world. The history of political policies and actions by governments such as colonialism of African Americans and segregation between whites and black citizens in our very own country has created the racial tensions that a prevalent in today's society. Since Mills believes that racism in America is because of the governments past policies, would he think that protests from the youth of America on college campuses have the ability to change the institutionalized racism that is the prevalent in todays society?

http://fortune.com/2015/12/03/student-protests-racism-america/

Sanders and Marxism

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265

In the link above, a brief history is given of 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders' statements on his form of democratic socialism. Some critiques have made connections to Sanders having classical communist views, as described in our discussion of Karl Marx.

Sanders has stated in the past that he believes government should be accountable for the following: health care, free college education, and wealth equality. I believe that Sanders shares a great deal of ideas with Marx and I think the two would agree certain property destroys equality in the vast majority of instances. After reading the above Bernie Sanders quotes, what do you think? Are there significant similarities between Sanders and Marx? or do they follow different ideologies?

Are Modernization and Westernization the same thing

http://tinyurl.com/p5udz9lb

The link posted above argues that if we want to have a better understanding of the acts of violence like 9/11 and the unrest among Muslim populations, we need to focus more on the historical developments rather than those Orientalist caricatures. Orientalist connects Muslims and irrational violence.  Orientalist is not simply an attempt to study and understand Islam or the Orient, rather, it is a way of narrating the West’s sense of itself. According to this article, colonialism was not only the imposition of authoritarian racial rule, but also a state of mind. European colonialism provides the appropriate background to understand the chaos in the Muslim societies. Currently, there are mainly two influences of colonialism. One is the Western governors imposing their rules on the natives, another is the westerners making those native rulers believe that ultimately modernization and westernization are the same thing. Since the Iranian revolution, Muslim societies around the world have been involved in the conflict between the native leaders who believe that they can replicate the success of the West and those groups who reject the view that the West knows best. There is a struggle against a world that colonialism made, that is pivotal to analyzing the turmoil. What do you think of the colonialism? Do you think the modernization and westernization are the same thing for colonized people?  What do you think of those violent actions?

This article reminds me of what we read from The Wretched of The Earth. The author Fanon argues that: “Colonialism is worse than a lack of governance, it is humiliating, it is to be unseen and unheard”. Moreover, those violence acts of the natives reminds me of what Fanon argues that, “at the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair in action,” (Fanon, 94). Even though Fanon advocated violence against the settlers as the way for colonized people to regain their sense of self-respect, such violence would not be automatically justifiable today. It is unrealistic to encourage those terrorist attacks since they are not innocent. According to Fanon: “violence can be effective” and “violence is needed to match violence”. Therefore, violent struggle is a necessary agent for colonized peoples to gain independence.Thus, we should only encourage the colonized to use violence to reject the dehumanizing domination of Western culture.

A sense of nationalism

This year on Veterans Day President Obama addressed citizens who are in the armed forces at the Army base Garrison Yongsan in Seoul, South Korea. He praised the soldiers and their families for the sacrifices they have made for the security of our country. He emphasized that we should not only thank our soldiers on Veterans day but also everyday of the year. He explains that our country thanks our veterans everyday by the benefits they not only receive but they deserve. His emphasis on the word "deserve" gives every veteran a sense of mind that we as citizens of this country do not take their personal sacrafices for granted. It also shows that we will take care of the people who are in the armed forces the same way that they protect our freedom every day while they are in the armed services.

President Obamas Veterans Day speech reminded of Pericles speech and the funeral oration because of the effect the speech had on the people listening to it. Both President Obama and Pericles both created a sense of nationalism while praising the citizens in the armed forces. President Obama used the word "we" as did Pericles to show the soldiers that the citizens of the United States are grateful for the sacrifices they have made for the good of the country. As President Obama was addressing the marines you can feel a sense of nationalism as he stated that we will take care of our veterans the same way they took care of us while being enlisted. You can hear the marines shouting in the background praising President Obamas statements. It is clear that President Obama was able to make the soldiers feel that the citizens of the United States are very thankful of what the soldiers do for the country.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/40122222

Chinese Realism in a Melian Light

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139

The Melian Dialogue was a conversation between the Melian grand council and Athenian representatives detailed by Thucydides. It concerned the invasion of Melos by Athens in the fifth century BCE. The rulers of Melos attempted to make a case for their Island State retaining its sovereignty, as they held to their morals of remaining a sovereign state. Realist theory proved to be the outcome of this situation, as the Athenians used their superior military power to take over the island, killing the men and enslaving women and children in the process.

Recently, there has been a conflict between China and Japan over the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. These islands have been uninhabited for years and remain an important landmark in designating which power gets to retain the rights to the fisheries off the coast of the islands. Both countries have historical claims to the islands. My question is, is there more power in taking of the area by military force, as it appears China is ready to do, or is there more power in persuading the other side to accept the opposing view? Do you think it is even possible for the two polarized sides to come to an agreement without the use of power?

The Power of Speech

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ryan-has-a-lot-going-for-him-but-hes-still-unlikely-to-heal-a-broken-house/2015/11/01/6e73549a-80a9-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html

Last week Paul Ryan gave his first address as the newly elected House Speaker. In the article above, it explains how Ryan's speech was effective and direct. In Ryan's speech, he described that he believes that, "The House is broken" and that he thinks that "We are not solving problems. We are adding to them." The article mentions how in his Speech, Ryan states that he has a vision for the House's future and how he plans to "fix" all of the problems he sees within the House. The article continues to bring up all of the different aspects Ryan said that he wants to change in the House and also lists the steps he has created to start what he believes will be a positive transformation of the House.

This past week we discussed the power of speech and the effect it can have over the people you are addressing the speech to. When reading this article I thought of our reading and discussion on Pericles speech at the funeral oration. In class we mentioned how Pericles was able to argue his opinion in his speech, but did so in a way that made the people of Athens respect and listen to his ideas. He created a sense of honor for the soldiers lost in the war, which is a topic many people do not want to discus. In relation to Pericles speech, Ryan was able to state his criticisms of the House, but in a way that caused his fellow lawmakers to listen and respect his ideas. Ryan used the word "we" a lot throughout his speech, which is a word that unifies people as a group instead of just pointing fingers and accusing people of their wrongdoings. Ryan used the power of speech to talk about what he wants to do while in his position as Speaker of the House. So far Ryan has received positive feedback on what he talked about in his speech, which demonstrates how effective his speech really was.

What people want to hear.

In Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, he recounts a speech Pericles gave at a funeral oration during the war.  This main objective of this speech was to memorialize the fallen soldiers, while Pericles does just that this he is also sowing seeds of nationalism into the minds of his people. The power of speech is a power that is often overlooked, but popular leaders are able to use speech into their advantage.  Leaders such as Winston Churchill in his Finest Hour speech, George W. Bush after 9/11, or President Obama throughout his campaign were all able to use this tool of speech to their advantage.  The common theme we see in all of these leaders, is the ability to infuse their speeches with nationalism.

Everyone who has even glanced at a news source for at least a second since the start of this past summer know the slogan, 'Make America Great Again' and which presidential hopeful is using it. Since the start of the summer Donald Trump has either been at the top of the polling in the Republican Party and has been there largely due to his slogan, 'Make America Great Again' and his speech skills.  In a recent article in The Washington Post, Marc Fisher writes that this slogan is reminiscent to people who believe that American has been on a downward trend since Reagan held office and those people believe that Trump can fix it.  Trump may not be the best presidential candidate, nor will he win the Republican nomination but his speech skills and the nationalism he infuses with his speeches made him a heavy favorite in the Republican Party.

The Death Penalty: A powerful tool?

The image above is a satirical cartoon about the death penalty in the United States.  The two men at the bottom are looking at the Uncle Same lookalike who us deeming what is "just" in the U.S..  He says how advanced and sophisticated we are in the U.S..  But the two men do not think agree.  The death penalty looms over all of them, dressed as the grim reaper.  This cartoon is asking the viewer the question, how advanced and valued is our society if the death penalty exists? \
This cartoon made me think of the class discussion we had on Socrates The Apology.  That story asks many questions, one of which is about the death penalty.  Socrates society was going to put him to death for teaching against what they think people should learn.  They wanted to kill him for asking questions and having different beliefs than them.  In that story, I do think it is unjust to kill him.  However it unjust, I think it makes the government less powerful.  Killing someone over different views proves that the government doesn't actually believe their own views are strong enough to convince anyone of them, so they just kill people who think against them.  In our society, I think the death penalty has more validity.  I believe it is there to discourage people from doing what they do in the first place.  If you have that threat against you, you may not commit those crimes at all.  In our society, we don't kill people over opposing views either, and the death penalty isn't just thrown around and given to anyone.  Depending on the circumstance, the death penalty gives the government more power, and in others it takes it away.  Does the death penalty ever give the government more power?  If so, in what circumstances?

Security or Freedom?

Governments have always limited it's citizens freedoms and/or privacy to provide measures of security. In London there is cameras all over the place to attempt to lower the crime rate in the city.  The US for years profiled its citizens for years to try to identify potential terrorists targets, and everyone has been fine it.  This all changed though when Edward Snowden brought forth the severity of the spying the agency is doing.  The whole country was blind to the fact that the NSA was monitoring everything they were doing and once they knew they called for it to end.  Mr. Snowden's thoughts on the program ending/reformed summed up the nation's thoughts nicely, "Ending the mass surveillance of private phone calls under the Patriot Act is a historic victory for the rights of every citizen, but it is only the latest product of a change in global awareness..."  

Due to situations like the NSA we have to examine if it is worth giving up rights and privacy in order for security to be provided to us.  In this specific situation was saw that people were not in favor of giving up their privacy, but is it like that in every situation?  Personally I am fine with the government restricting some of my liberty or freedom and even taking away some of my privacy if that guarantees me some security.  I have the mind set that if I am not doing anything wrong then there is nothing to worry about.  

The Greater Good vs. Religious Beliefs

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nuns-linked-to-mother-teresa-halt-adoption-services-to-avoid-single-divorced-parents/2015/10/10/338111fe-6ec2-11e5-91eb-27ad15c2b723_story.html

The link posted above is to an article written by Rama Lakshmi for The Washington Post. The article discusses how thirty orphanages, run by a group founded by Mother Teresa called the Missionaries of Charity, have decided to stop their adoption services in India due to a new government system that makes it easier for single and divorced people to adopt children. According to Sister Amala from Nirmala Shishu Bhawan, an orphanage in New Delhi that is run by the Missionaries of Charity, are doing this because they, “believe our children may not receive real love,” and that these children, “need both parents, male and female.” This new system was created to boost India’s low adoption rates. India has approximately 16 to 30 million orphans and out of those high numbers, only 2,500 were adopted last year. In comparison to the 5,700 orphans that were adopted four years ago, the recent numbers are substantially lower. This new system is reviewed by valuable, good people that have extensive experience in adoption, according to Maneka Gandhi, the minister for women and child development. Gandhi is trying to persuade the Missionaries of Charity to agree with this new system because she believes it will change the adoption process in a positive way.

This article made me think about the idea of the “general will” that we discussed in class. I reread the article numerous times trying to figure out who I believed to be “right” in this situation in regard to the “general will.” The Missionaries of Charity disagree with the new system, where the government believes their new system will only bring positive change. When determining the “general will,” which is the common interest of a community, I considered the orphan children to be the community. Since it is the children that are going to be placed with new families, I believe that what is best for them should be the primary goal of this situation. That being said, I believe that if this new system is going to be for the greater good of the children, then the Missionaries of Charity should ignore their religious beliefs and comply with the government’s system. In regard to Rousseau and his idea of the “general will,” what do you think he would say about the Missionaries of Charity refusing to partake in the governments new system? Thinking even further back to our class discussions, what do you think Plato would say? Consider Plato’s beliefs on justice. Do you think he would consider the Missionaries of Charity’s decision to be unjust?

Tyranny of the Majority in the U.S.- Adriana Reisser

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

The link above is to an article written by The Telegraph.  It is about a study that was done in 2014 by Princeton and Northwestern Universities.  The universities studied political trends in order to see what group generally had the most influence on the outcome of U.S. government policy.  They concluded that the majority (normal citizens and mass-based interest groups) have the littlest amount of influence.  The people with the most influence turned out to be the economic elites as well as organized groups representing big businesses interests.  The governments policies barely ever align with the majority and tend to be more similar to the ideals of special interest groups and lobbyists.  The study concluded that even if citizens want change or do not agree with interest groups, they still don't get what they desire. 
This article reminded me of what we read from de Tocqueville.  Although he was fairly pro American government and policy, he had a strong fear of tyranny of the majority.  He thought it was all too possible in the U.S. due to the way our democracy is set up.  He made a claim that if a person of a minority group had an injustice committed against them, they would have nowhere to turn to because every part of the judicial system is run by the majority.  He believed that they could gain control to the point where tyranny would set in.  However, this article claims the opposite.  They say that the majority rarely holds the most power.  In my opinion, de Tocqueville is a little over-the-top with his fear of tyranny of the majority.  I believe it would be more likely that the a tyranny of the elites could appear.  If you look at this article, do you think that he would still make the same claim?  Or would he possibly say that the elites could be a tyranny of their own?  What do you think?

Common Interest and Pharmaceutical Companies

During the past couple of weeks there have been stories about pharmaceutical companies buying older drugs and raising the prices tremendously. The Pharmaceutical company Valeant bought the rights to sell the drugs Nitropress and Isupre. They raised the price of Nitropress by 212% and Isuprel 525%. By raising the prices of the drugs by a large amount they are generating a massive amount of income. This is good for people who have stock in the company because by increasing the price of the drugs they are also increasing the price of the company stock. Many citizens have been outraged by the price increase because they still need to buy the drugs.

Last class we talked about the "general will" which is the common interest of a community. This article reminded me about our talk about the general will because the head of Valeant is not making decisions based on the common interest of the people who need to take the drugs. If the head of Valaent had the interests of the community in mind then he would of not raised the prices of the drugs. But he is acting upon the premise of making the company more valuable because he wants to raise the companies stock price. By doing that he is making the people who have stock in the company very rich. The article stated that the company increased the prices of the drugs because they were going to put that extra money towards research. This research is directed towards creating better more effective drugs. But in the article it says that the company only used 3% of its sales on research. Would Rousseau think that the company Valaent had the common interest of the people who take their drugs in mind when they increased the prices?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/business/valeants-high-price-drug-strategy.html

If you were Jason Rezaian

http://tinyurl.com/oa9ytkc

The link posted above talks about a Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian, who was arrested because of espionage charges, and has stayed in jail for more than one year even though he is guiltless. Not only his family and the Post, but also the US Government have claimed that he was just simply working as a journalist. However, Jason Rezaian is now still being detained without any live witnesses or real evidence to prove him guilty. Jason Rezaian was born and raised in California, he decided to move to Tehran in 2008. Clearly, moving to the biggest city of the currently turbulent Iran is not a action of seeking peace and comfort. Nevertheless, Jason Rezaian still chose to live there because he wanted to promote greater understanding between Iran and the United States. From our perspective, it is undoubted that the Iranian Government has violated human rights as well as the International law, however, do we really have the right to judge the court decision of the other country even though we regard the decision as unjust? And if you were Jason Rezaian, how would you face the current hopeless situation? Will you make the same decision like Jason made before moving to Tehran?

Like Hobbes argues in Leviathan:“nothing the sovereign representative can do to a subject, on what pretense soever, can properly be called injustice, or injury; because every subject is author every act the sovereign doth; so that he never wanteth right to anything, otherwise, than as himself is the subject of God, and bound thereby to observe the laws of nature” (Hobbes, 140). Hence, it is reasonable for the Iranian Government to assume that Jason Rezaian has already being prepared for whatever it would do to him. Clearly, it is impossible for two nations like the U.S. and Iran to share the entirely same laws and principles. Since it was Jason Rezaian who decided to work there, there is nothing he can do other than obey the local laws. After all, it is unrealistic for us force the Iran Government to act in a way that we regard as just and moral. Therefore, if I were Jason Rezaian, I would accept this situation, though unwillingly. In Chapter 21, p.141, Hobbes states that: “If a man be interrogated by the sovereign, or his authority, concerning a crime done by himself, he is not bound to confess it; because no man can be obliged by covenant to accuse himself”. Thus, instead of being hurt both physically and mentally, Jason should strive against the Iran Government and prove himself to be sinless. What’s more, if we all need to make the same kind of decision which requires us to balance between potential risks and strong personal will, I will choose to follow my heart fearlessly even while I’m totally submissive to the new country’s regime, and would follow the commands without any conditions.

A New African Social Contract?

http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=6399

This economic editorial outlines a scenario in which, according to the author, indicates the need for a new social contract in African states. There are a plethora of economic resources, which if used correctly, can lead to a better standard of living throughout the continent. African rulers generally are not held accountable by their constituents because there is no system in place that allows for this. Africa is full of violent dictatorships that abuse the commodities their countries are in possession of for their own personal gain, instead of serving the people of their state. For Africa to advance into the 21st century, a new social contract is needed; one that will create a system that allows the people to hold their rulers accountable for their actions and promotes the will of the people.

This article does not mention much of Rosseau's theory, although he is quoted in the opening paragraph. The author relates a social contract to an apparatus which keeps the sovereign accountable to the people and does not mention the theory of general will in his article. I believe that the 'general will' is inherent in a sovereign which is held accountable for its actions to the people. Therefore, the general will does not exist as an independent entity. Rosseau says that the common will allows the sovereign to control state actions according to the common good, but I believe the inverse is the reality; state policy is written to be the common good because the government is accountable to the people. The general will does not allow the common good to be employed in the sovereign's actions.

Is general will legitimate as an independent theory, or does it go hand in hand with a sovereign that acts in the interest of the people?

Kim Davis as a Platoian (Un)just Soul

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

As one of the most prevalent stories in recent media coverage, Kim Davis is a Kentucky legal clerk who refused to issue court mandated marriage licenses to gay couples. Davis claimed to make this decision because she placed her religious beliefs above her duties as a clerk. Because of her unwillingness to follow through on the court orders, Davis was placed in jail. While she was released under the agreement that she would no longer hinder the issuance of marriage licenses to homosexual couples, While it is admirable that Davis would go to such an extreme extent to defend her moral beliefs, as Ryan said in his critique of this situation, "Davis was being unjust when looking at if from a societal standpoint." The interest to the author here is not the nature of whether it is better to fulfill the social contract as established in Hobbes' Leviathan or place one's personal beliefs above that contract. Rather, it is to attempt to determine whether or not Davis' actions would be deemed just by Plato, as defined loosely in his Republic.

Plato argues that a just polis is just because is is the aggregate of the just souls that inhabit the polis. While he does not offer a concrete definition of what justice is, Plato does outline actions that are taken by just souls in a tripartite system. Appetite refers to physical desires: sex, money, tangible belongings. Spirit refers to the emotional contingent of humanity in which we get impassioned and animated about happenings in our lives. In order for one to be just, the third piece of Plato's system (Reason) must govern and control the other two. These three pieces must work together to create harmony in the individual soul, which will lead to harmony across all souls and therefore harmony in the polis. A polis is just when all souls in the polis are doing their individual jobs justly.

It is the opinion of the author that Plato would deem Davis' actions as unjust because she let spirit dictate her actions to an unacceptable extent. If she had reasoned through the situation, she may have realized that it is not her job to determine the morality of homosexual marriage in Kentucky. Rather, it is her job to listen to the courts and issue marriage licenses as they see fit, not the other way around.

What are your thoughts on the Platoian justness of this sitation? Do Davis' actions fall in line with Plato's broad definition and outline of Justice? What reasoning supports your stance?

Government and Social Contract

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868

In the March 2011 Pro-democracy protests erupted across the country of Syria. The uprising started after the arrest and torture of some teenagers whom painted revolutionary slogans on a school wall. The Syrian government under President Assad has been accused of government corruption and abuse of human rights. The government then sent security forces to calm the pro-democracy protests but they did the exact opposite. The security forces opened up fire on the protesters killing several and triggering national protests demanding the resignation of President Assad. President Assads regime have been accused of deliberately attacking areas with large amounts of civilians with chemical airstrikes. Since the beginning of the unrest in Syria more than 200,000 Syrians have lost their lives and 11 million more have been forced to flee their homes as rebels fight the Assad regime.

       

 I found that this article related to our John Locke conversation about social contract. Locke believes that the government has the responsibility to protect natural rights such as life and liberty. As we stated in class “governments that seek to subvert these natural rights are illegitimate and therefore can be overthrown.” The citizens of Syria believe that their social contract that they have with the Syrian government has been violated. The social contract has been violated because the Assad regime is torturing and killing large amount of Syrian citizens. I believe that the Assad regime has violated the social contract between the government and the citizens. Giving the Syrian citizens the right to revolt against the government. Do you think that John Locke would agree that the Assad Regime broke the social contract that they have with the citizens of Syria?