Can you really ignore bullying?

Today in class we discussed how we would react to public bullying. What is bullying? Bullying is the use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants. Ideally, everyone would say that they would react in a manner that would halt the bully, but I disagree. There are numerous cases throughout the world, in which, people could have stopped a bully, but they chose not too. These people are like me and you. They all see themselves as heroes but their heroism has never been tested. In class, we came to understand that virtues such as courage or bravery are not innate. This means that all virtues are not innate. With that being said , I want people to realize that what they believe they would do in a situation is something different from what they might  actually do. A hero is not created on the spot. For someone to stand-up for anything, heroic actions and a heroic attitude would already be in them. So I challenge all commentors to watch the video below and analyze the situation. Would you all honestly take action in this situation?

The Bullying Experiment 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EisZTB4ZQxY

Problems with Golden Mean

       Aristotle's Golden Mean practically states that there is a midpoint in a decision that is neither too excessive not too deficient. The class example of an threatening intruder barging into the class arose the question of diffusion of responsibility. Who would be responsible on handling the threat? After the question is answered, then it is important to address how should said person act. A cowardice action (deficient) of ignoring the threat vs. acting out recklessly (excessive) and approaching or even attacking the threat.Aristotle would suggest that there is an action of series of actions that the "responsible" agent that are neither reckless nor cowardice. In our example, we said that a golden mean action would be to talk the intruder (if possible) out of the situation.

           While I agree that most times there is a golden mean, I also think that there are times where a golden mean is not applicable. Like stated in class, there are such virtues like honesty that cannot be measured. There may be something like not honest enough but not enough honesty. Moreover, can loyalty be measured?  For example, in a relationship, can a party we be too loyal? Or is the golden mean loyal enough? Are there more virtues that can't be explained by Aristotle's Golden Mean?

The other problem, of course, is who would be the responsible agent. How is the responsible agent who makes the decisions assigned? It is also difficult to judge what the golden mean is. Depending on the agent, the golden mean can actually be too excessive for some or not enough for others. Plato would disagree in my opinion; his ideas are more abstract and usually have no real application to examples. But my question is: Can Plato's Justice be explained by the Golden Rule? Is there such a thing as too much justice or not enough? 

Virtue

Virtue is an activity of the soul and is synonymous to happiness. There are two kinds of virtue: intellectual and practical. I believe that both of these types of virtue work best hand-in-hand, but most of the time they are separate things. People are either intellectual or practical. For example, growing up, you see your parents driving all the time -- I mean, they used to take you every where, didn't they? Often times, you see children trying to drive their parent's car because they see their parents do it so often that they "know" how to drive, but have never done it, so they don't know how to drive. They have the intellect of "make the car move when the light is green and make it stop when the light is red or you're at the stop sign," but they don't know how to actually make the car move or stop because they have never experienced doing it before. This seems to be an ideal example in the fact that these two go hand-in-hand. You've seen your parents do that all the time so you grow up learning how to drive; as soon as you get your learner's permit, you get to experience driving for yourself. Then you have both the intellect and the practicality of driving.
But virtue also has it's vice. Virtue is "the golden mean" between virtue and vice. Too much or too little is a vice while virtue is perfectly in between. I thought the question of lying and honesty was an interesting topic to think about because honesty is virtuous in certain situations. To use the example we used in class, "Do I look fat in these pants?" If you say yes, you're being completely honest, but that wouldn't be virtuous because you would hurt their feelings. If you say no and you let them go out in those, you lied and that's not virtuous. So just don't answer the question. In class, we went from yes and no to "those pants are not your color" which never did answer the question. So in this case, not answering the question is virtuous?

Bears and guns

Today in class we mentioned the idea of the golden mean and how it is influenced by the particular situation. One of the examples given in class was that if a bear walked in what would be the proper response? Most agreed that it would be to kill the bear, but I believe there are better ways to react than violence. For instance, if the bear was a panda, then it would not be legally acceptable to simply kill it. They are an endangered species and must be given special handling. Would it be considered courage if you were to tranquilize it? Or would that be considered cowardice because you are just immobilizing it using advanced technology that it has no defense against? However, it would be stupid to try to fight it on its own ground, with just your body. There is a point at which one has to ask oneself if the ends justify the means. True, you are killing the bear, but it is an endangered species. Also, you have to ask why you are killing it. If it is in self-defense then it could be considered courage. But if you are simply being pre-emptive then perhaps you are being rash. As well, if a gunman walked in you have to consider what they want. If they desire to express their rage through harming and killing, then it would be for the benefit of all to stop them. But if they came to learn something then you would be rash to attack them. Situational ethics is Aristotle’s main goal. However, it can be taken too far. One must be careful to stay within the golden mean. However, how does the golden mean apply for the mentally unstable? Is there a difference between one person’s mean and the society’s mean? How are those to be determined? What if they are determined incorrectly? Situational ethics has a lot of loopholes. 

The Golden Mean

Aristotle has an interesting idea about a “Golden Mean.” This mean is what Aristotle claims to be the point where virtues are shown. For example to say someone is courageous is to say that they neither act too reckless nor too cowardly. I agree with this idea because clearly we know when some action seems too cowardly or too reckless. This also means that we can become virtuous by finding this “Golden Mean” in our actions and decisions.

Let’s say a fight breaks out in the mall and you are among a group of bystanders that can see the fight starting. If you were to walk away then it would be a cowardly choice, but also rushing in to separate the fighters might be seen as too reckless for shoving yourself into harms way. Now the “Golden Mean” here can be many different things. As some people pointed out in class it may depend on the situation or sometimes the factor of the diffusion of responsibility. Now what we learned from class applies here in that the “Golden Mean” is relative to us. This mean is not the same for everyone and is simply the appropriate way of acting given our individual nature and circumstance.

I totally agree with this and even in class gave evidence to that claim. Several times there were questions asked about defining the situation at hand and that would effect the decision we made.  Also I agree with the idea that virtues are habits. It makes sense to say that we have to become brave and aren’t just born brave. How can we be sure we are brave if we have never had a true test of our bravery? The only way to know for sure is by experiencing the action of being brave.  We must become virtuous by forming habits that show our virtues.

Offensive humor-Leigh Ward

There are many instances in which people get offended by racist/sexist/prejudice comments made by others. Today in class we discussed offensive humor, and some insinuated that it was never appropriate. I believe that it  is  sometimes inappropriate, but should not be forbidden or frowned upon indefinitely. With that being said, I would never advise someone to go up to strangers or acquaintances throwing out racial puns, because they will undoubtedly take it the wrong way.  Also, I am not condoning prejudices in any way. If someone can appreciate the UNDERLYING humor of a racist/sexist/homophobic joke (thus ultimately making fun of the ignorance of some that actually think in a prejudice way against others) then I believe it is completely appropriate, and a sign of multiculturalism in some way. What are your reasons of agreeing or disagreeing with this argument?

Eudaimonia

At the beginning of the week we went over the three parts of the soul and how it relates to three parts of a city-state. This analogy was created by Socrates to show that happiness and justice isn’t only sought after if one gets what one wants when one wants it. The aforementioned statement was the way many philosophers thought justice was. The three parts of one’s soul as mentioned in class were appetite, spirit, and reason and they resemble fundamental desires, emotions, and rationality respectively. The parts of the city-state they resemble are the workers/producers, guardians, and rulers.

Reason was said to rule the entire spirit and was in charge of the soul; reason is what’s good for the whole. This is where I find the analogy difficult to grasp because Plato states in the Republic that all three are working in sync and in a just person not one characteristic outweighs the other. If this is true then why does reason “rule” the spirit? Does that mean the soul is naturally unjust? Another topic that caused the class to erupt in debate was the concept of the noble lie. This noble caused the workers, guardians, and rulers to know where they belonged in society. Although this is an analogy, the noble lie is where I disagree with the concept. I don’t believe the only thing keeping order and keeping the people in place was the fact that their heart pumped bronze, silver, or gold. I don’t think one just settles for something because that is where “they belong”. I believe it is natural to question and challenge oneself. The concept also stated that everyone had an ergon or something that one does best, their purpose, or niche in society. It was stated in class that one would do something else even if that meant compromising their happiness just because that was their ergon. That just doesn’t seem “just” or virtuous. Plato was supposed to capture how justice leads to happiness; however, sacrificing one’s happiness for something because that is what they are best at isn’t providing true, internal happiness. For that reason, I disagree with Plato.

            Instead, I do take the side of Aristotle and his views on happiness and virtue ethics. I agree with his practical approach to philosophy. I like his idea of everyone having a “telos” or ultimate purpose of life. I agree that one’s journey in life is to find out what this purpose is. It has a very religious approach and my views are the same in the fact that I believe everyone is out on this earth for a purpose. Many seek and try to find this purpose, but I believe that if we think we found the purpose there is always more to find. Like Aristotle stated the things we pursue lead to something else. Finally, I agree with Aristotle’s view on virtue = happiness. Happiness is an abstract thing to me because life is full up hills and valleys and when you think you’ve reached “happiness” it can quickly come tumbling down, but what I like is Aristotle states that a virtuous person can deal with adversity best. This adversity is the ability to overcome the valleys to make it back to the hill and reach this happiness again. 

G.O.O.D. and H.A.P.P.I.N.E.S.S.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of the three, happiness is the greatest goal that anyone could have. To be happy is desired by everyone, but what really is happiness? Happiness is defined as, "A mental or emotional state of well-being characterized by positive or pleasant emotions ranging from content to intense joy." The only problem that is presented with the idea of happiness is that what brings happiness varies for each individual. Happiness for one person could be to have a lot of money and to another, it could be having the family around for Christmas. Happiness

Sometimes, happiness is measured in instant gratification or honor. Instant gratification, or pleasure, to me, is a simple term, not a complex term. Getting a new iPhone 6 or buying a new car definitely feels instant gratification when it happens, but it is really only to fulfill a purpose. For the iPhone 6, its sole purpose is to make calls and a car's is to get from point A to point B. Contrary, honor would be a complex term define. Being honorable provides a feeling that  something good is being done. Also, it is the way that people respect and see another, with either good or bad ideals. People assume that there needs to be a descent mix between pleasure and honor for happiness to occur, but this is not true.

Pleasure is shared with other living life forms not just humans. This shows that pleasure cannot be the sole reason for happiness. Honor is also tricky. Honor depends on what other people think which makes it dependent. Happiness is sought after for happiness alone. To be happy is the goal of human life according to Aristotle.

Happiness

When one thinks of happiness, different ideas usually come to mind. The definition of happiness differs from person to person depending on his or her life. Happiness to a person living in the streets can differ from happiness to a person living in a mansion. For example, the person living in the streets would probably think happiness would be living in a house with working water and air conditioning. His or her happiness would probably focus more on materialistic items, whereas for the person living in the mansion would probably be working a job that they like or enjoying their family. 

          The question that is asked when talking about happiness is, “What is happiness to those that have everything they want and need?” Happiness, technically, cannot be bought with thousands of cash; it is obtained through life experiences. A person who has an amazing job and everything a person can ever dream of would eventually get depressed. Materialistic items “life span” has a time limit to it. Happiness can be achieved by just enjoying the aspects of life that the person has. If someone is married but is financially struggling, one would think that they are barely happy; however, their happiness can be seen behind the scenes rather than on the “front screen”. It is for sure that the couple would be going through some rough times due to the fact that they’re financially struggling, but the reason why they can find happiness is because of each other.

          The point is that no matter the struggle, happiness can be found in the most unpredictable situations. Even a homeless man can find happiness in the smallest gestures. As human beings, each and every person should try spreading happiness to one another in a hard living world that we all live in. A simple gesture from a smile to a simple “Hello” can improve a person’s life and could dramatically change his or her life. 

We are not special snowflakes.

 In this week's readings, Aristotle claims that the one distinguishable difference between humans and all other life on Earth is our capacity for reason. Ultimately, it is this ability to rationalize our world that allows humans to arrive at a "state that makes a human being good and makes him perform his function well"(39). By doing well repeatedly, a person becomes virtuous, and in virtue true happiness is found. 

As discussed in class, this notion that humans are the only species capable of reason is quite hard to prove due to the lack of ability to communicate with other species; however, I believe that observations of certain species have already proven the rationality of other animals, although at a more basic level. For example, the organized social structure and complex body language used by wolves displays the ability of other species to analyze and make logical decisions based on their situation and also to organize themselves to better benefit the pack. While the wolves may not be philosophizing about whether it’s morally right to chase down a baby fawn, it is clear by preexisting observations that wolves analyze their situation and form judgments on what the best response will be for themselves as well as their pack.  Other such cases of animal rationality can be found with dolphins, primates, and a variety of other animals. 

Overall, whether you believe in the rationality of other animals depends entirely on your own definition of reason. Therefore, what is your basis of a rational being?  Are there any other characteristics uniquely human, or are we just trying to cling to falsehoods because we don't like being compared to stinky animals? Personally, I believe humans are no different from animals in any way, there is not a single defining characteristic uniquely human, and that there is no discernible evidence to convince me otherwise.  In other words, prove me wrong. 

Psyche

This week in class we discussed about the ‘’psyche’’ and the 3 main parts of the soul. I believe that these 3 main parts of the soul do exist and cooperate with each other in order to keep our body in balance and safe from any bad influences. I always thought how the soul would be able to keep balance if the human body is too complex? Our mind and soul are complete different things in which one of them aims for a complete rational thinking and the other one is always related to the emotional part of our body.

The soul has 3 parts, appetitive, spirited and rational.

Appetitive is the part of the soul that just has wants, needs and desires and only that. The only function this part does is give you things you need to satisfy at all cost.

The spirited part can be counted as the spiritual (obviously) and emotional part of the body, in which all your emotions and your beliefs can be found.

And at last, there is the rational part, in which all the reasoning, the common sense lives, there is no room for ‘’what if’’ here, there is only room for things you can touch and see.

I consider this to be really interesting because as I mentioned before, I always believed there has to be a way that soul keeps balance in our body, because I am pretty sure the soul is more than just this thing that gives your life.

There has to be a balance between these 3 in order to keep a healthy, sane person (in my opinion). In my case my desires can be classified as sushi and coffee, I need these two things in order to have a good life, if I don’t I’ll probably be in a bad mood, but even I know that you can’t just eat all the sushi in the world or drink all the coffee in the world. There has to be a limit to everything.  Sometimes listening to music is the best thing I can do in order to stay happy and calm.

Every single time people ‘’break’’ the balance of the soul they suffer, let us give an example of people who are too rational, who don’t believe anything they don’t touch or see, they can be annoying people who no one likes to talk to. There could be also people that just do cocaine or liquor all day just filling their desires, we can’t do a lot of only one thing, we have to equally distribute our time for all 3.

Feeling "Bad"

I will be speaking on today’s topic when it’s was brought up that a person will feel “bad” if they found out the truth about the government.

I will admit, I am a person who will live by the philosophy, ignorance is bliss. Now this means, basically whatever you don’t know, you don’t have to worry about. However, there is just some information I would like to know. I said if I had the power of the Guyges Ring, which was to turn into invisible, I would sneak into the Pentagon and find out the secrets the government is hiding. The rebuttal to that statement was, if someone was to do that, they will end up feeling “bad” supposedly.

Now assuming “bad” is being used as a word that means morally responsible to act, I do not believe that I would feel that way or would have a reason to feel that way. There are things I can learn that I would feel “bad” about, such as if I knew (and had physical proof) that my friend’s significant other is, was, or has cheated on him/her. However, I do not understand why someone would feel responsible to do anything with the information acquired about the government.

The government is a great power that has been doing whatever they wanted for a very long time. Learning everything that have done, and are doing, won’t change anything. If you decide to go off on your own tell the world what you have learned, if it’s that big of a secret, trust me when I say you won’t be around long enough to see “justice”.

I personally won’t feel obligated to do much of anything. Just because you know that the government have been taking questionable actions, doesn’t mean you have stop them or tell people. It’s been going on all this without your help. If you haven’t been knowing helping them in these acts, why feel bad? What does knowing that something beyond your control is going on have to do with your everyday actions? HYPOTHETICALLY: What could I possibly learn that would require me to take action against the government of my own country?

Justice

Is McDonald's just as a whole because they take in families that are ill into its Ronald McDonald houses, but are serving people unhealthy food that could possibly lead to a future illness? What is McDonald's good for? Is McDonald's good because they serve unhealthy "good" food or because they help the ill? Is McDonald's really just in their corporate actions? McDonald's provides so many jobs for the American people, so as a result, they significantly benefit the economy. That sounds good right? McDonald's advertises and sells scientifically engineered food that consists of some lethal chemicals. This is also good, right? Of course this is contradictory. Justice, preferably the characteristic, just, often contradicts itself in today's society. So is justice good? Can something that is contradictory also be morally right? America is so-called "one nation under God," but who knows what the government does behind closed doors, being a nation under a God that permits malicious actions such as torture. What if one took religion out of the matter? Would the government's morals and values be in question then? the I'm not saying torture is wrong as a whole, because sometimes it is needed. I'm just trying to figure out if that type of justice and the characteristic of being just can be morally right while contradicting itself at the same time.  Are contradictions just in a way? Circumstances and the "depending on this or that" would then come into play? This brings to question, Can one defend a morality argument without using circumstances and the "depending on this or that" theory? "One question sparks another," as they say, and it becomes a cycle. In class we touched base on who is the "they"? Are "they" people who sit around and make up these sayings? Maybe they are just generalities that just been passed on from person to person.

Justice

This week in class, we discussed justice, Plato’s take on justice, and Gyges’ ring. In my own opinion, justice is a rightful nondiscriminatory action. But I also believe that people would not act in a justified manner if certain rules weren’t put in place and if they knew that consequences would come behind their wrongdoings.

 Although there is a morality and religious aspect to justice, the law helps us as citizens practice justified actions. For instance, we know that it is morally wrong to commit murder, and that there are consequences behind that action that come from both our own conscience and the law, whether it be jail time and/or capital punishment or our guilt eating us alive.

In Gyges’ ring, an “upright” man discovers a ring that makes him invisible when turned a certain way and when the question was asked, “What would you do if you had the ring and became invisible”, some answered that they would seek revenge on those that have done them wrong, try to find out government secrets, and rob banks.

 Moreover, I would do two of the three things; rob a bank and attempt to find government secrets. Just as Gyge started to do immoral things when he knew that he wouldn’t be found out, many of us would do the same.

 So the question really is, do we act in justly manners because it’s the right thing to do? Or is it because we know the consequences behind it? Are we justified only when people are watching and unjustified in private? Anyone would do unjust things if they knew there weren’t any consequences behind it, but who would still act justified even if no one was watching? Is it because they are morally right or is it because of their religion? Or are they just a good person regardless of morals and religion? 

Gyges' Ring

This week in class, we read and discussed Plato's Republic. In this story, we learned about Gyges and the ring that gave him the power to turn invisible. Once Gyges realized what he could do with the ring, he ended up going on a series of unjust actions that he would never even consider if he did not have the ring. While discussing this in class, we came across this one question that stuck out to me: What would you do if you were to have possession of the ring that turn you invisible?

When that question was asked, I was thinking about the pranks I could pull off if I were to be invisible. But when discussing about the things we would do, I started to think about some of the questions that tied in with this question from earlier this week. What is justice (just or unjust)? And does power have an influence to turn people from just to unjust?  

In my opinion, justice is doing the right thing regardless if someone is there or not to see what one is doing. I also believe that everyone has some sort of morals. We may or may not put these morals to use, but we still think about them. Just because no one can see our wrongful actions does not mean that we can commit certain actions.

I am not sure if this was talked about in class, but I want to put it out there anyways. Does power influence people to commit unjust actions? Because if we refer back to Plato's Republic, he would not have committed those unjust actions if he did not have the ring. I believe that power does have a certain influence on people to do unjust things. What do you all think about this question regarding to the influence of power?

Justice and Ferguson

 Large masses of people have or are aware of the recent accounts that have occurred in Ferguson, Missouri. The verdict of Darren Wilson caused much conflict amongst many Americans. The Mike Brown incident is only one of many that divided our country into two separate entities. In the summer of 2013 Americans waited anxiously for the verdict of George Zimmerman. Zimmerman caused the life of 17 year old, Trayvon Martin, to quickly be stolen in an instant of a second. Millions of Americans waited for the verdict ; and Zimmerman pleaded not guilty and walked away with no penalizations. A couple of months later, Zimmerman was charged of assault towards his girlfriend, which eventually were dropped only to be charged recently for aggravated assault.   Looking at past and recent events in America, is justice really equally distributed amongst every race, culture, and gender?  How can we as citizens re-innovate the justice system so people like George Zimmerman deal with the consequence for their self- destructive actions ? Instead of creating a larger gap between white and black America, we as citizens should become aware of the reality of these situations and create solutions that will last.

        Justice should not be conditional for certain people but fair for everyone.Trayvon Martin died a wrongful death. With the recent incident of Mike Brown could you really blame the fury of the people? Martin Luther King even stated, " A riot is the language of the unheard. " Darren Wilson killed a man with no repercussions. Is everyone innocent ? absolutely not. Could it have been handled better ? absolutely. We as people are obligated to use our gifts of reasoning and rationalizing to determine a definition or system of justice that protects EVERYONE, not only people in power or people that can afford it.

Justice and American Sniper

There is so much debate about justice in this world. So many definitions and ideas of what justice is. Right now, there is much discussion about the movie that just came out about American Hero, Chris Kyle. The movie is called American Sniper, and it is about a United States Navy Seal who is considered to be the most lethal sniper in U.S. Military History. His pinpoint accuracy not only saved countless lives but also made him a prime target of insurgents. Despite, he knew his job was to save his brothers and fellow Americans and that was exactly what he did. People all over are criticizing the film. Michael Moore tweeted that “we were taught that snipers were cowards.” First, who is we? Those snipers and other  soldiers are the ones that protect this country from the evil that wants to destroy it. Some said that the film was pro war, and on the news the other night, Moore was saying that Kyle took lives that did not need to be taken. What?? He killed people that wanted to hurt America. He killed people that killed for no reason. He brought those insurgents to justice. Polemarchus says that justice is doing good to one’s friends and harm to one’s enemies. We must protect what is ours and protect our weak from the enemies that want us destroyed. Chris Kyle protected his people and killed the ones that wanted to destroy them and his country. 

A Discussion: Charlie Hebdo, Boko Haram, and Justice

All of us heard, without question, about the tragic Charlie Hebdo attack that occurred on the morning of 7 January 2015. But I have a question. How many of you heard about the massacre that happened in Nigeria, beginning on 3 January, lasting for days? Boko Haram (an Islamic militant group, associated with groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS) slaughtered over 2000 people, in what has been attributed as the largest attack conducted by the militant group to date. Maybe some of you heard about it, but speaking from my own experience, it was largely overshadowed by the Charlie Hebdo attack in France, where 12 were killed. Certainly, what happened at Charlie Hebdo is worthy of report. Both are tragedies, we would all agree; but are the lives lost at Charlie Hebdo more important than the lives lost in Nigeria? I would say no, but I'd also wager that American media would disagree, based on the coverage. Did we do justice with media coverage? Did we do justice for the lives lost in Nigeria? Why is the world not mourning over these lost Nigerian souls, like the world mourned when our country was attacked in September of 2001, resulting in the loss of 2,977 American lives? These are all important questions, but today, let's focus on just one.


What is justice in these situations, and how do we carry it out? The question will be applied through the scope of Polemarchus, from Plato's work "The Republic". In case you have reached this point, and have no idea what I'm talking about because you live under a rock (hey, no worries, we've all been there)- here are some links to help you get caught up. There are tons of news articles pertaining to each, but here are three:

Charlie Hebdo, Boko Haram, Boko Haram coverage ignored by media


Polemarchus would say, "Justice is doing good to one's friends, and harm to one's enemies". The definition, while it is shallow, can be directly applied to our question. What is justice then? According to Polemarchus, justice would be to aid the countries who sustained this attack, and also the victims families. Can we all agree that so far, we're on the right track? Further, to exact justice would be to harm the perpetrators of the attacks. To harm them, we first have to declare them our enemies, something I think we can all agree on still (if you consider Islamic terror groups your friends, you may be in the wrong country). Where this gets mushy, however, is when we try to define what constitutes harm, and then how much harm is necessary for justice to be complete. Begin speculation here, as I am about to throw in my two cents. Aid to France and Nigeria are absolutely necessary. It is clearly unjust to look upon these tragedies and say, "It is under control, they don't need our sympathy, they don't need our help." We should be involved. As for retribution on the enemy? Is it not sound to say that no reaction is equivalent to allowing these actions as well as giving them a green light to continue in the future? We, the world (not just America), must combat terror. There is a discussion heating up around the world right now regarding terrorists and what rights they have; and also, what rights they have when we are extracting information that could save lives. Meanwhile, I wonder when the world will wake up, and realize that to defeat this enemy, we must destroy this enemy. The enemy certainly did not consider the rights of the Charlie Hebdo workers, nor the Nigerian men, women, and children that they slaughtered. The world has to go to war, and finish the job. Not go into Iraq, and pull out before the job is finished. Not go into Afghanistan, and pull out before the job is finished. We must combine forces, go to war against terror, and finish the job. It would not be pretty; war is not pretty. But while the left wing is discussing what rights terrorists have, innocent people around the world are being slaughtered. And so I will answer, in my own opinion, the questions which we must ask, if we follow the definition of Polemarchus.

Q: What constitutes harm against our enemies(the perpetrators of these attacks)?
A: A declaration of war.

Q: How much harm is necessary for justice to be achieved?
A: Eradication. At a glance, this may seem harsh. However, if the enemy is not eradicated, the remnants will rise, and the cycle begins all over again, resulting in acts of terrorism, oppression, and innocent lives being lost worldwide. We have literally just witnessed exactly what I am speaking of take place in Iraq over the course of the last year.

Thanks for reading. I realize this is a heavy topic, with no doubt, a variety of opinions. But these are the times we live in, and these things are happening; so let's talk about it.

Welcome to Class!

Welcome to the blog-home for Dr. J's Spring 2015 Contemporary Moral Problems course! This site will serve as a forum for students to discuss the material we cover in class, as well as a place to raise questions we may not have addressed in class or to make connections between our material and current real-world events. Each week, students will be divided into two groups, with half of the class designated as "Authors" and the other half designated as "Commenters." In any given week, "Authors" will post a short essay (minimum 300 words) related to the course material before Friday at 5pm. "Commenters" will respond to at least two of that week's Author-posts before the beginning of the next week's class. Students are encouraged to post or comment beyond the requirements stated here, as frequent and quality blog activity will be rewarded in the final grade.

First, if you don't know ANYTHING about blogs or blogging, there are (fortunately) lots of tutorials out there to help!  If you have a specific question, you can usually find the answer to it at the Blogger Help Center.  For a quick YouTube introduction to blogging, I suggest this video and this one.  There's also a "Complete List of Blogger Tutorials" available.  That's the amazing thing about the internet, of course... you can learn to do almost anything with a few clicks!

Second, it's important to know that blog-writing differs from the writing you might do for "traditional" papers in some ways, but not in others. Here are some things to think about as you compose your posts and comments:

FOR AUTHORS:

• Do not wait until the last minute to write your post! Students should think of the blog as a community exercise. In this community, Authors are responsible for generating that week's discussion and Commenters are responsible for continuing and elaborating upon it. In order for the Commenters to be able to provide the best commentary they can, it is necessary that Authors do not wait until the last minute to post entries in any given week. Like traditional papers, it is almost always obvious when a student has elected to write his or her blog-posts at the last minute, as they end up being either overly simple, poorly conceived or poorly edited. Your contribution to the blog discussion is important, so take care to show the respect to your classmates that you would expect them to show you.
• Be concise, but also precise. The greatest challenge of blog-writing is to communicate complex ideas in a minimal amount of words. It is important that you keep your posts short, in keeping with the blog format, but also that you do not sacrifice the clarity or completeness of your ideas for the sake of brevity.
• Be focused. If you find that your blog-entry is too long, it is likely because you have chosen too large a topic for one post. (Consider splitting up long entries into two or more posts.) It should be eminently clear, on the first reading, what your blog post is explaining/asking/arguing. Use the Post Title to clearly state the subject of your entry.
• Choose a topic that will prompt discussion. The measure of a good blog post is how much commentary it can generate. To that end, do not use your blog posts for simple exegesis or to revisit questions already settled in class. Good discussion-generators often include bold claims about, or original interpretations of, our classroom texts. Connecting the course material to current events or controversies is also a good way to generate discussion. Pay special attention to in-class conversations, as many of the issues that generate discussion in class will also do so on the blog.
• Proofread. Proofread. PROOFREAD. As a rule, blog-writing is (slightly) less formal than the writing you might do for a paper you hand in to your professor. For example, you may write in the first person, and a more "conversational" style is usually acceptable. However, ANY writing with glaring punctuation, spelling or grammatical mistakes not only will be difficult to read and understand, but also will greatly diminish the credibility of its Author. It is NOT ADVISABLE to "copy and paste" the text of your post into blog's "new post" box, as you will inevitably end up with a format that is difficult to read. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the formatting buttons above, and always preview your post before publishing it.
• Make use of the "extras" provided by new technology. When you write a traditional paper for class, you don't have many of the opportunities that blog-writing affords. Take advantage of the technologies available here to insert images, embed video or employ hyperlinks to other relevant materials.
• Respond to your commenters. Authors should stay abreast of all the commentary their posts generate. If you are asked for clarification by a commenter, or if one of your claims is challenged, it is the Author's responsibility to respond.

FOR COMMENTERS:

• Read carefully BEFORE you comment. The biggest and most frequent error made by commenters is also the most easily avoidable, namely, misreading or misunderstanding the original post. Don't make that error!
• Simple agreement or disagreement is not sufficient. Sometimes it will be the case that you fully agree or disagree with an Author's post. However, a comment that simply states "I agree" or "I disagree" will not count for credit. You MUST provide detailed reasons for your agreement or disagreement in your comment.
• Evidence works both ways. Often, the source of disagreement between an Author and a Commenter will involve a textual interpretation. If an Author claims in his or her post that "Advocates of the death penalty are obviously operating within a Kantian moral framework," the Author should have also provided a page citation from Kant supporting that claim. If you (as a Commenter) disagree, it is your responsibility to cite a passage from Kant that provides evidence for your disagreement. For disagreements that are not text-based-- for example, disagreements about statistical claims, historical claims, claims about current events, or any other evidentiary matters-- hyperlinks are your friend.
• NO flaming allowed!:  Engage your classmates on the blog with the same consideration and respect that you would in class. 

Although this blog is viewable by anyone on the Web, participants have been restricted to members of the PHIL220 class only. This means that only students enrolled in your section of PHIL220 this semester at CBU can post or comment on this blog. However, anyone can read it, so students are reminded to take special care to support the claims that they make, to edit their posts and comments judiciously, and to generally represent themselves in conversation as they would in public. If you are new to blogging, you can visit the sites for other CBU course blogs listed in the column to your right.

I look forward to seeing your conversation develop over the course of this semester!
--Dr. J