A little Late: White Bear

The women who had watched and filmed the little girl being killed was put through some cruel and unusual punishment for her actions. It was literally taking the saying "an eye for an eye" and putting it into effect. She went through her punishment day after day, but not remembering anything that had happened the day before because they would erase her memory, so that she would experience fear as well, just like the little girl. If punishment is supposed to make you a better person, how was this if she could not even remember what she had done until the very end of each day? She was not able to grow from her punishment or even realize what she had done. Yes it allowed her to experience fear  but her punishment become an object of their pleasure. It became a show and a way to make money. This type of punishment could never work. I say just send the person to jail or whatever and allow God to handle their eternal punishment. In the end, they will get theirs and it will be worse than anything we could do to them on this earth.

Unnessesary Punishment in Black Mirror

To start off i would like to say that the movie kept my attention the whole way. I did not realize until the end that everything i had been seeing and questioning was false information. The director did a great job with that part of the movie. As for what the movie was centered around i did not feel a sense of attraction toward.

The main character of the story for me was not believable. If she had been a murdered and killed this little girl as was told in the movie, then she should at least have some set of skills that could prompt for survival. This was not the case and the whole movie she was just seen as a whiny cry-baby. This made if unbelievable for me. Even with the memory lose that had happened for multiple straight days, there would have still be some form of inherent skill set or thinking that would have lingered with her.

As for the punishment i found it interesting. There was no lesson learned. The point of punishment is to teach a lesson the person who is being punished. For people in the old days who would steal they would get their hand cut off. Back in that day people would eat with one hand and wipe their ass with the other. The punishment would be to cut off the hand that they eat with. This was a severe punishment but it definitely got the point across, don't steal. For the girl she never learned. The would punish her and take her memory of being punished. This is the equivalent of beating a dog because it woke up in the morning. Then you are nice the whole day only to beat it up when it wakes up the next day. There is no reasoning behind it other than you just want to show your dominance. I would like to know what others think of this.

Catfish, a week later. . .

            In class we watched the film, Catfish; although, there were many psychological themes throughout this film, there were also many philosophical themes as well. As we spoke in class, there were many things that appeared to be morally wrong and upsetting. One theme was the relationship between Angela and her husband, and if what she did constitutes as cheating. I believe cheating in any way or form is when an individual is unfaithful to their significant other. Since Angela was seeking happiness and pleasure elsewhere and lied to her husband as to why she was contacting this other male, I believe this was her being unfaithful to her husband. Lying to her husband not only breaks the trust between the two of them, but their communication was disrupted as well; a solid relationship is built on these two principles. Even though one could say Angela wasn’t in the right state of mind and she was caught up so deep in this false identity, she still was unfaithful to her husband.

            Another disturbing theme was the fact that Angela got her young daughter involved. It seemed like Angela had a pathological lying issue and would do whatever she could to keep this false identity alive. It’s really unfortunate to keep this false life going she had to use her 9 year old daughter and potentially get her harmed. It was not wise to let a complete stranger into her life and put her daughter in danger. It was asked in class after watching the movie if we felt like what the mother did was morally wrong? I would say yes, because not only did she do the things I mentioned above but she also manipulated and disregarded another’s feelings and emotions. I remember the question arose in class, “Do y’all feel bad for her, due to what she has to deal with?” Like many I said yes; then the next question was, “Does this change your mind if this is morally wrong?” Although she was dealt many hardships, just because we feel bad for all she has to go through; nonetheless what she did was wrong in my eyes.

In the recent class film, Catfish.  We saw how a 40 year old woman. Acted as a whole network of people to deceive a man.  In her experience she acted as her daughter, herself her imaginary daughter and sons. Angela explained at the end how she created the personas because she was unhappy with her life and Ellen of the personas were a part of her former self.Even though I do sympathize with Angela, I do not take pity on the fact she lied to everyone, and cheated not only on her husband,  but her entire family. I would imagine for it to be hurtful for my wife and mother to make up complete lies about me,  my step dad and brothers.  I would imagine her family to be a little ashamed and hurt by What Angela did.  Angela seemed as if she lied a lot and all the time. She even lied about having cancer for absolutely no apparent reason.
I Believe catfish was a wake up call for a lot of people.  The.message wasn't only to tell the truth, but come to terms with all the decisions you make and realize that each one significantly impacts your life. Angela quit dancing because she wanted to.  She made use of her free-will.  I believe that we as people have to take responsibility for our own actions.  Her life style was a hindrance however she knew the terms and conditions of it in the first place.

Black Mirror: White Bear

     This week in class, we watched a film about a girl, who was convicted of murder, being subjected to an endless form of punishment by having to relive the same day over and over again. When the film first started, I thought this was going to be a propaganda film about how the current techno –culture is turning people into passive observers in their everyday lives.  Essentially, when I saw the people recording the girl being chased by the crazy masked guy, I thought the director was trying to emphasize the fact that it has been increasingly common in recent years for people to pull out their phones and record what’s happening rather than helping the person who is in danger. While this may have not been the main point of the movie, it is important to consider that the people who went to this exhibit in this film were just an exaggerated form of the passive observers in our current society.

     If people continue to become desensitized and less involved in their surroundings, who is to say that we won’t all turn into those people who voluntarily went on the exhibit. Moreover, do you think that the form of punishment used in the movie is viable and, more importantly, ethically right? Personally, I do not feel that it is morally right, even though she was guilty. Even if they did leave her memories intact, I still believe that those involved are no better than the girl. Basically, the people who are recording her are just reenacting what she did when the murder took place, but they are not considered to be just as guilty just because it is just a reenactment. Lastly, since the tourists seemed to be enjoying watching her running for her life, while in her confession video she seemed remorseful, I think this makes them guiltier and less human than the girl convicted. That is just my opinion though. 

White Bear

In today’s class, we watched a very interesting and controversial film that would spark a very good debate. Because a woman participated in the kidnapping and murder of a little girl, she was basically tortured daily because of her immoral action. But instead of persecuting her like any other criminal, she was constantly reminded of her crime. While her fiancé killed the child, she recorded, so as “punishment” she was chased for hours while others recorded her instead of helping her. So basically it was like a game show, in my eyes. But the spectator’s actions struck me as that’s what people do daily. While someone is getting jumped or fighting, instead of getting help, the first thing people do is whip out their cell phones, record it, and upload it to social media outlets.

 Just recently, a brawl happened at White Station High School where a girl was getting jumped by another big group of girls and instead of students trying to break up the fight, they recorded and expressed commentary. In results, the student that was jumped had a cat-scan performed on her head because of the excessive punching and kicking. But those students also got suspended, which I think is a very easy punishment. But because everyone decided to record and egg the fight on, she could have lost her life in that fight.

But there are some positives to recording criminal events. Not too long ago, a police officer was filmed killing an unarmed black man while he was running away. If the act wasn’t caught on camera, there wouldn’t have been no criminal charges against the officer.

But does it still give people the right to stand and record while people are dying or almost losing their life? What would you do if you found a helpless male or female getting beat to death? Would you walk away because it has nothing to do with you? Would you record it? Or would you attempt to intervene and call for help?

Why should people take responsibility for their actions in society ? and Why should people bring morality into their actions ?  In today`s society many people look past many actions. For example, why do monopolies consistently exploit their workers? Today in class we discussed how CEO's of big businesses "express their strength" by paying their workers minimum wage. This wage makes it hard for the "weak" to even prosper. I would suggest that the exploitation of the weak doesn't make you strong.  You would not give a bully credit. For being strong for preying on the weak.  I believe the workforce is the same.  The exploitation of the worker is the "strong" preying on the weak.  But you know What is really important?  The weak that makes these CEOs strongi believe that the strong at dome point should acknowledge that it strength only comes from is exploited and oppressed workers. CHK-FIL-A would not be a prosperous business if they did not have workers to sell their food.  For this reason I believe minimum wage should be risen. I believe that people now days who are wealthy have not "worked for ALL their wealth. Some are born into the right ffamily. With this being saI'd I beliEve that people who are financially able should provide a living wage for It's workers.  WITHOUT the workers I truly believe no one would be RICH.

Catfish

In class this week, we watched and discussed the movie "Catfish." In the discussion, it was mentioned that probably the worst thing that Angela did was bring Abby into her crazy web of deception. This is true, but it also extended to Abby's friend seeing as she had some play in the painting lie. Abby's friend seemed to me that she knew about the lie, but she didn't remember whether or not she painted or not. This struck me as odd seeing that Angela had gone as far as to include Abby's friend in the lies.

I also firmly believe the Angela was cheating on her husband. Here is a link to the multiple definitions of "cheat" from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheat?s=t According to this, Angela definitely cheated. She influenced Niv and commited fraud in just about every way through facebook, the paintings, and phone calls/texts. Obviously, cheating is morally wrong.

How do you feel about Abby's friend being involved in Angela's lies as well? How do you feel about Angela cheating? Do you believe that she did cheat or do you believe that she just got caught up in it? If you believe that she cheated, why do you think she did it?

Catfish

This week in class we watched a documentary film called "Catfish". It is about a online relationship that turns out to be more than meets the eye. The man, Yanev, thought that he was receiving paintings from a little girl who's sister wrote songs and did dance. Instead, he found out that one single woman created an entire web of lies for... what? To seduce him? She was already married and had two disabled kids to look after, as well as a little girl. Many in the class agree that she was cheating on her husband simply because she was getting emotionally involved with another man, but I didn't really hear from those who believed that she wasn't cheating. Personally, I think her problems ran very deep and Sartre would have had a field day with her. His belief that we wear masks all the time and there is no true person would have been epitomized in this woman. She wore the mask of her daughters, her daughters friends, herself, and others. When confronted about it, she doesn't really seem to accept the fact that it is all lies. Instead, she simply lies some more. True, people like her do keep the rest of us on our toes but are they really the best option for doing so? I think there are better ways of staying alert than to get involved with pathological liars. She had gotten herself into a situation that she couldn't get out of easily and was willing to go the extra mile to escape, even if it was only temporary. It was quite sad to watch and think that she resorted to hurting others when she could have instead done something like playing video games or reading books. She could have done some great things for the human race when instead she chose to cheat. In class we mentioned that if she left her husband it would be viewed as horrible but that seems to have already happened to him once. The two boys were his from a previous marriage, which leads me to wonder what happened. Did someone else take that path and leave him and the kids?  What are other people's thoughts?

Thoughts on Catfish

     After watching this movie and how the tale of Niv progressed, many thoughts were swarming into my head. The most interesting to me is the ability of the internet to make lying easier. With advances in social networking and other online interactions, lying to people has become easier and easier. By not having to physically be there with the other person, people are missing the eerie feeling you get when you lie to someone's face. Without this interaction people are just typing away telling whoever they are talking to just exactly what they want to hear.
     This brings to mind earlier in the school year when we discussed the objective and subjective principles. The topic of lying came up and we concluded that if lying became a generally acceptable practice then there would simply just be little to no truth in the world. That is a scary thought, but one that is not too unfamiliar. There is a saying to not believe everything you see or read on the internet, and that is a good saying to follow. However in regards to social networking, I believe it is the idea that it is another person seems to make us more gullible. For we normally don't just assume people to be liars so we grant them an amount of trust and respect until they prove otherwise. As this movie showed, there are those out there that take advantage of this assumption. The relationship in this movie in my opinion was legitimate in the aspect of the two people were sharing feelings of true care for one another, however I do see the actions of Angela morally wrong. To me, the fact that she lied on so many levels and also knowingly toyed, for lack of a better word, with Niv's emotions was terribly wrong.

Symposium Make-Up: Sarte

            Since I was excused from the symposium last Friday April 10, 2015 I will write a blog post defending one of the philosophers I did not get a chance to cover on Wednesday and I am choosing to do Sartre.

Sartre believed in existentialism, with the basic principle “existence precedes essence”. To understand this, one must compare the subject to an object that is a thing-in-itself. For instance a table is something in which “essence precedes existence” meaning the only thing that one knows about a table, or whatever makes a table a table is the characteristics that facilitate the object. The only reason the table exists is because of the essence of it which is the exact opposite of a human and existentialism. Humans have the facility that occurs in objects but what makes us humans is the transcendence or freedom. The reason our existence precedes essence is because we have the freedom to do as we choose and think how we choose. Whatever one does in life, those experiences, or projects, define that individual. “You are what you do” is a phrase someone used in class. One might criticize and Sartre explained a main criticism with an analogy. There is a waiter in a restaurant and he acts the way he does because that’s how a waiter should act and even if doesn’t want this lifestyle he has to because “that’s what waiters do”. He has made his freedom and objectified it claiming he is “just a waiter”. Sartre would say this is an individual not wanting to live up to responsibility and take on another project. It was stated that one IS responsible for EVERY thing that occurs on this world because we have the freedom to act or not to act on something. Even an individual confined to the most hopeless state and has “all” freedoms taken away, one always has the freedom to think. A criticism I would have for Nietzsche, regarding the whole “slave revolt of mortality” and that there are simply weak and strong people, weak people still have the freedom to think and choose as they do. 

Workplace Morals

For the past week or two we have been talking about Nietzsche, Marx, and Sartre. With the tree men there are three philosophic outlooks. Nietzsche says that the Bougeoise and Proletariot are nothing more than the products of a capitalistic system. The comparison between the birds of prey and the sheep is now Nietzsche paints a picture of this as says that the strong can only show their strength as nothing more than strength. Marx and Sartre try and throw morals into the equation only because they are weak. By persuading Nietzsche, or birds of prey, that they are weak by using the weak to do their work or by preying on them, Marx and Sartre flip flop the view of strength and power. Sartre goes to even say that it is all about freedom. The freedom of choice whether to show your strength as strength or to not show. This is impossible according to Nietzsche. What i found interesting about the whole symposium that took place what how hard it is to rationally talk to someone who has no morals. When someone you are trying to persuade has no morals, nothing is right or wrong it just is. With the example of the entrepreneur, employees wonder why they do not get paid what the owner does. This is silly to expect that you would get paid the same as the boss. If over time your were elevated to a higher position then that is understandable, but unless you take the risk and understand what is going to happen if you put everything on the line, then there is the possibility that your annual income will be higher. Not all companies pay minimum wage. Henry Ford would pay his employees more than the other companies so that over time they could purchase an automobile that the possibly worked on during the production process. This gave them a connection to the work and the reward that they were getting in the end. Nowadays companies are not worried about their employment coming or going because there is always someone else who is willing to work. Most of the time there is no say whether we would work or not. Companies send their business overseas taking labor from China or Mexico not even allowing us the opportunity to work. Overall I personally think that our whole system is corrupt. We rely to much on the "all might dollar" to save us instead of on our abilities to tend the land and help others.

Success of Communism on a Large Scale: Impossible

I think that the idea of communism can be pretty on paper. When you stand back and highlight all of the shortcomings of capitalism, in light of what communism is supposed to be, it has the propensity to look enticing in comparison. I think this almost happened, to a certain extent, when we first discussed it in class. By the end of that class session, it seemed we all walked out shaking our heads and rethinking capitalism. Perhaps some of us had even had those thoughts before. But I have a bigger question- if communism is better, why is that not the system we have? Perhaps one could answer that the reason is because those who are at the top keep it from becoming that way. Who knows whether or not that has something to do with the reality of the situation? Maybe it is, maybe it is not. However, I would argue a different point, and this is only to begin with. We were told initially that the general ideas most of us has about communism were incorrect. The gray people standing outside of grey buildings waiting in line for their share of the gray food are just a figment thought up by us. The countries that we thought of us communist (primarily Russia in the Cold War) were not true communists. I do not even want to dig too deep into what a communist country is supposed to look like or how it should operate. Let's back up a little bit first, and ask this question: why are all of the countries that we thought of or think of as communists really not? Is it perhaps because they started off with communist ideas, and failed? Is it perhaps because communism cannot be successful on a large scale? I think that is absolutely the case. Inside of a single household and maybe even in a small to medium sized community, it could work. Apply it to an America sized country, and it will steer off course. Apply it to an America sized country, and I think the result will be something other than communism, a thing of suppression to the individual and a thing of evil.

Marx

Today in symposium, an idea was brought up that really had me thinking, since I really wasn't able to speak. What if machines and robots start taking the place of jobs? What if, when trying to call 911 to report an emergency, a machine answers and it takes forever to even report it. Well that’s how Capitalism treats their workers, not like human beings, but as people that are only there to make them money. In my own opinion, capitalism is designed to keep the poor, poor, and make the rich, richer. Why should an already established millionaire only pay their employees minimum wage. Most people spend all day at work, away from their family and other responsibilities just to earn enough to feed themselves and pay the minimum on bills.

Most workers even spend half of their day helping manufacture products that they can’t even afford themselves. And because they spend all day working, they are exhausted and start to dread going to work. The saying, “Thank God It’s Friday” is often said by people who feel as though they are stuck in a rut and spend their weekend doing basically nothing. Basic human things like, spending time with family, drinking, partying, and resting. But those should be things that should be enjoyed throughout the week also instead of over a 2 day period.

If communism was actually an option to run this country, certain things like overly working wouldn't exist. But because we, as Americans, are stuck on owning things like nice houses and cars, it’s impossible. Would communism cut down on crimes like robbery and murder? Maybe yes because most robberies and murders are because the victim has something that the robber or murderer doesn't.

So if robots do take all of the jobs, the treatment that human workers get will disappear, but as a consequence the economy wouldn't prosper properly. But as far as the actual service we would get from robots, it will 10x worse than the service we get from humans now. 

Capitalism or Communism?

     During this week’s symposium, the capitalistic nature of America was the major point debated between the three philosophers. Overall, it was ascertained that while the system allowed for some to rise to the top based on their inherent abilities, some were still unable to express their strength due to being born into less than fortunate circumstances. Moreover, it was also pointed out that as time progresses in this Capitalistic historical period, the gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat grows larger, which has only served to further alienate the workforce.
     When this point was brought up, I remembered our class’ previous discussion as to how we might already be transitioning into the Communistic historical era, which can be shown by the ever increasing pressure for government intervention to equalize the wealth in America. Initially, I imagined that such a system would be terrible since there would be no motivation to work due to not being able to rise above the norm; also, I was never too fond of the idea of “contributing what you can” and “receiving what you need”. As Dr. Johnson stated, “it would be impossible for us to imagine not living in this system”. However, after the symposium I realized that if the workers were to not be alienated from their work, and then people would be more willing to work and would be happier doing it.
     Therefore, after some consideration, I realized that it is irrational for people not to want to transition into this era. Such a system would surely benefit the general populous more than any other and for the most part ensure the happiness of the people. While wealth and status be the form of happiness sought after in this current system, if people were thought there was an alternative, they would surely seize the opportunity if they knew the benefits. Would you agree that communism is a better system of governing or do you still think capitalism is better? If you disagree, why?