White Bear

Before knowing what was going on, I sympathized with the women. I thought that it was unhuman for people to stand around while someone is in need. After understanding what was going on in the end, I had a different perspective. I think that what she did was wrong, but the way in which she was punished was not justifiable. I believe this because like someone said in class, she can’t learn from her mistakes if she is only aware of what she did for less than ten minutes before she is unaware again. This is no way for someone to learn from their mistakes. I think when someone does something to someone else, the best thing is not for it to be done to the person that did it because it really doesn’t make things better. Say for example someone killed your child. As a parent, nothing can bring back that child. Even if you killed their child it doesn’t help the fact that your child is gone and will never come back. You may think that revenge will help you feel better or even make the situation seem better, but what it does is just repeat a cycle. It also sets a bad example to others because it’s not like the situation gets solved. It just shows other people that if they are willing to act in a certain way, then you should be able to take the action that you gave out. Not everyone will learn or even care if what they do to someone else happens to them, so I don’t think that doing the exact same action to someone who did it to you as their punishment is a way to help the situation.

Should the United States take Syrian refugees?

I believe that the United States should look for solutions to help the Syrian refugees. However, taking all of them in the financial position it is in is not the wisest idea. We as a country would have to pay for all their needs education, housing, healthcare, food and tutoring for language which is not the smartest economic risk to take on with all the debt we have. Also, when you look at how many immigrants would be coming in 200,000 there are a certain number of criminals coming in. Based off statistics from the United States for every 100,000: 700 will be charged in some way shape or form for criminal activity. So by bringing in 200,000 people we would be bringing in based off statistics 1400 people criminals into our country. I think the even larger issue is not the criminals one. I do think we have a duty to help others who are less fortunate in our world. After the Holocaust no country was willing to take in the Jews which I feel was a mistake and an absolute shame. I think the Muslim countries in the Gulf and Mediterranean who are rich and we give aid to should take these people. They are better equipped to handle them and most of those countries speak Arabic so there would not be a language barrier stopping from succeeding. I think having the refugees go to these Gulf countries like and Mediterranean financially stable countries like Saudi Arabia would better for the United States and the refugees.

Should the United States talk the Syrian refugees

I believe that the United States should look for solutions to help the Syrian refugees. However, taking all of them in the financial position it is in is not the wisest idea. We as a country would have to pay for all their needs education, housing, healthcare, food and tutoring for language which is not the smartest economic risk to take on with all the debt we have. Also, when you look at how many immigrants would be coming in 200,000 there are a certain number of criminals coming in. Based off statistics from the United States for every 100,000: 700 will be charged in some way shape or form for criminal activity. So by bringing in 200,000 people we would be bringing in based off statistics 1400 people criminals into our country. I think the even larger issue is not the criminals one. I do think we have a duty to help others who are less fortunate in our world. After the Holocaust no country was willing to take in the Jews which I feel was a mistake and an absolute shame. I think the Muslim countries in the Gulf and Mediterranean who are rich and we give aid to should take these people. They are better equipped to handle them and most of those countries speak Arabic so there would not be a language barrier stopping from succeeding. I think having the refugees go to these Gulf countries like and Mediterranean financially stable countries like Saudi Arabia would better for the United States and the refugees.

Relativism and Sartre

So today in class we began our discussion on Relativism. And to be quite honest, I was rather confused…But what I gathered from Dr. Johnson's explanation was that Relativists believe we have a choice to believe whatever we want about just about anything, even if it directly contradicts the three Non-relatives: Absolutism, Universalism, and Objectivism. It seemed like Relativists are mainly focused on expressing their own personal opinions even when they are not true. This belief that we are entitled to our opinions no matter what made me think about Sartre's philosophy that we are always free. The same way that we are always able to make choices and/or negate all other options for decision making, Relativists believe we are always able to stand behind whatever opinion or philosophy we desire, even if it is in direct contrast with Absolutism, Universalism, or Objectivism. Dr. Johnson also talked about how we utilize a bit of both in our everyday life, which makes a lot of sense in my perspective.

Moral Courage

During this week's symposium, we discussed the recent attacks in Paris, as well as the Syrian refugee crisis. While we discussed how Marx, Nietschze, and Sartre would've responded, I am curious to see as to how people in our society will respond. Is it our moral responsibility to aid those in need? Many people believe that it is not our responsibility to take in the Syrian refugees, while several other people state that it is our moral obligation. I personally believe that it is our duty to aid those in need. Many Americans are afraid of opening the doors to these refugees because they believe that among these refugees, are the sick and twisted people who belong to ISIS. Yes, this is a serious concern, but none of the Paris attackers were identified as Syrian refugees. These refugees are afraid of the same threat as we are, ISIS. I believe that one of ISIS's goal was to turn the world against Muslims. As a Muslim, it is frustrating and heart breaking to see people that I consider my friends start questioning all Muslims from the acts of a few. The fact the France is willing to take in over 30,000 refugees after the tragic attacks in Paris is something that we as Americans need to learn from. Recently, I read an article that stated "6 Reasons to Welcome Syrian Refugees After Paris." According to the article, since 1980, none of the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have come from the Middle East to America have been terrorists. I feel that it is hypocritical of us to say that "All Lives Matter" when many people are unwilling to help thousands of children and women who have nothing but the clothes off their backs. As the holidays are approaching, especially Thanksgiving, we need to keep in mind that we can not take anything for granted. While we celebrate with our loved ones in this wonderful country, thousands of innocent people are fleeing their homes. The most important thing that stood out to me in the article was that America should demonstrate "moral courage." During World War II, America sent back thousands of Jews due to security concerns. If there's one thing that we should learn from this, it's that we should deal with threats to our nation without "rejecting our ethical obligations." "The definition of moral courage is is to resist allowing fear to overwhelm our humanity." 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bier/syrian-refugees-paris_b_8577480.html

No Syrian Refugees

The Paris terrorist attacks were the result of radical Islamic extremists and to say it was the result of anything else is a flat out lie.  We now know that one of the primary terrorists was a Syrian refugee or at least he had the credentials or a false alias of a Syrian refugee.  To allow Syrian refugees into the United States without absolutely confirming their backgrounds would be a crippling blow to the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to keep safe our citizens.  There is a vetting process in place for these people but it is a joke; we cannot identify most of these people except for what they show us on their credentials.  At no point am I saying that a lot of these refugees are terrorists or threats to America, but the sick few that blend in with innocent refugees are a threat and if I were in power I would not risk it.  Call me a hypocrite, I believe that all lives matter and I believe in the core values and fundamentals that this country was built on especially in accepting the poor, marginalized and displaced.  However, if there are a large group of people seeking refuge coming from a war torn area in the middle east that is fraught with ISIS extremists, this endangers the safety of the American people.  If I were Obama my focus would be the safety of the citizens of this great country.  Is that not one of jobs of our commander-in-chief?  The safety of this nation and her citizens takes priority every time.  ISIS extremists have no problem in strapping bombs to women, children and the mentally disabled.  They enjoy targeting people who do not completely submit to their interpretation of Islam; they even terrorize people from their own culture and religion.  So rest assured, they will try to send terrorists over with Syrian credentials.  Four examples have already been caught with such false ID's in Cuba trying to make their way into American.

2000 Syrian refugees into this country cannot all be monitored and tracked.  Our government wouldn't even allow such a thing.  In this case, the actions of the few outweigh the needs of the many.  I will fight for the safety and protection of this nation and her people.  The world isn't a pretty place where everyone gets along and everybody is a good person.  This is a tough decision, but it is one that at the end of day looking at Paris and the other extremists attacks around the globe, I see no benefit to allowing these refugees in.

Fleeing Freedom

Sartre's idea of trying to escape from (ironically enough, perhaps!) one's very freedom has given me pause to really think about what freedom means, re-examining my own concept of it. The phrase and/or phenomenon that kept coming to my mind as we were discussing this topic in class was the idea of "the paralysis of choice"; the idea that, when provided with too many options from which to choose, human beings tend to become overwhelmed, and frozen in their indecision. (Sort of like Buridan's donkey, perhaps, but on an exponentially larger scale?) It becomes a relief not to have to choose--not to have to make a decision..... But then, of course, choosing to let someone else make decisions for you is in and of itself a choice! But, why do we suffer from paralysis of choice in the first place? Is it because we fear the consequences of making the "wrong" choice, or on the other hand simply the choice that is not the "best"? Or perhaps the choices themselves are not what matter, but others' perceptions of us based upon the decisions that we make?

Bad Faith

In class this week we discussed the Paris attackers during our symposium. One of the questions that was asked was that of,” Are the terrorists acting in bad faith?” This concept is the idea that people have of lying to themselves into thinking they do not have a choice. One of the many examples Sartre gives of this habit is the waiter in the café. The waiter’s exaggerated behavior is clear evidence that he is play-acting that he is a waiter. He does his best to conform to everything a waiter should be doing. However, in order to pretend to be a waiter the person must know that he not a waiter, but a human being who is lying to himself to make him seem like a waiter. Another example he gives is of a woman on a first date. The young woman’s date compliments her on her appearance but she ignores the sexually implied compliment. He then takes her hand and she lets her hand rest indifferently in his so that she can buy time and delay having to make a choice about his advances towards her. She is choosing to take his compliment as if it is nothing sexual about her body and chooses to treat her hand as an object like it is not apart of her body, which is acknowledging the fact that she can make choices. Back to the Paris attacks, I’m really not sure if they were acting on bad faith. I think that they thought what they are doing is right but most everyone knows this not true. Their main goal if I understood this correctly is to make the world hate Muslims so that Muslims will all return to their Islamic state and the world will split and World War 3 will happen. Also, the reason they attacked Paris was because they believe it’s the capital of prostitution and vice which is interesting. However, this extreme idea endangers the lives of so many people around the world. I don’t see how this is right in someone’s mind if in the process you kill thousands of innocent people?  

Crime Central

Its a hard enough life, without having to walk through the legislative minefield known as criminal law in the United States.  According to the Wall Street Journal there are over 4500 criminal laws in our country.  This ridiculous number doesn't even include the endless regulations, misdemeanors, and civil codes.  With all these laws in place it's no wonder the US incarceration rate is the highest in the world.

In class on Friday, we spent a good amount of time talking about the concept of 'Over-Policing,' so this blog post will be my take on the situation as well as how it might relate to existentialism.  For starters it was honestly surprising to hear the term 'Over-Policing' used in such a negative connotation.  Police are supposed to be a sign of strength and selflessness, people who put their lives on the line to protect and defend society.  Why then is it a bad thing to have to many people such as these?  At first I thought the term was simply being used to express the dissatisfaction with a lot of how a section of police have been acting in the recent years, considering the depressing number of racially motivated wrongs committed by them.  Next, I thought maybe it was meant to talk about how there's simply to many laws and the government is 'over-policing' by trying to regulate and outlaw seemingly everything.  However, the more we discussed the topic I began to get a different picture all together.

When we discussed 'Over-Policing,' the intention simply meant what it would imply: our police are doing to much.  Too many arrests, to many incidents leading to incarceration, to many police.  A large focus of the talk centered around minorities and poorer neighborhoods or schools and how these are prime examples of too much police intervention.  Honestly, this concept boggles my mind.

Simply put it doesn't make sense to me how we can get mad at police for arresting someone for committing a crime.  Whether the crime is that of illegal immigration, vandalism, underage drinking, or smoking pot, there are consequences and I don't think it makes sense to pin the blame on the police.  Even personally, I've had a few run ins with law enforcement and each time I've disagreed with the consequences.  I really doubt anyone ever thinks they deserve punishment for the infractions they may commit, because a lot of things deemed illegal by the government done't seem to have someone being harmed.  The missing link seems to be that whether or not something like smoking marijuana hurts society is factually true, doesn't change the legality in certain places.  Unfortunately, in reality laws don't always reflect facts.  In the context of police then, I have a really hard time accepting that 'over-policing' can be a problem.

We can rationally argue over the consistency at which policing is applied.
We can rationally discuss the myriad of unnecessary laws.
We can even rationally debate the brutally steep punishments.
We can not though ignore the rule of law.

Jean-Paul Sartre's main arguments of existentialism is that humans 'are condemned to be free."  We as a society have the ability to do everything we can to either discuss the three statements above, or we can actively chose to brake the law.  No one is stopping you from the action in a lot of circumstances, most punishment is reactionary.  I agree with Sartre though in that we are ultimately left without excuse.  If we commit a crime we factually deserve the consequence.  Again, whether or not those consequences are at all rational is irrelevant to the concept of 'Over-Policing.'  In the end our spat should be with the laws not the enforcers.  If cops are obeying the law and are acting in accordance to procedure, then the responsibility lies with the person who committed the crime.  Something certainly needs to be done.  I believe though that it needs to start with questioning the laws themselves, not the people enforcing it.

Sartre

This week we talked about Jean-Paul Sartre, and existentialism. I found it strange when we talked about how desperate some freedom's are to be acknowledged as what they are. I particularly found it confusing and interesting when we discussed the master-slave dialectic. The fact that the struggle to be recognized as a freedom even to the point of sacrificing yourself is where it got confusing for me. I understood how if one person discovers this fact then they instantly become the slave as he is recognizing the other person's freedom without the other person recognizing his. I mainly got confused with why the person would consider killing himself to prove a point that in the end still isn't proven. I feel like the person who dies technically would have the be seen as a freedom by the living since the living person now knows that the dead man had the free to kill himself. It was an interesting concept but confusing at the same time.

Sartre

In class this week we learned about existentialism. Which is defined as human freedom and responsibility. Human beings are the only animals that can possess a freedom, because we are the only ones that will fight till death for freedom. Only a human being will self-sacrifice for freedom. Two human beings who are fighting over who has the true freedom will never ever win. The reason being is because they are both human beings who are willing to die for their freedom. Freedom is essential for responsibility and knowing the true “being-in-itself” and “being-for-itself” concept. “Being-in-itself” concept deals with objects and things that are made just by simply being factual, which the “being-for-itself” concept is a little different. The “being-for-itself” concept deals with transcendence which also means being what it is in the mode of not being it. There were a few examples of this transcendence idea, but one in particular stuck out for me. There was a woman who was on a date with a certain guy. She wasn’t entirely interested in him and would try to keep the subject off of them being together. The man wanted to pursue her and give her a kiss, but the woman mildly accepted it. She was exhibiting the action of being something without actually being it.

Sartre Bad Faith

This week in class we discussed Sartre's philosophy which is mainly based off of existentialism. Existentialism is the idea of freedom and responsibility. Freedom is essential for the concept of responsibility. When we make a decision you cause what Sartre calls a negatite which is a positive negative. You negate to make any other choice you could possibly make. Now when a human is alone they are completely free, but when one human meets another human each person loses their complete freedom and this plays into Master/Slave idea. After the whole struggle for recognition idea that could possible lead to bad faith. For one to have bad faith one might "lie to oneself." The idea I take from this is that one person might try to deny themselves the truth so they will not get hurt. However, I do not see the point in this bad faith. What good would it do one to try to lie to themselves. There is no possible good from this idea, and that is why I do not comprehend why some people would attempt to do this.