Consumers and Producers

How could we be merely consumers? There has to be someone or something to provide for us. If people lived in the utopian vision, there would have to be some who did not. This would cause an even bigger rift between the classes. The lower classes would be lower because they would have to do everything, while the wealthy does nothing. If everyone does work, then there is less of a rift, and the classes are more equal. We all must produce and we all must consume. We cannot healthily do just one or the other.

In Response

In response to my last post, David Johnson said: "Rather than 'The unexamined life is not worth living,' perhaps what Socrates meant to say was 'The examined life, for those lucky enough to pursue it, is especially satisfying.'" I agree that this may have been what he wanted to say, but the fact that he did make that slip suggests that he did look down upon those who had to toil. I do not know much about Socrates, but just from that statement, he does sound like he feels that because he is an intellectual that he is a higher person. I am not sure if this really was the case, but that is just the impression that I get.

And I am looking very foreward to ending our discussions on work and moving on to animal ethics!

more on why we work

one of the things we discussed yesterday was the things that various philosophers have said in the past on the topic of work. Socrates said that workers have a lower form of life because they cannot take the time to examine their life. another philosopher said that work was equivalent to pain and since we avoid pain at all costs, we should avoid work as well. yet another said that work is evil because we only do it because we have to. i do not know where they came up with this, but it is totally wrong. i mean, you can examine your life if you are a worker. not that i think that you should have to examine your life to make it fulfilling. as for the second philosopher, not all work is painful, and no work really has to be painful. finally, the third one, we do have to work, but that does not make it evil. people need to work for the world to run smoothly.

i personally like the statement that we are producers as well as consumers. this is so true. we do not merely sit back and get everything handed to us. things just don't work that way. we need to work, to produce.

This is going back a bit...

Remember when we discussed the death penalty?
Well, in my other philosophy class, we are discussing it now. Today we watched a movie on it called Judgement At Midnight.

I noticed some things during that movie. First of all, there were three men involved in two murders (only one was involved in both). The man involved with both, Antonio James, was executed, even though there was reasonable doubt that he had actually been the one to pull the trigger. There was convincing evidence from both sides. There for he should have just been kept in jail for life without parole. One of the other men went to jail for four years. The other didn't serve any time whatsoever. This led me to an interesting idea. When there are more than one person involved in a murder, and it is unknown which one was actually the murderer, all involved should be incarcerated for life. None should be executed, none should get parole, all should have to serve life.

Another thing that I noticed was that when the family goes for a visit before the execution, it is set up like a big party. To me this is just a way for the executioners to feel better bout what they are doing.
The final thing that I noticed was how we have so many stereotypes. There was a radio station in the movie that aired some one calling in and saying something to the effect of "He is taking the easy way out. i mean, there are plenty of really good trees around." One student was very disturbed by the fact that this was publicly broadcast. The general response to her being upset was "Well, it's Louisiana, what do you expect?" This seems like quite the stereotype.

Anyways, I am still for the death penalty in some cases, but I just wanted to add this to the previous conversation on the topic.

Why Work?

I'll be completely honest here, I did not understand quite a lot of the article. This could be, though, because of the bias that I am reading it with. I feel that work has to get done, and that some things will never be desiarable. Yes, they can be made more desirable, but still, many jobs would just be a means to an end. This is, in my view, the way that the world works. There really is not much that we can do about it. I realize that reading with a bias is something that I shouldn't be doing, but I am human, and therefor imperfect.

A Means to an End

During our discussion of Bertell Ollman, the subject came up of jobs being a means to an end. This is true for many people, but there is really nothing we can do about it, in my opinion. There will always be jobs that no one wants to do, but that have to get done. Also, sharing these undesirable jobs would not work. There are far too many people that shun jobs such as cleaning and taking out the trash, that when it was their turn to do the job, it would not get done, or at leas not done well. It is sad that we have to have people clean for us, but if we did not, it would not get done. There was also talk of everyone having multiple jobs and having more generalized training. That, too, would not work all that well, since there are jobs that you need specified training for, and if you were more generalized, the job would noto get done as well. Personally, I like the capitalist system, and think that we should keep it.

what defines an honors student

1. They actually want to be there. What I mean by this is that the student does not take the classes merely to get early registration or to look good on a resume- they take these classes because they genuinely find these classes to be interesting.
2. They work hard at the classes. This does not mean that they do not mess up every now and again. These students are human, not some higher being. This was the problem in my high school there was too much pressure to be perfect. Essentially what I am saying is that the students should work hard and do their best in almost all circumstances.
3. They can discuss diverse and controversial topics without fear. What I mean by this is that they are not too shy to say their opinion and have knowledge to back it. If you are higher level, you should be able to communicate well with others.

Feuerbach

One of the criticisms that Marx made of Feuerbach was that Feuerbach criticized the way that the worl was working but did absolutely nothing to change it. I do not know exactly what it was that Feuerbah said, but I think that not taking action is not necessarly a bad thing. Someone needs too come up witht the ideas for change. In theory these changes may work, but that does not mean that in practical use that they will. There needs to be someone who takes the ideas and puts them to practical use. There are some people who can do both, but there are some who cannot.

the horrors of modern science

last class we discussed nature versus nurture as well as other factors that make us who we are. i asked if there were currently scientists trying to figure out what genes cause certain traits. the answer was yes, they are. this is an absolutely horrifying thought. if, for example they find a gene that causes homosexuality, there will be people who will have abortions because of finding out that their unborn child has it. i am personally against abortions except in extreme circumstances, and this is extreme in the other direction. it is so wrong to end a life just because you think that they will have a particular trait that you find undesirable. the people who are studying this and who, if they do figure out what genes cause certain traits, choose to terminate an unborn child based solely on the fact that they have an undesirable trait are just as bad as nazis. they would be practicing eugenics and trying to purify the species. that is the point of evolution- to better the species. let nature do her job, don't do it for her. science is not exact. what if the think they have it figured out and then they were wrong? what happens if there are unforeseen consequences of either eradicating a trait, or putting more of a trait out into the world? there is no way of knowing, and people should leave certain things alone. by attempting to get rid of a trait completely, it will only cause discrimination against the people who are living today with that trait. the whole thing is just ridiculous and should be forgotten. there are things in this world that i believe we were not meant to know. i think that this is one of them.

I can't believe I'm doing this...

Ok, I can't believe I am going to go back to the discussion of Faces of the Enemy. But, I feel that I have to. I realized today that dehumanizing the enemy does not have to be for war or violence. it can be with anyone. I thought of this, because earlier today I was trapped on the elevator with my boyfriend's ex. I was very nervous about this. Anyone who knows me knows that I hate silence, especially awkward silence, so I did what I usually do, and started talking. it was a imple, rather pointless conversation, but I realized that she is not as horrible as I had convinced myself she was. This has lead me to a theory on how to stop dehumanizing large groups of people. We each need to stop the little dehumanizing that we do in our personal lives. If none of us are doing it on a small scale, how could all of us collectively do it together on a large scale.

Now, I swear that we are done with our discussion of military ethics....