What are the central human capabilities?
The Central Human Functional Capabilities are: life, bodily health and integrity, bodily integrity, sense, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over ones environment. Nussbaum lists these as parts of our everyday lives. But not everyone can fulfill all of these goals. Nussbaum asserts, “We can not satisfy the need for one of them by giving a larger amount of another one”.(216). The government and people must practice these capabilities and help everyone achieve equality in society, but Nussbaum believes no one should force concepts on the way of life upon any individual, rather that an important part is the choice of actions they take in stepping towards fulfilling these 10 capabilities. “The capabilities approach, as I conceived it, claims that a life that lacks any one of these capabilities, no matter what else it has, will fall short of being a good human life”(Nussbaum 216). Nussbaum claims that the government should not try to build a systematic nature, but let people create it themselves and work with them to help all areas that are lacking certain capabilities. She wants this to be achieved by the matter of choice, because individuals all have that freedom. I think that consistency of control of the human capabilities with the events of life make her theory hard. Because she sets high standards for “ a good human life” and the work of individuals as in Rawls theory to all help for a common good to reach a total equality is what seems to be needed to aide this view.
Works Cited
Nussbaum, Martha C. "The Central Human Functional Capabilities." A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 213-221.
Friday, October 19, 2007
John Rawls- A Theory of Justice
What is Rawls’s attitude toward the least advantaged people in society?
Rawls is very clear when stating his views upon the government that should help all levels of society. Less advantaged people should have the same rights and abilities as everyone. “Thus we are to imagine those who engage in social cooperation choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits” (Rawls 199). Benefits should be spread among everyone, because you are only as strong as your weakest link and when people work together for a common purpose things will form the way they should. “Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust”. (Rawls199) Everyone must decide what is just as opposed to what is unjust but it must be done together for it to work, because every level of society will have different views to bring. Rawls also states that the problem of the choice of principles, however, is extremely difficult. (202) It is hard for people to humble themselves to help everyone for one common purpose, because it is our nature to look out for ourselves as individuals and for only our families. “ We must recognize the limited scope of justice as fairness and of the general type of view that it exemplifies”. (Rawls204).
Works Cited
Thoreau, Henry David. "Civil Disobedience." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp133-158.
Rawls is very clear when stating his views upon the government that should help all levels of society. Less advantaged people should have the same rights and abilities as everyone. “Thus we are to imagine those who engage in social cooperation choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits” (Rawls 199). Benefits should be spread among everyone, because you are only as strong as your weakest link and when people work together for a common purpose things will form the way they should. “Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust”. (Rawls199) Everyone must decide what is just as opposed to what is unjust but it must be done together for it to work, because every level of society will have different views to bring. Rawls also states that the problem of the choice of principles, however, is extremely difficult. (202) It is hard for people to humble themselves to help everyone for one common purpose, because it is our nature to look out for ourselves as individuals and for only our families. “ We must recognize the limited scope of justice as fairness and of the general type of view that it exemplifies”. (Rawls204).
Works Cited
Thoreau, Henry David. "Civil Disobedience." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp133-158.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Elizabeth Cady Stanton- Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions
What power has man had over woman, according to Stanton?
According to Stanton, woman had no authority at all. When a woman married she lost all control to the man. “He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men- both natives and foreigners” (Stanton 165). All of the woman’s rights are taken away from her, and she has no value to the men. Stanton wanted to make a stand toward change for woman. Back then it took the courage of the woman to come together and make a stand against what was wrong, but it was hard for the woman to speak up because they had no respect from any of the men and the men set the laws, so basically it made it hard because the men set the laws and punishments. “He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civility dead” (Stanton 165). A woman had no right to call a petition, or send a vote because she was just a item in a marriage of the man. Stanton also believed the man tried in every way that he could to destroy her confidence as a self being so that she would be like a robot, and follow under command and be easier to control. “ He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, at colleges being closed against her.” (Stanton 165). When you take away the power of knowledge and education you control someone completely. By denying the woman the right of education, the men controlled what the woman became, because the woman could not learn or practice their own rights.
Works cited
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 164-168.
According to Stanton, woman had no authority at all. When a woman married she lost all control to the man. “He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men- both natives and foreigners” (Stanton 165). All of the woman’s rights are taken away from her, and she has no value to the men. Stanton wanted to make a stand toward change for woman. Back then it took the courage of the woman to come together and make a stand against what was wrong, but it was hard for the woman to speak up because they had no respect from any of the men and the men set the laws, so basically it made it hard because the men set the laws and punishments. “He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civility dead” (Stanton 165). A woman had no right to call a petition, or send a vote because she was just a item in a marriage of the man. Stanton also believed the man tried in every way that he could to destroy her confidence as a self being so that she would be like a robot, and follow under command and be easier to control. “ He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, at colleges being closed against her.” (Stanton 165). When you take away the power of knowledge and education you control someone completely. By denying the woman the right of education, the men controlled what the woman became, because the woman could not learn or practice their own rights.
Works cited
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 164-168.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Martin Luther KIng Jr.- Letter from Birmingham Jail
Why was Martin Luther King disappointed in the white churches?
King was disappointed in the white churches because of the lack of support received from them. He wanted change in Birmingham and he thought that the church would be the place that would be his foundation of support. He was very surprised when he found out they wouldn’t speak up in his defense. “I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.”(King 181). It is apparent that king had hope for establishing a solid justice system. King was eager to endure any punishment for his views as long as he supported the just side of laws. As he was in jail writing his letter, he mentioned the church, “I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham….” (187) this sentence stuck out to me because king had hope for the church but he also doesn’t show any loss of hope for the out come of Birmingham. King had great faith in the church, because the church was supposed to show Christianity and justice, but they let him down. “I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.” (186).
Works Cited
King, Martin Luther Jr. "Letter from Birmingham Jail." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp171-192.
King was disappointed in the white churches because of the lack of support received from them. He wanted change in Birmingham and he thought that the church would be the place that would be his foundation of support. He was very surprised when he found out they wouldn’t speak up in his defense. “I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.”(King 181). It is apparent that king had hope for establishing a solid justice system. King was eager to endure any punishment for his views as long as he supported the just side of laws. As he was in jail writing his letter, he mentioned the church, “I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham….” (187) this sentence stuck out to me because king had hope for the church but he also doesn’t show any loss of hope for the out come of Birmingham. King had great faith in the church, because the church was supposed to show Christianity and justice, but they let him down. “I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.” (186).
Works Cited
King, Martin Luther Jr. "Letter from Birmingham Jail." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp171-192.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Henry david Thoreau- Civil Disobedience
What is the individual’s responsibility regarding supporting the government when it is wrong?
The individual has no responsibility to support the government when it is wrong. The responsibility lies within the individual to stand up for what is right, and take action against a slow moving government. If change must be done other avenues of solutions must be found. If the government is wrong no individual has to stand up for them. Current issues in the U.S display this very thing. Our government went into Iraq and most of America does not agree with that. “But to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” (Thoreau 138).
Thoreau asserts that he requests a better government and let every individual express what government suits them as that will be one stop closer to achieving the government you want. Our government will not shape itself; we have to shape it ourselves, and to do that we must include input and knowledge. “A government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it” (Thoreau 138). The majority isn’t always just, and the individual can not support the majority if the majority is not just. This happens a lot today because of voting, and even though the biggest thing isn’t just the government still passes the majority.
Works Cited
Thoreau, Henry David. "Civil Disobedience." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp133-158.
The individual has no responsibility to support the government when it is wrong. The responsibility lies within the individual to stand up for what is right, and take action against a slow moving government. If change must be done other avenues of solutions must be found. If the government is wrong no individual has to stand up for them. Current issues in the U.S display this very thing. Our government went into Iraq and most of America does not agree with that. “But to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” (Thoreau 138).
Thoreau asserts that he requests a better government and let every individual express what government suits them as that will be one stop closer to achieving the government you want. Our government will not shape itself; we have to shape it ourselves, and to do that we must include input and knowledge. “A government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it” (Thoreau 138). The majority isn’t always just, and the individual can not support the majority if the majority is not just. This happens a lot today because of voting, and even though the biggest thing isn’t just the government still passes the majority.
Works Cited
Thoreau, Henry David. "Civil Disobedience." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp133-158.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Stephen L. Carter- The Separation of Church and State
What is the Establishment Clause?
The Establishment Clause is the beginning of the first Amendment where the issue is religion. The Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Carter debates each point of the state and religion as he discusses a number of examples. Carter asserts “the principle task of the church and state is to secure religious liberty” (Carter 104). I think that Carter tends to lean heavier towards Christianity and the church. He wants the state and the church to secure religious freedom. “For most of American History, the Principal purpose of the Establishment Clause has been understood as the protection of the religious world against the secular government” (Carter 104). Just as Carter stated in the beginning paragraph of the reading, the Establishment was originated to protect religion from state, not state from religion. This Clause sets a boundary on how involved state is with religion. The state can not fund any organized religion, yet free prayer is not allowed in the beginning of classrooms, because not all people derive from the same religion. “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” (Carter 105). The Establishment Clause has put a metaphorical wall between church and state, leaving no room support in the church, because the Clause supports religious liberty. Carter writes “The embarrassing truth is that the Establishment Clause has no theory; that is the Supreme Court has not really offered any guidance on how to tell when the clause is violated.” (Carter 106). There are different cases and arguments that would determine your case.
Works Cited
Carter, Stephen L. "The Separation of Church and State." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp99-112.
The Establishment Clause is the beginning of the first Amendment where the issue is religion. The Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Carter debates each point of the state and religion as he discusses a number of examples. Carter asserts “the principle task of the church and state is to secure religious liberty” (Carter 104). I think that Carter tends to lean heavier towards Christianity and the church. He wants the state and the church to secure religious freedom. “For most of American History, the Principal purpose of the Establishment Clause has been understood as the protection of the religious world against the secular government” (Carter 104). Just as Carter stated in the beginning paragraph of the reading, the Establishment was originated to protect religion from state, not state from religion. This Clause sets a boundary on how involved state is with religion. The state can not fund any organized religion, yet free prayer is not allowed in the beginning of classrooms, because not all people derive from the same religion. “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” (Carter 105). The Establishment Clause has put a metaphorical wall between church and state, leaving no room support in the church, because the Clause supports religious liberty. Carter writes “The embarrassing truth is that the Establishment Clause has no theory; that is the Supreme Court has not really offered any guidance on how to tell when the clause is violated.” (Carter 106). There are different cases and arguments that would determine your case.
Works Cited
Carter, Stephen L. "The Separation of Church and State." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp99-112.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Hannah Arendt - Total Domination
What happens to human beings in concentration camps?
Finding the passage of Hanna Arendt to be densely written, I was able to pick out certain aspects of how human beings were treated in concentration camps. Arendt is strongly against the totalitarian form of government; her views on total domination are introduced in the first pages of the reading.
“The camps are meant not only to exterminate people and degrade human beings, but also serve the ghastly experiment of eliminating, under scientifically controlled condition, spontaneity itself as an expression of human behavior and transforming the human personality into a mere thing, into something even animals are not;” (Arendt 88).
Individuals forced into the camps were either worked till their bodies gave way, or they were thrown aside to be murdered. The camps were so atrocious, that it had its advantages against the inmates. The over bearing work and the long days with no food altered the souls of the people held under control. This cruelty would turn ones personality numb as if there is nothing left to exist for.
Arendt asserts, “Its horror can never be fully embraced by the imagination for the very reason that it stands outside of life and death. It can never be fully reported for the very reason that the survivor returns to the world of the living, which makes it impossible for him to believe fully in his own past experiences”. (94-95). These sentences stuck out to me the most, as I found Arendt stressed that there was no evil comparable to the life in a concentration camp. Any survivors, who managed to escape the “hell” could not explain their stories, but rather had a hard time believing themselves that they have returned to the outside world.
Works Cited
Arendt, Hannah. “Total Domination.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp85-97.
Finding the passage of Hanna Arendt to be densely written, I was able to pick out certain aspects of how human beings were treated in concentration camps. Arendt is strongly against the totalitarian form of government; her views on total domination are introduced in the first pages of the reading.
“The camps are meant not only to exterminate people and degrade human beings, but also serve the ghastly experiment of eliminating, under scientifically controlled condition, spontaneity itself as an expression of human behavior and transforming the human personality into a mere thing, into something even animals are not;” (Arendt 88).
Individuals forced into the camps were either worked till their bodies gave way, or they were thrown aside to be murdered. The camps were so atrocious, that it had its advantages against the inmates. The over bearing work and the long days with no food altered the souls of the people held under control. This cruelty would turn ones personality numb as if there is nothing left to exist for.
Arendt asserts, “Its horror can never be fully embraced by the imagination for the very reason that it stands outside of life and death. It can never be fully reported for the very reason that the survivor returns to the world of the living, which makes it impossible for him to believe fully in his own past experiences”. (94-95). These sentences stuck out to me the most, as I found Arendt stressed that there was no evil comparable to the life in a concentration camp. Any survivors, who managed to escape the “hell” could not explain their stories, but rather had a hard time believing themselves that they have returned to the outside world.
Works Cited
Arendt, Hannah. “Total Domination.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp85-97.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)