Author: Korin (Page 3 of 7)

Quotation:

“South Africans found yellow South Africans—they realized what we had been at such pains to tell them, that they shared a common humanity, that race, ethnicity, skin color were really irrelevant. They discovered not a Colored, a black, an indian, a white. No, they found fellow human beings. What a profound scientific discovery that blacks, Coloreds (usually people of mixed race), and Indians were in fact human beings, who had the same concerns and anxieties and aspirations. They wanted a decent home, a good job, a safe environment for their families, good schools for their children, and almost none wanted to drive the whites into the sea. They just wanted their place in the sun.” pg 7 paragraph 2

Comment: I picked this passage because it made my heart really happy. Life has been kind of dark and gloomy since the global pandemic went into place and this passage just seemed to remind me of the light and community in the world. Especially because of the racist connections that have been made with people of Chinese descent and the coronavirus, it was nice to read something about how communities, races, differences, etc. can come together in a way and create peace. People from Chinese descent are being beaten, murdered, assaulted, etc. daily because of the racist connection with the coronavirus. It makes me have some hope for this crazy, messed up world that we live in. History repeats itself, and this made me have some hope that hopefully a connection like this will happen again soon in the world and we can all be at peace. As I was reading this text, I couldn’t help but make connections to “Between the World and Me” and “Stacey Abram’s Fight For a Fair Vote.” I didn’t make specific connections, like quote to quote, but I did make the connection from text to text. 

Question: How do we help the average citizen see that we, as human beings, share the same ideals and common desires? Specifically with those from Chinese descent, who are being put in a racist light because of COVID-19? 

Post Class Reflection:

Today’s class discussion altered my thoughts about today’s text(s) in the following ways (link to your QCQ and/or to other ideas):

Quotation:

“A problem of rational decision has a definite answer only if we know the beliefs and interests of the parties, their relations with respect to one another, the alternatives between which they are to choose, the procedure whereby they make up their minds, and so on.” pg 16

“To present the desired restrictions one imagines a situation in which everyone is deprived of this sort of information. One excludes the knowledge of those contingencies which sets men at odds and allows them to be guided by their prejudices. In this manner the veil of ignorance is arrived at in a natural way.” pg 17

Comment: I chose these two quotes because they relate back to some of the conversation that we had in last week’s class. These quotes are discussing the idea of rationality and how that can affect the process of choosing what is just and what is unjust. In the first quote, he is describing the factors that go into deciding what is considered “rational,” which was a question that was proposed last class, so this really caught my eye. The second quote comes right after he gives the example of the wealthy man vs the poor man and how they propose opposing principles because they both want/need opposite things. The second quote reminded me of what Professor Cripps had said in class where he proposed a scenario where we all didn’t know who we would be or what qualities we would assess so that this way we could create a fair society with fair principles of justice. For example, if I was super strong and this were to happen, I would not know that I am super strong. This would blind out any possible biases that people may have that would create an advantage in their own life. This way we would have created a fair society with fair principles of justice. 

Comment: The one bit that I am confused on is how the manner of the veil of ignorance would occur in a “natural way.” What makes it natural/ How does it occur in a natural way?

Post Class Reflection:

Today’s class discussion altered my thoughts about today’s text(s) in the following ways (link to your QCQ and/or to other ideas):

Today’s class discussion altered my thoughts about today’s text(s) in the following ways (link to your QCQ and/or to other ideas):

Quotation:

“Off-hand it hardly seems likely that persons who view themselves as equals, entitled to press their claims, upon one another, would agree to a principle which may require lesser life prospects for some simply for the sake of a greater sum of advantages enjoyed by others. Since each desires to protect his interests, his capacity to advance his conception of the good, no one has a reason to acquiesce in an enduring loss for himself in order to bring about a greater net balance of satisfaction.” page 13

“Thus it seems that the principle of utility is incompatible with the conceptions of social cooperation among equals for mutual advantage. It appears to be inconsistent with the idea of reciprocity implicit in the notion of a well-ordered society.” page 13

Comment: Context: He had just brought up the idea of the principle of utility and when it should be recognized, “…once the principles of justice are thought of as arising from an original agreement in a situation of equality, it is an open question whether the principle of utility would be acknowledged.” These few sentences really grabbed my attention because of the mention of the principle of utility. I remember reading about the principle of utility in Mill’s reading, so when I saw that the author had mentioned it here, I wanted to see how I could relate the two. Mill’s reading made me learn what the principle of utility is, this reading helped me grasp a deeper understanding of it in a way. When Rawl’s mentions it here, I thought of “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” because they are talking about one person enduring loss for himself so that there is greater satisfaction for everybody else. His pain leads to everybody’s happiness, just like the boy from Omelas. The second quote confused me a little bit more than the first, so I picked it because I wanted to dissect it like I did with Mill’s reading. I learned that a “notion” is a conception of or a belief about something. I previously learned that “implicit” means not plainly expressed. I believe he is saying that the principle of utility does apply to the concepts of social cooperation and it does not reciprocate the belief of a well-ordered society. I do agree that the principle of utility does not reciprocate the belief of a well-ordered society, although, I’m still a bit confused on the connections he makes with social cooperation among equals for mutual advantage. 

Question: How/why does the principle of utility not apply to social cooperation? I am confused. 

Post Class Reflection:

Today’s class discussion altered my thoughts about today’s text(s) in the following ways (link to your QCQ and/or to other ideas):

Quotation: 

“II. Ways in which a principle may be wrong. A principle may be different from that of utility in two ways: 1. By being constantly opposed to it: this is the case with a principle which may be termed the principle of asceticism. 2. By being sometimes opposed to it, and sometimes not, as it may happen: this is the case with another, which may be termed the principle of sympathy and antipathy.” page 12.

Comment: I had a really hard time with this reading… I didn’t really understand it at all. I have never read anything on this subject or anything that was written the way that it is so it was really hard for me to follow and comprehend. I chose this passage because this was one of the only things that I could partially comprehend. I looked up most of the terms in this passage so that I could get a better understanding of the concepts and ideas and look at them in my own perspective. I found that the principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right as long as they promote happiness or pleasure and they are wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Asceticism is a lifestyle of severe self-discipline in which you avoid all forms of indulgence, usually for religious or spiritual purposes. The principle of antipathy is the opposite of sympathy: It is a voluntary or involuntary dislike of something or someone. If you are opposed to a principle, it differs from utility, meaning that it does not make you happy. I’m confused as to how that relates to asceticism, because I feel as though many people practice asceticism because it brings them join, it lines up with utility. I understand how you can sometimes be opposed to sympathy or antipathy because sometimes it is an involuntary like or dislike, so you may not want to like or dislike whatever it is, but you still do, which can be frustrating. What came to mind for me for this concept is going to the zoo. Contemplating going to the zoo is so difficult for me because I would love to go and see all the animals and have fun, but the morals behind the zoo are so sad and unjust to me that I don’t think I should go, because I have sympathy for the animals but antipathy for the morals behind the zoo. This is frustrating to me because I don’t like that I don’t like the morals of it, but it is the right thing because animals in the zoo should not be kept in enclosures like they are and paying to go see it only profits the zoo and what they do. 

Question: What does asceticism have to with the first concept of “ways in which a principle may be wrong?” I’m confused about this.

Quotations:

“Happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive. In the middle category, however—that of the unnecessary but undestructive, that of comfort, luxury, exuberance, etc.— they could perfectly well have central heating, subway trains, washing machines, and all kinds of marvelous devices not yet invented here, floating light-sources, fuelless power, a cure for the common cold. Or they could have none of that; it doesn’t matter.” paragraph 3

“They go on. They leave Omelas, they walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back. The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does ot exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.” the last few sentences

Comment:

Context for quote #1: This quote is at the end of the third paragraph. The topic of this paragraph was indirectly describing the city of Omelas. I believe this is a complex city, therefore its description is complex as well. It says they are happy but not simple, they do not have a king or slaves, they are not barbarians, and they have very few rules. They consider happiness to be stupid. They can’t describe a happy man and they can’t make any celebrations of joy. 

I picked this quote because I was very confused by it and its meaning. I broke down the quote by definitions of words… I replaced “necessary” with “needed” and “destructive” with “harmful”. I believe they recognize the differences between what is needed, what is not needed and not harmful, and what is harmful. I believe the middle category is to be a category of comfort, things that people don’t need and things that wouldn’t cause harm, but things that are considered a luxury and are wanted. For example, central heating isn’t a necessity in life because we could have heat in other ways, but it is a luxury and a common longing for most people in society. I believe the author is saying that the citizens of Omelas could have all of these luxurious things or they could have none of them; because to this city, those luxuries don’t matter.

Context for quote #2: This quote is the last couple sentences of the text. The author is describing people who go to see the child that is “in a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas.” This child is pretty much locked away in this dirty room under one of the most beautiful buildings in the city, because the child could have been more defective or the child has been declared an imbecile, etc. Basically, the child is neglected in this room in the city and suffers. So the author is describing what those people see and after they go see this child, they leave the city of Omelas.

This quote was a little easier for me to interpret. I believe that the author is saying that when these people are leaving Omelas, they are committing suicide. I believe the meaning is along those lines. These people go to see the child that is suffering right beneath the beautiful city that is so happy, and these people realize the pain and suffering that is hidden in the city of Omelas and they just can’t handle the thought of it. So they decide to leave Omelas. I believe “they walk into the darkness, and they do not come back.” can be interpreted as they have killed themselves, so they will not return. “The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does not exist” Most people can’t imagine this place because most people that hear this are still living. The only people that can imagine that place have died. I believe he cannot describe it at all because he is not dead. How could he describe the feeling or place of being dead if you are alive? “But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.” The ones who walk away from the city of happiness, they walk away from happiness, they walk into darkness by killing themselves. It is a very dark interpretation, but to me, it just makes sense. 

Question: Can there ever really be a city of happiness (I don’t think so because utopias can never exist)? Is walking into darkness the only way out? Why can’t they find another city (another source of happiness) instead?