lettertotheinternet

[lettertotheinternet]

Return to Normalcy

Throughout the post-war years, there was a frantic desire to return to ‘normalcy’.  The war had destroyed much of Europe, but most especially Germany and left people with a sense of bleak helplessness. For years it was a scramble to survive, and the post war tensions were high as people fought over things as essential as who got enough to eat. During these years people sought to find a definition of ‘normalcy’ that they could get back to and that they could model their lives after. Thus, questions revolving around every single issue arose, from how men and women should relate to each other, to what should be bought and how, and how labor ought to be reformed. Questions regarding the roles of the sexes and how sexually deviant persons such as homosexuals ought to be regarded were raised during these post war years as the shell shocked countries raised themselves out of the rubble.

In Robert Moeller’s work ‘Reconstructing the Family in Reconstruction Germany: Women and Social Policy in the Federal Republic’, we see how West Germany attempted to cope with the ‘necessary liberation’ of women after the men had come home from the war. His work focused around the idea of family subsidies and the iterations they go through as the years go by. He begins his piece by talking about the new German constitution the ‘Grundgesetz’ that loftily promised, “Men and women have the same rights”. And yet when it came time to make good on this promise, the legislators faltered. Specifically, they balked at creating a program that would support the family. According to Moeller: “The Grundgesetz had placed the family under the state’s particular protection, but it had not specified which family was to be protected nor what form the protection should take.” (Moeller, 114). There had been precedents from the Nazi law, ones in which women could reduce debts by as much as one fourth per birth. But such a system was unsatisfactory to a government attempting to make a clean break with their past.

The system that was created was termed Kindergeld, which translates to ‘money for children’. The way that the system worked was that it was a subsidy of money intended to help families with a single wage earner, who would not bring in enough to support a family. This ideal family was composed of a mother and a father and four children, with this being the requirement to receive the subsidy. The difficulty came with the fact that the German society had far more adult women than men, and these single women often had children. These were termed ‘incomplete families’ and not regarded as anything that could be helped. And so many women were left without assistance in this iteration. The idea that women could be paid directly so that they would not work outside of the home was never considered.

This idea of the normal family supposed that these ‘incomplete families’ were merely a transient problem to be solved once the nation got its feet under it. These women and children would simply disappear with the growing economy. But as Moeller notes, ignoring these women and children did not make them stop being needy. In fact, it encouraged mothers to work outside the home as they had no subsidy and no husband. In the conclusion of this work, Moeller states “The particular form of the ‘political reconstruction of the family’ in post-1945 West Germany guaranteed that Wirtschaftswinder would not be so miraculous for women.” (Moeller, 133).

In Erica Carter’s piece ‘Alice in the Consumer Wonderland: West German Case Studies and Consumer Culture’ she examines the lives of teenage girls and attempts to find therein the culture that they make all for themselves after the war. She notes that there is a great deal of literature on the other, masculine versions of counter culture, but very little is available for analysis from a feminine perspective. She writes that: “Girls, it seems, are written into youth cultural theory in the language of consumption; initially—though not, as we shall see, of necessity—as objects of consumption for men…. Under the regime of Althuserian structuralism in British cultural theory, this led to the perception of girls at best as an absence…” (Carter, 348). However, Carter notes that there is an analogous structure to the male subcultures and counter cultures, known as ‘bedroom culture’ in which women did much the same things as men. They took dominant signs and symbols and reassembled them and readdressed and reproduced them much in the way men did. For a while after this, Carter goes on to elaborate the treatment of women in post-war West Germany.

Carter remarks that citizenship, though never outwardly marked as such, was inherently ‘masculine’. Domestic labor remained exclusively in the care of the women, as it was their right and their duty. And so in this way women remained ‘equal’ yet somehow still doing much the same thing. So when the gender-neutral ability to become a consumer appeared, both older, more mature women and teenager to advantage of this newfound mentality. Consumerism provided these women a way to express themselves. These women coped with their fear and anxiety by embracing a new consumer culture that sought to cater to them.

In Herzog’s piece ‘Desperately Seeking Normality’, we see a further elaboration upon the post-War relationships between men and women. It looks a bleak picture as we see that the very first sentence of the piece reads “In the first seven or eight years after the end of World War II, the western German press and publishing landscape was filled with essays and books addressing what was variously called the ‘marital crisis’ and the ‘sexual crisis’ or ‘the sexual misery of our time’.”(Herzog, page 161). This piece details the horrific uncertainty with which German couples approached marriage. The problems here are not new, there is a vast surplus of women and far too few men. Too used to being independent, these women could not find themselves giving up to rest solely upon a man to provide. The men had to deal with the shame surrounding the fact that that they could not protect their women during the war, who had suffered most acutely during the Soviet occupation. Concerns with heterosexual relations were at an all time high.

However, these were not the only reasons. Herzog explains that significant anxiety over gender relations also stemmed from how gender relations were seen in Nazi Germany. While it is certainly argued that the Nazi regime was oppressive sexually in some regards, in that during the later periods male homosexuals were tortured and killed for not contributing to the expansion of the Aryan race, in other ways, it was sexuality unbounded. Women were encouraged to have children even out of wedlock, a massive taboo for the time. Indeed, it was less that these men and women were not encouraged to have sex, it as that the German sexual and social mores had been uprooted, even to the point that women called to have the chastity norms put back in place. It was at this time that heterosexual relations were most idolized and most seen as under threat. And so the church and the government fought back against this by insisting that marital sex was more pleasurable and more desirable than the secular vice of lust or the thrill of pre-marital sex. By championing married sex and placing heavy emphasis upon the pleasure of married couples, both the Catholic Church and the Social Democrats are seen as trying to regain some form of normalcy.

Further elaborating on the gender relations and the striving for normalcy between the genders, we look to Hannah Schissler’s piece ‘ “Normalization” as Project”. She explains “To achieve its goals, some aspects of reality had to be ignored and split from the collective consciousness.” (Schissler, 370). She begins her piece talking about the oddities surrounding the post-war era. People would come undone and do strange things. A woman would lie about the origin of her children. A man would rage and rage before finally (and in the eyes of his neighbors, thankfully) he killed himself. These post-war years are described as strange and with people desperately trying to cling to normal life.

Schissler goes on in her piece to explain that the attempt to return to normalcy took the form of attempting to simultaneously make women equal to men while greatly incentivizing them to remain at home and produce children. Pro-natalist sentiment was an all time high during this period, with every policy put in place to support women really forcing them back into these contrived gender roles. We see a similar theme explored in our other readings, so this piece only serves to drive home the idea of the tension between the genders in West German Reconstruction.

In ‘The Homosexual Man is a Man and The Homosexual Woman is a Woman’, we get another view of gender and sexual relations. Specifically, we get to see the treatment of gay men and lesbian women and how the two were treated both during reconstruction and during the Nazi era. To provide context, we will first begin by how the homosexuals were treated by the Nazis in order to compare it to the treatment that was normal for the post-war period.

Originally, the stance against homosexuality was one of the less salient policies for the Nazi’s. While gay men were often slandered as being “agents of the death of the Volk” it was also not much of a secret that there were homosexuals within the National Socialist leadership. In fact, Moeller relates that “…particularly within the SA, homosexuality was not only tolerated; in the case of Ernst Röhm, the organization’s leader and a long time confederate of Hitler, it was loudly celebrated as part of a full-scale rejection of bourgeois society.” (Moeller, 260) However, such a policy of tolerance did not last, and there was later the purging of the SA during the Night of Long Knives. After this brutal event, the Nazis more fiercely punished and enforced the law that persecuted male homosexuals. This law in particular was known as Paragraph 175 and it oddly pertained specifically to homosexual males. Lesbian women were not seen as a threat, for while they might love women, it was concluded that they were still very capable of reproducing. Homosexual men, however, were far more likely to become psychologically impotent thanks to their desires. Such rhetoric is echoed later in the piece when the government after reconstruction decided to keep Paragraph 175 unchanged.

After the war, two men challenged Paragraph 175. Günter R. and Oskar K. were two gay men who had been charged under the National Socialist law and claimed that it represented a “striking violation of democratic principles” (Moeller, 252). These men argued that Paragraph 175 not only violated the rights of privacy guaranteed within the Grundgesetz, but was also an unconstitutional double standard as lesbians were not only ignored, but entirely exempt from the prosecution of the law.

The court took this matter seriously and consulted several professional as to why it was right to prosecute homosexuals and as to why it was right to exclude lesbians from the law. The German court or Bundestag featured Helmut Schlesky’s sociological work when coming to a decision on why it was okay to prosecute homosexual men. Moeller sums up Schlesky’s views as “…sexuality was no timeless essence, but rather a phenomenon structured by culture and society.” (Moeller, 264). He believed that homosexuality was a sign of a society in disequilibrium, something commonly seen when a nation underwent a traumatic event such as a war or a plague. Sexual perversion naturally followed in the wake of these crises. Such perversion also occurred when boys and adult men were cut off from their female peers and thus did not make appropriate connections.

Hans Giese was another person they turned to for testimony regarding gay men. His theory in essence was that male homosexuality was a result of an excessive of sexual drive. This excessive drive made men far more prone to homosexuality than women, as Giese argued that women’s sexuality was tamer and more profoundly influenced by the instinctual feelings of motherhood than men’s. This supposed greater promiscuity and gay men produced the argument that gay men would solicit more prostitutes, which would endanger society, and that their excessive and perverse drives would also lead them into soliciting minors for sexual relations. According to the research, lesbians were far less likely to have open relationships and were also less likely to solicit children or prostitutes for sexually immoral acts.

This reasoning was what the court used to justify it’s decision in keeping Paragraph 175 unchanged from it’s Nazi revision during the Second World War. Oskar K. and Günter R. lost their case and the laws remained the same during the post War years. Men were prosecuted in high numbers for homosexuality. Such prosecutions were done in the name of preserving the youth and preserving the ideal and apparently normal heterosexual relations that the nation wished to get back to after a period of chaos during the National Socialist regime.

In Fehrenbacher’s essay ‘Fight for the Christian West’, we also see an attempt to recapture and redefine normalcy through the art of cinema. German cinema had, in its heyday, been the only true rival to America’s Hollywood. Now, after the war, Germans attempted to recapture their dominance in cinema. However, now these films were more carefully regulated. More specifically, they were seen as an attempt to reshape the morality of German citizens and to re-establish the dominance of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church took great care in promoting certain films and shaping the cinema that was to come out of Germany. The members of the church wanted films that were deemed moral and righteous and ones that had religious elements, but not ones that were seen as trivializing religion or simply using religion as a prop. Indeed, Catholic film commissioner Anton Koch complained that “clouds of incense smoke and burning candles, friendly monks and almond eyed acolytes” did not make a film religious.

However, there was another, fiercer fight to be had on the film front besides that of merely representing religion in a trivial way. This struggle came about because of a film entitled ‘Die Sünderin’, created by Director Willi Forst. The film depicted a woman named Marina who descended into prostitution as a result of the falling apart of her bourgeois family. She redeems herself through her love of a reformed alcoholic and then later performs a mercy killing upon her beloved and then commits suicide herself. Naturally the clergymen were shocked to see such a film. While they could come to no agreement about the films’ release, they did agree that such a film possessed objectionable scenes (the prostitution and the suicide scenes). They requested an edit, to which Forst flatly refused and released anyway.

Protest sprung up around the film and marches were organized around the banning of the film. Naturally, this did little to curtail the public’s interest in viewing the film. In fact, the more that the Catholic Church sought to ban it, the more that the public lusted after the film. In answer, the Catholic Church created it’s own film league to promote the films that it preferred. It doled out funding and promoted these works as an alternative to ‘Die Sünderin’. These works were largely focused around an idyllic conservative country-side in which women retreated to the country side and fell in love with strapping nature loving boys and traditional dance. This genre of film was called ‘Heimatfilm’ and represented a desire to go back to a simpler time. In this way, Catholic film critics attempted to recapture normalcy through their films depicting a simpler life.

We turn now to a shift in focus from West Germany to France. In Ellen Furlough’s work ‘Making Mass Vacations: Tourism and Consumer Culture in France’, she shows the French way of attempting to return to normalcy and bettering themselves. This piece catalogues the growth of vacation and worker’s rights within France. She begins her piece by reproducing the opinion of André Siegfried, who thought that modern tourism would cheapen the aristocratic ability of travel and that the future belonged to “People of refine tasted, knowing how to distinguish…between filth and beauty.” In a way, Siegfried’s fears would become true. Vacations would become more democratic and they would become far more easily accessible to the general public. But through the course of the essay, we see that this is not so.

The vacation and rights of the workers undergoes several iterations. The Left promoted vacations as a form of leisure and a way of insuring group solidarity. Furlough says that on page 253 “Paid vacations were a direct result of the politics of labor”. She goes on to detail the workers desires for paid time off and mentions later in her piece how workers would ask for more paid time off than for shorter hours during the working week. Where her piece really comes into focus though is in detailing the iterations of the popular vacation agencies that took place during the time. One of the more prominent of these agencies was a Communist agency that lost its funding due to being overly political. This would be the Tourism and Labor, a group that could once claim to be the largest organization of social tourism in France. But by the mid 1950’s, Tourism and Labor would be connected to the CGT and the Communist Party. The unions gained influence and power, but this connection caused the French government to quietly break with this group in 1952. In spite of this, the group became even more politicized until it was drawn into the commercial tourism world.

The other establishment that bears discussion is the Club Méditerranée. This was a sort of boys club in the beginning that organized low cost vacations using such things as US army tents and cots and provided an air of health and conviviality. For its time, it was also fairly non-conformist. The accommodations were originally quite sparse, and comfort was not at issue. However, as the club grew in popularity and in membership, things began to change. Its business strategies and operations mirrored the more aggressive and more successful businesses at the time. With more money coming in, the Club afforded some more luxuries and began to adopt its island aesthetic. Furlough explains that the sarong became the uniform for both men and women of the club. Furlough goes on to detail how this island themed retreat soon became the antithesis of what it had once been. Rather than a low cost retreat with small comforts, it expanded, requiring native workers to come in and work to keep up the fantasy. The natives of these countries comprised the majority of the workers at these locations but were one of the smallest minorities when it came to the guests staying there.

After detailing these iterations of vacation organizations, Furlough explains that these iterations of vacation, the workers pushing for more vacation time and the organized attempt to ensure that every French worker had a chance to recover via vacation did prove, in a sense, the fear of André Siegfried. However, she dismisses that it all came true in the way that he predicted. In her conclusion she says: “Vacations did become more democratic and more organized. They also became increasingly understood as a consumer product.” This would seem to be an admission of defeat. But she goes on to refute this in her next sentence: “They did not however, become serialized and banal, nor should they be seen as evidence of mass cultural manipulation and consumer passivity. People’s desires and aspirations found expression within modern vacations.” (Furlough, 286). Through this particular method of consumerism, people rebuilt and refreshed themselves, and in some sense, recovered a sense of normalcy.

Continuing on the theme of consumerism, we now examine ‘Continuities and Discontinuities of Consumer Mentality in West Germany in the 1950s’. This essay was written by Michael Wildt as an attempt to explain the developing attitudes towards the imported American consumer culture. German consumers began to rebuild themselves after the war. After years of scarcity and hunger, consumer goods became available to the average German household. With availability now at a high, Germans pounced on the popular goods such as refrigerators, vacuums, television set and washing machines. They sought to distinguish themselves as modern consumers. However, traditional German values of thriftiness remained. When purchasing these items, most Germans reported that in order to purchase them that they had made extra savings. Others resorted to using their existing savings or had financed them out of their own wages. Only a small portion of Germans resorted to paying for purchases in the modern way, which was an installment plan. Indeed, most Germans looked down on those who purchased consumer goods through an installment plan. One such woman who did purchase a refrigerator through an installment plan reported that she felt an awful sense of anxiety doing so. The constant worry of not being able to make the next payment sufficiently deterred her from ever making a purchase in that manner ever again. While Germans attempted to reclaim their normalcy through consumer culture, they also had hold overs and fears from earlier that prompted them to carefully consider that they did not ‘live outside of their means’.

Rounding this out, we will examine Sywottek’s ‘From Starvation to Excess’ to examine further trends in consumer culture in the post-war years. Sywottek’s article seems at first to be a refutation of idea of returning to normalcy. He explains that during the post-war years after the years of hardship that new patterns of consumption arose. Class seemed to be dissolved as “Even families whose background would put them in the upper ranks of society often had to start from scratch.” (Sywottek, 346) People from the middle class and even the lower class who had survived intact could now start purchasing goods that before they were unable to. A sort of major event took place, Sywottek notes, as for the first time, “Many of the technological innovations had first appeared decades earlier, but now became widely disseminated through society for the first time, as was the case with the automobile and the telephone.” (Sywottek, 347). In essence, the upheaval of the war created new patterns of consumption which led to less stark division between the upper, middle and lower classes.

Most often a ‘return to normalcy’ refers to returning to a stable era of the past. Such an article would normally then be seen as a refutation of my theory that the post-war years were largely about this return to normalcy. However, I would argue that this is not the case. A return to normalcy in my conception refers to a return to stable state. I would agree that this change in the consumption patterns is still an attempt to return to normalcy, just not returning to the pass. The German population craved stability and sought to stabilize it’s ideals by both returning to old social norms, and in this case, creating a new one. This new norm notably includes elements of the old norms, such as valuing thriftiness, which we saw in an above reading. So while this is not a return to the past era, it is still a return to normalcy.

The post-war years were years of rebuilding after massive strife. Gender relations and the state of Germany were irrevocably changed, despite how much people desired to return to normalcy. The pressure was felt on every aspect of life, from relations between heterosexual couples, to the continued prosecution of gay men and the new (and old) attitudes regarding consumerism. All of Europe sought to re-ground themselves and return to stability after the war, and went through several internal social conflicts in order that they could return to a stable state again.

Works Cited

Robert G. Moeller, “Reconstructing the Family in Reconstruction Germany: Women and Social Policy in the Federal Republic, 1949-1955,” in West Germany under Reconstruction, ed. by Moeller

Hanna Schissler, “’Normalization’ as Project: Some Thoughts on Gender Relations in West Germany during the 1950s,” in:  The Miracle Years: A Cultural History of West Germany, 1949-1968, ed. by Hanna Schissler, pp. 359-375.

Robert G. Moeller, “The Homosexual Man Is a 'Man,' the Homosexual Woman Is a 'Woman': Sex, Society, and the Law in Postwar West Germany,” in: West Germany under Reconstruction, ed. by Moeller, pp. 251-284

Dagmar Herzog, “Desperately Seeking Normality: Sex and Marriage in the Wake of the War,” in Life after Death, ed. by Richard Bessel and Dirk Schumann, pp. 161-192.

Heidi Fehrenbach, “The Fight for the “Christian West”:  German Film Control, the Churches, and the Reconstruction of Civil Society in the Early Bonn Republic,” in Moeller, West Germany under Reconstruction, pp. 321-333

Arnold Sywottek, “From Starvation to Excess?  Trends in the Consumer Society from the 1940s to the 1970s,” in:  The Miracle Years: A Cultural History of West Germany, 1949-1968, ed. by Hanna Schissler, pp. 341-358.

Michael Wildt, “Continuities and Discontinuities of Consumer Mentality in West Germany in the 1950s,” in:  Life after Death, ed. by Richard Bessel and Dirk Schumann, pp. 211-229.

Erica Carter, “Alice in the Consumer Wonderland: West German Case Studies in Gender and Consumer Culture,” in: West Germany under Reconstruction, ed. by Moeller, pp. 347-371

Ellen Furlough,  “Making Mass Vacation:  Tourism and Consumerism in France,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 40 (1998):  247-286

#politics #history

[lettertotheinternet]

Law and Morality

In the history of legal philosophy, Baron Devlin and Ronald Dworkin are two of the most influential legal philosophers, both of whom have helped to shape legal schools of the thought with their writings. While on the surface they have a point of agreement, by looking at their essays in more depth we can see that there exist both significant points of agreement and significant points of tension between these two men. In order that both arguments may be assessed and compared accurately, in this essay I will reconstitute the arguments of both men and then provide a detailed analysis as to how they are similar and differ from each other with respect to both content and structure of the arguments. I will then conclude with the effect that these theories would have on law making and the larger societal effects that could occur.

Baron Devlin was an influential British judge, jurist and lawyer. However, his most prominent work and the work that we will be focusing on in this essay is his essay in response to the Wolfenden Report entitled ‘Morality and the Law’. The Wolfenden Report was a report on the subject of prostitution and of homosexuality. The passages cited by Devlin indicate that the authors of the Wolfenden Report, while not condoning homosexuality or prostitution, they said that it ought not to be prosecuted. The authors advocated a position that in effect said that the law ought not to intervene in matters of private immorality. This is essentially the reaction of many modern day Christians, who claim that they do not care what happens between the closed doors of two consenting adults.  

Initially it would appear that Devlin supports this ruling, but upon reading, his whole essay works to bring down this assumption. The main points of his essay occurs on page 31, wherein he poses three questions which I will reconstitute here. They are: “ 1. Has society the right to pass judgment at all on morals? Ought there, in other words, to be a public morality, or are morals always a matter for private judgment? 2. If society always has the right to pass judgment, has it also the right to use the weapon of the law to enforce it? 3. If so, ought it to use that weapon in al cases or only in some; and if only in some, on what principles should it distinguish?” These three questions center the paper and we will examine his repsonses to each of these questions.

Devlin’s argument for as to whether or not society has a right to judge morality is simple. He argues that there is a right to judge, and cites the fact that societies are far more likely to crumble from internal division rather than external pressure. He believes that the Christian sense of morality is so thoroughly entangled within the British idea and interpretation of the law that to strip this out is to render it ineffective. His examples of this are the legislation involving incest and in carnal knowledge of a woman before she is legally able to consent. These are private morality as well, and yet it is still believe that the law rightly prosecutes these. He does make a small exception, saying that the level of tolerance may change from generation to generation, but says that if a large number of society finds an act or lifestyle abhorrent, then it has every reason and every right to annihilate the practice in question.

The most persuasive part of Devlin’s argument, however, comes when he proposes his self-termed reasonable man test on page . Devlin argues that society only functions when there are broadly shared morals and political views as he states on page 32 of his paper, when he says “Every society has a moral structure as well as a political one…”.  He further argues that “Society cannot tolerate rebellion;” on page 33 of this essay. So, the law ought to reflect these moral and political views somehow. What Devlin proposes is that men ought to create law based around this sort of test. Devlin further explains that the reasonable man is not one that necessarily provides a reason for his argument. In fact, in Devlin’s own essay he states the man used for the reasonable man test is not to be confused with the rational man. He may have arguments based entirely upon feelings and have no other merits in his feelings except that his feelings are shared by a large majority of his fellow men. However, by accepting this test, Devlin argues that the spheres of both private and public morality will be protected as the laws will accurately reflect the morals and political views of the society, and as he so eloquently argues in the beginning of his paper, societies are far more likely to dissolve from internal issues than from external pressures.

Ronald Dworkin was a legal philosopher and successor to other esteemed legal philosopher JLA Hart. He came from Harvard Law School and has written extensively on matters including law and law positivism. By examining several of Dworkin’s papers, we can accurately determine not only what weaknesses he thought were existant in Devlin’s proposed theory, but what his proposed theory is in response.

Dworkin writes in ‘Liberty and Moralism’ to expose the weaknesses that he sees with Devlin’s argument. He first cites that Devlin’s argument brings in an unusual standard for designating whether or not should become a crime. This standard was that of public feeling and a threshold of disgust. Dworkin aggressively criticizes this method and devises one of his own, in some ways similar to Devlin, but with distinct differences. He begins his essay by briefly reconstructing Devlin’s arguments as he understood them. The Harvard professor writes that Devlin’s first argument follows as such: Societies are held together through shared political and moral beliefs. If an action or lifestyle conflicts with these shared beliefs, then this action or lifestyle ought to be prosecuted by the law. With respect to England, it ought to adhere to the commonly held Christian and Catholic system of morality that permeates the culture.

He then goes on to reconstruct the second argument, which I will do in brief in the proceeding paragraph. Here, Dworkin claims that Devlin’s second argument runs thus: If gay people were allowed to be gay freely, it is plausible that society would change. Such changes might include that the institutions of marriage and family would be threatened. If these institutions were indeed threatened or damaged in some way, it is then in the hands of the law to determine whether or not these institutions are worth protecting and at what cost. Dworkin then briefly explains the reasonable man test, something that does not need further explanation as it was mentioned earlier in this essay. He then goes on to show the weakness of the reasonable man test by proposing a situation in which he hypothetically tells another person that they shouldn’t vote for a certain man because the man is a homosexual. Then, the hypothetical dialog continues, with an anonymous by stander questioning what reasons that someone would have for taking a position against homosexuality.

Dworkin proposes several hypothetical justifications for supposing to go against homosexuality, including: disgust, the act of homosexuality being morally wrong, the act of homosexuality being physically disabling, the situation that ‘everyone knows’ homosexuality to be wrong. He then goes through and shows how each of these cases would be found to be unreasonable or unacceptable in someway. For example, he showed the case of everyone knowing to be unreasonable by explaining that such a justification could be found as simply parroting what other people said and therefore was not indicative of true reasoning.

In Dworkin’s work, ‘Taking Rights Seriously’ we discover his response to Devlin’s work. He begins this essay by examining our current conception of liberty and whether or not we have a right to it. By analyzing his examples, he concludes that in certain spheres we have a protected right to liberty, such as the sphere of speech and expression, and in other spheres, our liberty may be abridged with respect to such spheres as traffic laws (pg 271). The reasoning that we may have protected rights in some areas and not others is that in the case of traffic, the traffic laws protect good order in all cases and is beneficial without harming anyone. However, speech may never be abridged even though it may in some cases be beneficial, because this would threaten good order.

The most salient part of Dworkin’s argument comes from ‘Taking Rights Seriously’, wherein he proposes his test for making law, which has been termed by the community in striking similarity to Devlin’s, the rational man test. The test is a modified version of Devlin’s, as it also claims to take an average reasonable man from the street to examine his beliefs, with the intent that this average man’s belief is representative of the majority of his fellow men. However, Dworkin adds a further standard to this test. His rational man must also be able to provide reasons for his beliefs. If these beliefs do not have a reason behind them, then Dworkin dismisses them as being prejudiced or otherwise unfit to be considered for legal purposes.

In examining these two arguments, they do bear striking similarities within the structure of the arguments the two men provided. Both begin by examining the presence of morality within today’s society, with Devlin presenting his analysis early on in his paper on page 28 of Morality and the Law, and with Dworkin presenting his analysis on page 272 of his work ‘Taking Rights Seriously’. Dworkin also argues on a basis of political morality, something that Devlin also had in a sense in his paper. Both men also make reference to law that has no morality when explaining their arguments. Devlin’s law without morality is law redefined so that it reflects civil order and explains that murder could still be punishable as it affects good order. Dworkin’s law without morality is also civic law, though the example that he uses is one of traffic laws.

The most obvious similarity occurs however, in the type of tests that these men offer. The reasonable man and the rational man are nearly identical in form and fashion. Both look to appeal to the majority of opinion within a nation by taking an average man from the nation and examining his political beliefs. By examining this average man, the test that these men propose gives a sense of the nation’s preferences and sense of morality.

The difference between the men appears to be subtle, but is in fact very striking upon close review. Devlin maintains the belief that the majority’s morality ought to be central in creating laws. Dworkin, while introducing a similar test, seeks to ensure that the majority will not tyrannize the minority. Dworkin’s test introduces a new element, the rationality principle that so radically differentiates the two men. Dworkin fears that laws will no longer be based on reason and instead mere disgust, which would allow unconstitutional laws to be passed.

The bones of the underlying arguments are also different in a great degree. Devlin argues out of sense that society is threatened by so called ‘unnatural’ acts and that if these acts are not legislated, while these particular acts and lifestyles will not be the thing that brings a society to it’s knees, it will serve to contribute to it. Dworkin argues out of fear that religious intolerance and in fact intolerance in general will target minorities and create monstrous legislation that abridges the rights and liberties of these minority groups. Thus, he designs his test to take this into account. Dworkin’s arguments also read as largely more rights based than morality based. In his essay, ‘What Rights Do We Have’, he speaks at length at liberty and where to draw the line rather than making an appeal to morality, though it is something that he discusses. Dworkin argues eloquently for a liberal sense of equal treatment, which changes the justifications for his test. While  

So, what exactly is at stake with these two arguments? Why does it matter if there is a reasonable or rational test to determine the legitimacy of the law? It matters because we must determine how much the feelings of the majority will influence our legislation. If we decide that the feelings of the majority override the rights of the minority communities existent within a nation, then so many of today’s modern rulings and freedoms would simply never occur. Most recent examples of this would include the 2015 SCOTUS ruling in which gay marriage bans were repealed. Had Devlin’s interpretation been chosen as one that we followed as our legal philosophy, it is likely that such a decision would not have been passed. Nor would other controversial legislation, such as Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board of Education. So long as 51% of the population had a preference for keeping things as they were, change would not be enacted. Worse, discrimination would be encouraged and America could potentially be held hostage by bigotry.

I would argue that of the two arguments, Dworkin’s argument is better thought out. It protects the minorities against the will of the masses, and promotes individual liberties. While Devlin’s argument is founded on a noble ideal of holding society together, he wrongly assumes that such things as homosexuality would threaten society. Many people do find homosexuality abhorrent, but many people also found other races abhorrent, and we have since found it fit to change this moral stance. By adhering to Dworkin’s standards, several points of bigotry can be dealt with at once. A current example of this would be the HB2 law currently in place in North Carolina, more famously known as the Trans Law or the Bathroom Law.

A brief summary of the legislation is that citizens of North Carolina must go use the restroom that corresponds with the gender they were designated at birth. While on the surface this law is supposed to prevent sexually predatory men from entering the women’s bathroom, but is in fact enforced in such a way that it directly discriminates against people who identify as transgender. While many people in North Carolina find that they disagree with people who identify as transgender, it is not right that they should be discriminated against. This is particularly convincing considering that crime statistics report that people who are trans are far more likely to be victims of violence rather than perpetrators (Office for Victims of Crime.com). Perhaps through Dworkin’s rational man test, it wouldn’t have passed. Thus, we could ensure that all citizens, regardless of gender identity, were treated fairly and equally as Dworkin hoped. With Devlin’s system in place, it is doubtful that such a thing would occur, as the reasonable man of Devlin’s test could argue simply by virtue of disgust that trans people ought not to go to the bathroom that they identify with.

In conclusion, Devlin’s system is largely based on the moral feelings of the majority and determines whether or not the judicial system should intervene based upon these moral feelings. Devlin argues that these shared moral feelings are what hold a society together, and while no one act or lifestyle can cause a society to dissolve, it can contribute to the eventual downfall. Dworkin argues from a position of protecting individual liberties and ensuring equality of treatment. While their tests appear to be essentially the same, the bones of their arguments and the speculated outcomes of these two proposed systems differ greatly.

Works Cited

Devlin, P. (1965). Morals and the criminal law. London: Oxford University Press.

Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking rights seriously:. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). (n.d.). Sexual Assault: The Numbers | Responding to Transgender Victims of Sexual Assault. Retrieved March 14, 2017, from https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html

#writing #amwriting #law #morality #portfolio

[lettertotheinternet]

Liberty and License and Positive and Negative Liberty

In Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, much is said about how government ought to be and it’s origins. He also speaks at great length about ‘The State of Nature’, and how it is a state of perfect liberty. But in this piece as well, Locke begins something of a trend in classical thought. He differentiates between ‘liberty’ and ‘license’. These terms laid the foundation in classical liberal thought for the Berlin conceptions of negative and positive liberty. And positive and negative liberty, as well as liberty and license have also produced many other works not only on their definitions, but have influenced the way that modern scholars speak about things as significant as human rights and the extent of the powers of the government.

In Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, he largely speaks of the role of government and its powers, as well as its origins. But on page (insert page number here) he defines his two concepts of ‘liberty’ and ‘license’. Locke delineated ‘liberty’ as being ‘the ability to dispose of as he wishes his person and himself’, or in other words, the ability to do whatever one wishes with one’s own property or body. ‘License’ however, was considerably more extreme, and was loosely defined as ‘the Liberty to destroy himself or any other creature under his possession’. Locke calls on a law of nature in his writing to justify the difference between liberty and license, stating that the Law of Nature allowed men to seek recompense when this law was violated. To briefly summarize the difference between liberty and license, it is best to think of liberty as something like our modern American rights. We have the right to do whatever we like within our own dwelling, but this comes with a catch. We are not allowed to harm, physically or otherwise, others or ourselves, or else we should forfeit these rights. Liberty is the freedom to do what we please, excluding harm. License is liberty but totally unrestrained and without consideration for harm.

It could of course, be argued that what Locke has said about these terms is hardly a distinction at all. The fact of the matter is that license possesses all of the qualities that liberty does, but without the restraint of harm. To some, this constitutes a poor excuse and leads them to discredit his distinction. I would argue two points then to those who would argue this point. The first being that the presence of harm is not taken seriously enough, and ought to be given more thought. Harm in Locke’s mind is serious enough to bring a man out of the State of Nature into the State of War, a place from which you cannot go back. Threatening a man in The State of Nature also not only allows, but encourages a man to seek recompense, even to the point of seeking the man’s life. To suppose that harm is too small a distinction is ridiculous to Locke. Not to mention that harm is a boundary that many current laws, such as laws dealing with domestic violence and alcoholism depend on. Harm in these situations defines whether or not a person ought to be arrested. Secondly, while Locke’s definition by itself may be weak, by looking at Isaiah Berlin’s work, we can better interpret Locke’s concepts. By himself, Locke may not have much to stand on, but with Berlin’s work, a more distinct division between these two terms can be seen.

To better understand the division between these two terms, we now turn to our second scholar, Isaiah Berlin. Isaiah Berlin’s work ‘Two Conceptions of Liberty’ where he talked at length about ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ liberty.  Both concepts relate to Locke’s initial ‘liberty’ and ‘license’, but we’ll first begin by relating Locke’s liberty to Berlin’s negative liberty. Negative Liberty is defined by Berlin as: ‘…the area within the subject or group of persons-is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be without interference by other persons…’ (pg 122). This negative liberty can be summed up as the ‘freedom to’ sort of freedom. And in this way, very obviously connects to Locke’s definition of liberty, and even more concretely connects to the American conception of rights as seen through the famous Bill of Rights document. Most of the liberties listed within the Bill of Rights are ‘freedom to’ sorts of rights. The few notable exceptions within it are the third and fourth amendment. The other eight are ensuring non-interference with the American people.

A second conception of liberty remains, that of positive liberty. In his work, Berlin defines it as: “… the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that…”(pg 122). In this, positive liberty is deciding who has the power to decide when people are allowed to do something. This directly relates to license, rather as it’s antithesis, for license is having liberty unrestrained. Positive liberty however, is having liberty to choose who restrains us and for what purposes they do this. This fundamentally differs from negative liberty in that negative liberty merely wishes to be left to be free to do as it wishes and positive liberty wishes to have a sort of ‘freedom from’. ‘Freedom from’ in this case meaning the freedom from being infringed upon by other people. An example of this being the freedom from being physically assaulted by another person. A freedom from the ‘license’ of other people. Locke’s definition of liberty also relates nicely to this because his definition has a boundary to liberty. As I stated earlier, Locke’s view of liberty is conditional on the fact that it extends only to the point of harming yourself or others. Positive liberty similarly limits people by choosing a person to prevent such things from occurring. It is this sort of conception of liberty that promotes the institution of law enforcement, courts of law, and legislative bodies in general and guides them in how to act.

While liberty and license’s differences are now defined, one must wonder if anything came of this distinction. Berlin was clearly affected by it, but were there others who pursued this matter? In fact several scholars are still debating and talking over these terms. “Ethics” of D.M. White shows a great interest in the limits and conditions of negative liberty. Specifically in White’s piece, his interested in demonstrating situations in which a person is negatively un-free to do or be something. Another, Adrian Blau writes to discredit the works of Maria Dmova-Cookson’s piece “A New Scheme of Positive and Negative Freedom” in his work “Against Positive and Negative Freedom”. In Blau’s work, he posits that ‘the debate over positive and negative liberty has created more heat than light’ and that Cookson’s work fails to address the normative issues of Berlin’s work. And these authors are the first from a long list. All of these works and derivatives of these works, however, can be traced back to Locke and his first distinction between liberty and license.

Concluding then, liberty and license are very different terms, and are different in very significant ways. These terms are later expanded upon by Isaiah Berlin, who is then in turn expanded upon by countless others. Authors throughout the decades have debated over these terms, their meanings and their significance. It is clear then, if only from the sheer number of the body of works that came after them, that Locke and Berlin have left their mark on classical liberal thought, perhaps even in the very way we conceptualize and speak about rights, as they exist today.

#politics #writing #amwriting

[lettertotheinternet]

Democracy, Hope, and Religion

When thinking of the features of hope and religion, most people think of their respective virtues, thinking of them as largely positive and virtuous elements in human life. And indeed, many of great leaders and thinkers of the western world, such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Lasch, and Carter can recognize that these two articles, hope and religion, as having great virtue. This is not to say that there are not some thinkers, notably Thucydides, who criticize these elements and provide good arguments displaying how these two elements are not only unhelpful to governments, particularly democracies, but occasionally quite damaging to people. These criticisms require a re-evaluation of hope and religion. Through exploring the arguments of Thucydides, Alexis de Tocqueville, President Barack Obama, Christopher Lasch and Stephen Carter on hope and religion, we will gain a new insight on hope and religion and will be better able to evaluate whether or not hope and religion are as positive as is commonly thought.

Thucydides’ main criticism of hope and religion is that they create unrealistic goals, which causes reckless behavior, which in turn leads to catastrophic failure. This particular criticism of his is repeated in four of his pieces, though I will only examine three due to length constraints, each elaborating and expanding upon this theme through the use of different speeches and dialogues. His first work in which he criticizes hope is entitled the Debate at Sparta in which three speakers argue over whether or not Sparta should go to war with Athens. Two people speak before the Spartan King himself, with speaker of the Corinthians attempting to convince the Spartans to go to war, while the Athenians warn the Spartans against this course of action. In the other speeches preceding the Spartan King, hope is continually described as slender, frail, and unreliable to build an appropriate stage for Thucydides to clearly state his criticism of it. When the Spartan King finally gives his speech, he warns his people from the decision of war with the Athenians by telling them to take their time making a decision and preparing and not to “…indulge in the false hope that we will end the war quickly if we destroy their crops.”(p.26, Thucydides, Histories) This quote of the Spartan King clearly illustrates Thucydides’ criticism, as hope to end the fighting quickly would cause the Spartans to perform a hasty and destructive act that would actually drag out the war as it would enrage the Athenians.

Thucydides repeats the same theme in the Mytilenian Debate, in which two speakers argue over the appropriate punishment of the rebel Mytilenians, but make remarkably similar criticisms of hope. The first speaker says that the Mytilenians were “… bold in the face of the future and they had hopes above their power to achieve, though below what they desired.” (p.69, Thucydides, Histories) This hope, he explains, lead the Mytilenians to their failure, as by hope they were urged to act recklessly to attain unreachable goals and were therefore doomed to failure. The second speaker similarly criticizes hope, but addresses the hope present in everyone. In his speech he states that: “with desire as the leader and hope as the companion…these two cause the greatest mischief and because they are invisible, they are more dangerous than the evils we see.” (p.73, Thucydides, Histories) This most clearly displays Thucydides main criticism of hope, as the quote very clearly states that hope and desire are those that lead to the greatest consequences.

Thucydides’ third piece, the Melian Dialogue continues with much the same theme of criticism, excepting that now we finally see religion addressed. Understandably, religion is treated in much the same manner as hope, in that it similarly if they believe they have the support of the gods. Thucydides frames this criticism through the argument of the Melians and the Athenians. The Melians argue that they need not surrender because the gods will support them because of their innocence and the justness of their cause. The Athenians reply that they similarly should have the blessings of the gods, as they argue “Nature always compels gods (we think) and men (we are certain) to rule over anyone they can control.” (p.106, Thucydides, Histories). In this way, the blessings of the gods are treated just as hope. The gods that supposedly provide hope are rendered moot due to the fact that the Athenian’s will have them as well, and the hope that the gods provide would lead them similarly into ruin.

Thucydides’ works displays compelling criticisms of hope and religion. However, these criticisms only addresses a single facet of hope and religion. Several other influential figures find that hope has considerably more aspects and can therefore provide excellent arguments for hope’s importance and usefulness in government and decisions. President Barack Obama, whose first campaign was run on the platform of hope and change, provides excellent reasons for hope’s importance. Primarily being that hope is not the blind optimism that Thucydides addresses exclusively. This hope, he argues, is: “…something more substantial. It’s the hope of slaves… it’s the hope of immigrants setting off for distant shores.”(p.6, Barack Obama, Keynote Speech 2004) President Obama says that this hope is a belief in better days ahead, it is a hope that hard work will eventually be rewarded. This kind of hope does not promote reckless action, but instead a deliberate, unhurried push to continue bettering the circumstances of citizens’ everyday. This deliberateness and patience in the achievement of its goals are what give the hope its substance and makes it more reliable. With this hope, President Obama claims we can “…provide jobs for the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair.”(p.7, Barack Obama, Keynote Speech 2004) In Obama’s perspective, hope provides the impetus for change, important in a democracy for it to function and serve its citizens best.

The writer Christopher Lasch provides another excellent argument for hope. In his piece The True and Only Heaven, he argues similarly to Obama about the difference between hope and optimism. Optimism, as Lasch defines it, is similar to the blind optimism described by President Obama in the previous paragraph, which is essentially the belief that everything will turn out right and a refusal to acknowledge or deal with the possibility of the worst outcome. Lasch writes that hope, or hopefulness, is grounded in the past and in trusting life to eventually right the wrongs. Lasch is however, clear to clarify himself about hopefulness by saying: “Not that it prevents us from expecting the worst. The worst is always what the hopeful are prepared for.” (pg.81, Christopher Lasch, True and Only Heaven). He goes onto explain that the trust that hope is grounded in wouldn’t be worth much if it didn’t recognize and accept that the worst could come. This kind of hope is the kind that steers us through troubled times and allows us to keep going, because of the belief that eventually things will turn out right so long as we keep working, important for a government that has to routinely deal with this imperfect world.

Until now, we have discussed mainly the merits of hope, separate of religion. Presently though, we turn to Alexis de Tocqueville and his support of religion in his book entitled ‘Democracy in America’. From his examination of the New England colony in this book, it’s clear that he supports it. He argues that it promotes not only unity within the colony, but provides laws, advocates education, and even promotes liberty. Most clearly he states his support of religion when he says: “…in America religion is the road to knowledge, and the observance of divine laws leads man to civil freedom.” (p.41, de Tocqueville, Democracy in America).  This examination differs wildly from Thucydides’, as Thucydides had criticized religion as similarly encouraging reckless behavior as hope. Clearly, Tocqueville believes that religion has more than one element in it, and those other elements have great worth to governments. This is not to say he is wholly uncritical of religion, but rather believes the good largely outweighs the bad, which he states here: “Narrow as the limits of some of their religious opinions were, they were free from all political prejudices.” (p.43, de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 1). Tocqueville acknowledges religion’s narrowness in some respects, but explains that this narrowness does not overshadow its good qualities. In Tocqueville’s argument, religion’s ability to unify communities, provide laws and education, and encourage civil freedom greatly recommends it to governments make up for the fact of its narrow opinions.

Stephen Carter also speaks at length about religion, and provides further arguments detailing its virtues and usefulness to democracy. Yet he provides a more balanced picture of religion than either Thucydides or Tocqueville, displaying religion’s relation with democracy as more conflicted than any of the previous writers. Putting it simply, he states that: “A democracy must deal with religion because it has within its borders religious citizens. A religion must deal with democracy if that is the form of government within which its followers reside.” (p. 2, Carter, Can Religion Tolerate Democracy) Carter presents the two sides, religion and democracy as being two members of what he calls an uneasy peace treaty. Both sides desire domination over the other, but neither can achieve it, and so they must have a truce, which lead to the separation of church and state in America. In spite of this tension however, Carter still finds a powerful virtue with which to recommend religion.

The virtue Carter describes, however, isn’t one that fits with the typical definition of a virtue. He states this unusual virtue with the greatest clarity when he says that “A great gift that religion gives to democracy is dissent, especially moral dissent, and the gift has been given, repeatedly, all through the nation's history.” (p.8, Carter, Can Religion Tolerate Democracy). Dissent in the eyes of many governments is patently not a virtue. However, for democracy to thrive, dissent must not only be allowed, but be encouraged so as to continually improve the conditions of the governed. Carter argues that religion provides that vital dissent, which keeps democracy moral and just, as well as providing courage to dissenters. While he understands that not all dissent leads to positive change, things such as the Civil Rights Movement and the Labor rights movement would not have succeeded without the support of religion. Without religion to provide a dissenting voice to democracy, social issues would remain stagnant, and America would not have the liberty and equality it has today.

After reviewing all of these arguments for and against hope and religion, I ended up being unable to remain impartial on this matter. After parsing the merits of each argument, I found myself on the side which argued that hope and religion possessed more virtue than vice. The particular arguments that convinced me were Carter’s and Lasch’s. Carter’s argument resonated greatly with me, as it not only appealed to me emotionally, but made sense on a grander scale. Religion is not just a comfort to the citizens, but provides vital dissent and criticism that cause democracy to continually improve the welfare of its citizens. Lasch’s argument swayed me because Lasch differentiated between blind optimism and hope, and this new definition re-characterized Thucydides’ entire argument to me. Lasch’s alternate definition of hope convinced me that I could continue having hope, and it wouldn’t lead to rash actions.

In the end though, what can be said of religion and hope as whole? According to Thucydides, hope and religion promote unattainable goals that cause reckless behavior, which leads to failure and ruin. Therefore, hope and religion are clearly not to be indulged in, except by those who are strong. However, Lasch and Obama argue that hope has a different characteristic, and rather than recklessness, it steers people through tough times because hope trusts that things will be made right in the future. Carter and Tocqueville argue that religion provides several virtues; among them being laws, unity, liberty, the encouragement of learning, and moral oversight and dissent when democracy is seen to violate the rights or well being of the citizens it governs. So what can truly be said of hope and religion is that both are concepts with multiple facets and definitions, but are still useful, largely beneficial to the people and the government, and important despite having some negative elements. These positive elements are what make both hope and religion so invaluable to both democracy and its citizens, and are why they have such great popularity in America today.

#writing #amwriting #politics #thucydides #portfolio

[lettertotheinternet]

Final Paper

Gothic novels almost invariably feature an element of the supernatural between their pages. This magic or otherwise eldritch force can be on the side of modernism, such as in The Castle of Ortranto or otherwise a force of malevolence such as we found in Dracula. But in some cases, the Gothic novel rips the rug out from under us. In Northanger Abbey, the supernatural is firmly debunked and Gothic notions are cast aside. The novel fills in the gaps for us and shows the real horrors of the modern day. However, two other works The Turn of The Screw and The Fall of The House of Usher invite us to be skeptical of the supernatural without explicitly ripping away the veil. In this essay, I will compare these three works and explain what happens to the magic in each by the end of the novel and what the author intends by allowing the magic to be ambiguous or by thoroughly debunking it. After examining the three works seperately, I will then examine the particular techniques that each author employed to allow the reader to either fill in the gaps or how the use of the reveal moves the story forward.

Northanger Abbey is a gothic novel that is determined to break the mold of gothic novels. Jane Austen goes through the novel deliberately breaking gothic conventions on purpose. The first inkling appears in the second chapter wherein Catherine’s mother is supposed to act very worried about her daughter’s departure and warn her about brigands, but she merely asks her to “Her cautions were confined to the following points. “I beg, Catherine, you will always wrap yourself up very warm about the throat, when you come from the rooms at night; and I wish you would try to keep some account of the money you spend; I will give you this little book on purpose.”’ (Austen, p.17).  Further examples of subversion can be found all throughout the novel. One in particular occurs when Henry Tilney shows up with a woman on his arm. There, Austen makes a point of noting that Catherine has “Thus unthinkingly throwing away a fair opportunity of considering him lost to her forever, by being married already. But guided only by what was simple and probable, it had never entered her head that Mr. Tilney could be married; he had not behaved, he had not talked, like the married men to whom she had been used; he had never mentioned a wife, and he had acknowledged a sister.” (Austen, p. 86). Austen goes on to use the subversions and the denial of the gothic to set up the real threats to Catherine Morland which come in the forms of James and Isabella Thorpe. Both of these individuals work to sabotage her in the marriage market, a greater and more real threat to her than her gothic fantasies.

But the most important subversion occurs with Henry Tilney when he directly confronts her about her fantasy world. His brief speech is found on page 353 wherein he says ““If I understand you rightly, you had formed a surmise of such horror as I have hardly words to—Dear Miss Morland, consider the dreadful nature of the suspicions you have entertained. What have you been judging from? Remember the country and the age in which we live…Could they be perpetrated without being known, in a country like this, where social and literary intercourse is on such a footing, where every man is surrounded by a neighbourhood of voluntary spies, and where roads and newspapers lay everything open? Dearest Miss Morland, what ideas have you been admitting?” (Austen, p.353) There most poignantly is the magic and the gothic horror ripped away from our eyes.

Unlike the other novels mentioned below, Austen is not inviting us to fill in the gaps. She is having her characters clearly explain the situation because she is trying to get across a particular story. When she fills in these gaps, she is letting us know that we are not supposed to pay attention to Catherine Morland’s gothic fantasies, we are supposed to be looking at the real threats to the young woman. Austen uses these subversions of gothic tropes to make a point that the real threat is not Catherine’s gothic fantasies, but her lack of common sense and not seeing the real world problems. She must worry about her credibility on the marriage market being sabotaged by people like the Thorpes, and she must worry about General Tilney’s designs on her. The removal of the gothic and the supernatural brings these social issues into glaring focus, as the author intended.

Henry James’ novel, The Turn of The Screw presents us with the governess who seems much the same as Catherine Morland. They both rather enjoy romances and their heads are full of Gothic ideas. In fact they both make a reference to the same romance author Udolpho, which the governess mentions here when she says “Was there a “secret” at Bly—a mystery of Udolpho or an insane, an unmentionable relative kept in unsuspected confinement?”( James, p. 53) But rather than having the notions of ghosts and gothic magic dispelled from her mind in the way that Catherine Morland does, the governess continues to see the ghosts. In fact, her visions worsen. She sees, or believes that she sees, Peter Quint peeking through the window, which she describes on pages 60 and 61. The governess grows increasingly paranoid as the novel progresses, which manifests in the way that she views her charges. While in the beginning she considers them to be quite angelic, her mind quite changes. Indeed, she sees a transformation of Flora that suggests something is amiss wherein she states “I’ve said it already—she was literally, she was hideously, hard; she had turned common and almost ugly.” (James, p. 211). The transformation and the continued sightings of phantoms suggest an altogether different story than that of Austen’s novel. Here, there may be magic, but it rests in a kind of ambiguous area where it is neither affirmed nor out right denied.

In the climax of the novel, it is considered from the governess’ point of view that Miles dies of fright, which she makes clear when she says “I caught him, yes, I held him—it may be imagined with what a passion; but at the end of a minute I began to feel what it truly was that I held. We were alone with the quiet day, and his little heart, dispossessed, had stopped.” (James, p. 257). But the novel intends for us to view the governess as an unreliable narrator. The children start to rebel against, as we see with Miles and Flora conspiring together to be ‘bad’ on page 138 and her tone takes on a more frantic and delusional manner as the novel progresses. We see the governess unravel throughout the course of the narrative as she switches from viewing the children as saints to viewing them as supernaturally threatening. Whether or not there is magic is left up to the audience, though we are invited to view it skeptically.

By providing the details of the supernatural, but not having them confirmed by any outside source, James is inviting us to question this heroine. We are expected to fill in the gaps of her erratic behavior and we can believe that either the governess really is experiencing something supernatural, or that the governess is slowly becoming delusional as the narrative goes on. He shows the governess propose a wild conspiracy that dead people are plotting to take the children away from her. Evidence of her coming undone is provided when she has a particularly violent reaction to Flora getting upset with her, which the governess describes on page 214: ““Of what first happened when I was left alone I had no subsequent memory. I only knew that at the end of, I suppose, a quarter of an hour, an odorous dampness and roughness, chilling and piercing my trouble, had made me understand that I must have thrown myself, on my face, on the ground and given way to a wildness of grief. I must have lain there long and cried and sobbed, for when I raised my head the day was almost done.” (James, pg. 214) She spends fifteen minutes weeping because a child did not like her. While there are certainly sensitive souls among us, the fact that she would react this way is undeniably strange and has us wonder if she is really someone who is rational. By writing the story in this way, Henry James allows for several interpretations. He allows us to fill in the parts of the story with our own suppositions based on how trustworthy we feel the narrator is. If we do find her worthy, then we find the existence of magic to be probable, and the final scene is one in which her fears are finally confirmed.

Our last piece is the short story penned by Edgar Allen Poe, The Fall of The House of Usher. This piece features the classic gothic elements, a dreary castle, a family curse, and the dead coming back to life. Elements of the supernatural are found littered throughout the short story. The first event of supernatural is the lady Madeline’s sudden entombment. On page 10, the narrator describes Madeline in a curious way: “The disease which had thus entombed the lady in the maturity of youth, had left, as usual in all maladies of a strictly cataleptical character, the mockery of a faint blush upon the bosom and the face, and that suspiciously lingering smile upon the lip which is so terrible in death.” (Poe, p. 10) This is the first indication we get of something supernatural or otherwise abnormal. Madeline is not looking like a dead person should look, she has a faint blush, she has that smile. All of these indicate that something is amiss. Supernatural elements are laid on more heavily with the inclusion of the whirlwind within the house that we find described on page “A whirlwind had apparently collected its force in our vicinity; for there were frequent and violent alterations in the direction of the wind; and the exceeding density of the clouds (which hung so low as to press upon the turrets of the house) did not prevent our— perceiving the life-like velocity with which they flew careering from all points against each other, without passing away into the distance.” (Poe, pgs. 11-12) This mix of details adds to the power of the climatic scene.  

The climactic scene brings with it a classic gothic trope, the dead rising. Madeline bursts from her tomb to confront her brother, with blood on her chest as she apparently fought to get out of her grave. But Roderick does something interesting. He gibbers that he buried her too soon, that she was buried alive. What are we to make of this? Is Roderick insane? This scene calls into question a lot with regards to the supernatural. If Roderick did bury her alive, is it then presumed that she died because of it? People die of dehydration very quickly so it is possible that if she was kept without access to water for a few days that this is indeed a dead woman. If he did not and she was truly a corpse, then rising from the dead is equally confusing and terrifying.  That climatic scene of Madeline rising from her grave is what calls into question the supernaturalness of the entire event. We are confronted afterward with the fact that the whole castle falls down as well, something that is more likely to be supernatural, but I would argue that even that is ambiguous.

Poe’s work invites us to consider the supernatural from the beginning. Everything is set for a proper Gothic novel in which the dead rise in a literal sense. He provides that the sister and the brother Roderick are both suffering from maladies. But Poe provides that one poignant detail that prevents us from believing Madeline has truly risen from the dead. Madeline has that blush about her, and that smile that the narrator describes from he and Roderick are just about to bury her for a week before her final internment. I am not an expert on the dead, but unless Roderick caught her just at the moment of her death or applied some very artistic makeup, that is the mark of Madeline still being alive. This one small detail is so very inviting to us. We can now choose to interpret this story as one of supernatural horror, in which a dead woman gets up and carries out the curse of her family. Or, we can choose to interpret this as a young woman escaping death and carrying out vengeance against her brother who attempted a monstrously cruel method of execution. This one small detail invites us to fill in the gaps ourselves with the idea that Madeline has risen from the grave as an undead woman without confirming for us that she really is one of them.

Authors choose to write their stories a certain way to get a particular effect or meaning across. When Poe and James choose to write their stories in a way that have multiple interpretations, they are asking us to ‘fill in the gaps’. We are allowed to question and decide the veracity of the magic. By keeping the insanity of the governess ambiguous in the turn of the screw, we are allowed to both believe and to doubt the evidence of the supernatural. By implying that Madeline might have been alive at the time of her burial, we are allowed to decide whether or not Madeline is a woman risen from the grave or not. But when an author chooses to fill in these gaps, to explain for us the reasoning behind the scenes, we are being asked to do something else. Jane Austen fills in these gaps and gets rid of the magic to tell us an entirely different story. She invites us to see the horrors of the modern day. Choosing where the gaps are creates very different stories, and sometimes, lets us know that what we should really be afraid is not our own gothic fantasies, but the horrors of our own modern world.

#gothic literature #writing #essay

[lettertotheinternet]

Aristotelian Ethics Paper

Of all philosophers, it can be argued that Aristotle is perhaps the most influential within the Western conception of philosophy and perhaps the world. Many of his works are worthy of analysis, but we will be examining his work of Nichomachean Ethics, named for his son. In this book Aristotle explains much about human virtues. He gives many reasons for the cultivation of virtues with regards to society as a whole. He gives a long explanation of how a virtuous society is the most beneficial. However, there remains perhaps a more pertinent question. Why should I, the individual care to cultivate the virtues espoused within the ethics? What does happiness matter to me? Using both Aristotle’s work, a broader interpretation of the work, and some of my own observations, I shall attempt to answer this question.

One of the first things that I would argue is that collective reasons are individual reasons. When Aristotle is explaining the virtues that benefit society, it should be taken into account that unless the individual in question is planning on living as a hermit, then this also benefits the individual. We are affected by the society that we live in. And if people who cultivate the virtues are happy and make for a happy society, it would make sense that we in turn benefit. It would be seen as a rational trade off at this point, to sacrifice our freedom to murder people for their stuff for the security that we will not in turn be murdered in the night. It is the basis for many modern societies. Think of the prisoner’s dilemma. The optimal outcome might be to defect while others commit, but if everyone defects, then the least optimal outcome is achieved. And since living in society is not a one off game and one that we must continue to play for the rest of our lives, it is beneficial to cooperate with others. Many experiments have been conducted keeping this in mind, with the most successful strategy involving cooperating so long as others cooperate. With the results of this in mind, virtues and happiness are what we cultivate along with others in order that we do not aggravate our neighbor into defecting and then stabbing us in the night. In this way, survival within a society is a powerful argument worth considering.

Apart from this, Aristotle also prepares for this question on page 9 with “Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is still desired.” (Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics). In this part of the book he begins by explaining that man must have a function, which explains in parentheticals as such: “the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence…” He then goes on to explain that our virtues are in accordance with excellence. But what does this mean? In plain language, Aristotle says that humans have a function, or an ideal. In order to fulfill this, certain activities must be undertaken, and for them to be in accordance with our function, they must be done well. Therefore, in order to fulfill our function, virtue is necessary to be cultivated.

But why is this necessary? Why does Aristotle claim that this is our purpose and that this is the way to fulfill it? Aristotle claims that there are several kinds of life. There is the more base, animal life, which centers itself on pleasure and fulfilling our most primitive needs. There is the political life, which aims at society, and then finally contemplative life.  According to Aristotle, we should aspire to take part in the contemplative life above all else as it is the most concerned with virtue. Someone devoted to skepticism would likely raise the question as to why we should aspire to the contemplative life. Why not simply devote ourselves to the political? Or take care of our most primitive needs? Why do we need to aspire to this higher and more cerebral method of life? Aristotle acknowledges this on page 7 of his book, phrasing it: “It is hard, too, to see how a weaver or a carpenter will be benefited in regard to his own craft by knowing this ‘good itself’, or how the man who has viewed the Idea itself will be a better doctor or general thereby.” (Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics). However, he does not allow this question to simply hang in the air and provides an answer through the unique quality that humans possess which he sees as vital.

In answering this question, the first thing is to think about what makes humans different. Our main difference and advantage comes from our ability to be rational. While this ability has allowed us to become excellent at surviving in the world, its capability is such that we can move beyond the survival level. And while it might be fine to subsist at that level, to stubbornly insist that we need not care about cultivating our virtues and rationality is to throw away a powerful gift. In the view of Aristotle, we ought to aspire to the contemplative life as we are the creatures who are bestowed with reason. It is in our nature to seek out virtue and, as mentioned above, is part of our essential function to cultivate excellence and virtue.

Finally, I will attempt to reproduce Aristotle’s most powerful argument that I have seen within his works as to why we ought to cultivate virtue at an individual level. He first begins by defining what happiness is, providing his definition on page 8 as “Happiness, then, is something complete and self-sufficient, and is the end of action.” (Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics) Happiness is then not simply a state of emotions. It is rather an action or a process by which one achieves sufficiency. So such a thing is counter to the idea that Aristotle might be urging us toward hedonism. On page 10 he begins his argument. To summarize it briefly, he explains that there are three classes of good things, but the one we are most concerned with is the one in the class of the soul. These goods then must, in Aristotle’s words, harmonize with the belief that happiness is living well. Happiness is then described as cultivation as virtues, which are then defined as mediums between extremes. For example, the medium between wastefulness and stinginess is generosity. These virtues are then considered to be like medicine, in that when one is virtuous one is also healthy. As health, virtue, and happiness are all linked, it is clear that Aristotle argues that cultivating virtue and happiness is the way to live a full and healthy life.

Regardless then if someone wants to function in society or feel joy, if these are linked to bodily health, then in the interest of the base need to survive it is in the interest of the average individual to practice the virtues.

Throughout this paper, several reasons have been given for why individuals ought to cultivate the virtues. Appeals have been made to the game theory-like nature of living in society. There have also been appeals to the very function of human nature, arguing that humans should cultivate the virtues because it is innate to humans as rational animals. To not make use of the rationality outside of it’s capability to make us excellent hunters is seen as a great waste. And the third and most compelling is that virtue is directly correlated to health. It could be argued that humans don’t need to live in a society. The premise that a human’s function is correlated with virtue could of course be disputed. But the last is directly related to us. Our basic survival instinct requires us to look after ourselves. And if health is correlated with the practice and possession of virtue, then from a logical standpoint, it is advantageous to have. Health of the body and mind was greatly emphasized in Greek times, with public bathhouses and several institutions similar to clinics being greatly revered. The goddess, Hygeia is in fact where we derive our modern word hygiene. While Aristotle might not necessarily have ascribed to the particular pantheon present at the time, his values would naturally be close to that of the region he lived in. Therefore, in both his and the eyes of others, this last argument is the most compelling. Taken all together though, I think these arguments represent what Aristotle would say in response to the question addressed at the beginning of the paper.

Sources

Aristotle. (n.d.). Ethics. New York: Carlton House.

#aristotle #ethics #philosophy #writing

[lettertotheinternet]

Skills Gap

Despite what the bleak economy would have you think, there are in fact people hiring. Jobs do exist, though it seems to be that they are few in far between. But just as those looking for work feel constantly disappointed, those looking to hire are also feeling the pressure. This pressure is the ‘skills-gap’, wherein there is a lack of qualified candidates to fill a position, which leaves people without jobs and employers without employees to do necessary work.

So what is to be done about this? One quite obvious solution is to increase accessibility to higher education. College universities and other such institutions are a clear starting point for closing the skills gap as they allow individuals to pursue advanced learning in a given major. But as it currently stands, college tuition has been steadily increasing, thus making the option less attractive while putting current college students in a debt they must dig their way out of. To combat this, better financial aid programs ought to be put in place so that students of diverse socio-economic backgrounds can come to university and further their education. With a setting in mind now, we must then consider the fact that there are two aspects to the skills gap. The first being soft skills, ones that involve social skills and working with people, and the other being hard skills, which are things like computer literacy.

Hard skills can be improved by offering more courses for things like computer literacy. Having classes that anyone can participate in (perhaps for a fee) would be something that would help anyone currently looking for a job. Certificate programs in which students can demonstrate their newfound skills would be very helpful, as well as building a portfolio of projects for potential employers to look at.  Two year universities ought to be encouraged for people looking to gain a specific skill without necessarily committing themselves to the debt normally incurred by 4 year programs.

People who lack soft skills are often applicants who look good on paper and may have experience in heavily academic settings, but lack the ability to communicate and work in teams.  To combat this, colleges and two year universities might require that students participate in group projects in every major so that they are familiar with group dynamics. In some universities, particularly Duke University’s Statistics courses, students are assigned a group to work with for an entire semester. The semester long group work allows people to get a taste of what it would be like to work with actual co-workers with whom you are collectively responsible to turn in projects. One off team projects can give some idea, but having students work in teams for an extended amount of time allows them to build the social skills and team etiquette they need for the working world they are about to enter.

Soft skills can be further improved by holding more communication seminars. Team building exercises may seem hokey and over done, but building a rapport between members of an office is important. People need to know their teammates in order to support them properly. It’s no wonder that sports teams still do these exercises. As a current student athlete, having something to break the ice and get me comfortable with my team members was important. The Duke fencing team used a salsa dance class that was mandatory to get us comfortable with each other and to introduce the new members of the team. Since none of us knew what we were doing, it was a fantastic bonding experience. This had us work on our soft skills as mentioned above, and we were far more comfortable communicating with each other after all having an awkward experience.

In all, America is facing a skills gap. This much is pretty clear from the voices of employers looking to hire from the younger generation. But it is my firm belief that there is a multitude of ways that this problem can be addressed both inside the workplace and out. If we can create learning opportunities and provide team building exercises and encourage communication within the workplace, we’ll go a long way in closing this gap.

#skills gap #op ed #portfolio

[lettertotheinternet]

Feminism, Law, and Politics

One of the most influential social movements of our time and one that is still on going is the feminist movement. Having been officially recognized in the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, women have been campaigning for rights and social equality for nearly 170 years. They’ve brought attention to their movement through protest marches, strikes, and assemblies, all of which work to disseminate the message of the movement. In doing so, there have been several landmark court cases for the feminist movement. Women are now able to vote, work, and be paid just as much as their male counterparts. Thanks to recent decisions, they now also have greater control over their own bodies though the decisions made regarding reproductive rights cases that took place within the 60’s and 70’s. These court cases are considered landmark cases in the feminist movement and show just how far we’ve come in the fight for full equality between men and women.

But one has to question the landmark cases. How are these landmark cases justified? To what legal philosophy do they belong? Is there a common thread or does feminism have to subscribe to different legal doctrines in order that it may achieve its goal. In order to assess this question fully, I have selected three landmark cases that I will present and then compare in order to see if the feminist cases are ideologically consistent.

In order to have a full understanding of these cases, I will also examine the dissent to see how these cases are critiqued. Reading the dissent gives us further context about the case and can allow us to form a better understanding of the decision in general, for we can see not only what the school of thought regarding the decision is not, but we can get a better understanding of what the decision is through the criticism of the Court’s ruling.

The case of Griswold v. Connecticut is a natural first case for examining feminist landmark cases, as it is one that sparked much of the discourse surrounding second wave feminism. It was a case tried in 1965 that dealt directly with the major feminist goal discussed earlier, reproductive rights. This is one of the first cases to address the idea of reproductive rights, though it was not necessarily understood to be so at the time. This case provides a jumping off point for the two other cases that we will discuss later in the essay. To briefly summarize the case, Griswold v. Connecticut was a case that had to do with the banning of birth control and other similar contraceptives within a marriage.

This case was brought to the Court when Griswold, the head of Planned Parenthood, was found giving out and disseminating information regarding birth control. She was then fined the $100 as according to the statute, but then she appealed her conviction, arguing that it was a violation of the 14th amendment. And so on March 29th of 1965, the Supreme Court agreed to hear her case.

The court ruled in favor of Griswold 7-2, stating that the statute did indeed represent a constitutional violation on its face. Below, I will briefly reproduce the reasoning of the majority and concurring opinions as written by the Supreme Court Judges William Douglas and Chief Justice Goldberg and Chief Justice Brennan. Douglas delivered the court’s opinion. In his writing, he cited several amendments as forming a basis for developing what are known as penumbras. Penumbras are rights implied by the guarantees given by other rights. This is an idea that we will explore in more depth later within this essay. Douglas cites the Fourth, Fifth, and Third Amendment as being a part of the amendments that provide this zone of non-explicitly stated rights. In order to back up his claims, he brings up relevant court cases that included these amendments, such as Mapp v. Ohio and Boyd v. United States, in order to display that there is precedent for treating these amendments in this fashion.

He also states the Ninth Amendment, which is one that is familiar to anyone who has bothered to study any feminist literature, as it is often the first cited when talking about justifications for other famous landmark cases. Douglas argues that as these amendments hold weight beyond their strictly literal interpretation and have been used to justify the above cases, then they ought further to be able to guarantee marital privacy.

Regarding the dissent in this case, it was Justices Stewart and Black (who concurred with him) who delivered the opinion. The dissent begins in what can only be called a dismissive tone, as Stewart first off derides the law as being uncommonly silly. He also ventures to bring forth his own opinion, stating that he believes contraceptive use should be left up to the couples themselves. However, what we are really interested in is his Constitutional argument. In his dissenting piece, he argued that there was no such ‘right to privacy’ as is stated within the majority opinion delivered by Goldberg. In this right, it is fair to say that Justice Stewart is applying an originalist or textualist lens in examining these rights. He goes on to say that the court cases brought up by Goldberg are not actually relevant to the matter at hand, as they have more to do with the freedom of association than a right to privacy. Thus, Stewart finds there insufficient reason to strike down the law, even though he finds it to be ridiculous, full of holes, and personally distasteful.

The next case that we will be discussing is a case that received a great deal more attention than the one we just discussed. This is the case of Roe v. Wade. While the fame of this case precedes it, it is still worth going over the original reasons and background of the case. The case came to the court when the appellant Jane Roe, a pregnant woman, sought declaratory judgment on the fact that abortion bans were unconstitutional on their face. However, As Jane Roe was pregnant and unmarried, she wished to get her pregnancy terminated in a safe and healthy way but was unable to because her pregnancy did not significantly threaten her life. She also did not possess the means to move to a jurisdiction where such a procedure was legal.  And so she claimed the statute was unconstitutionally vague and then sued on behalf of her and all other women.

Now understanding the relevant background of the case, it is important to move on to see what and how the judges ruled. According to the case file, it was a decision 7-2 in favor of Jane Roe. Justice Harry Blackmun delivered the majority opinion, with concurring opinions filed by Justices Burger, Douglas, and Stewart. In his writing, Blackmun begins with by first considering the justification that Roe brings before the court, in which she cites that the statute is one that abridges her 14th amendment right. He then moves on to addressing several different arguments that form the background of the case on abortion. They are in brief: Ancient attitudes, the Hippocratic Oath, common law, English statutory law, American law, the position of the AMA, or American Medical Association, the position of the American Public Health Association, and the position of the American Bar Association. However, while these arguments were undoubtedly important, we will instead focus on the constitutional justifications presented by Blackmun.

Blackmun then goes on to cite that there’s nowhere in the constitution that allows explicitly for a right to privacy. But similar to Griswold v. Connecticut, Blackmun also cites that there exist cases, which create penumbras. Roe v. Wade builds off of the reasoning and legal precedent set by Griswold, which begins to reveal a budding structure of argument that can be examined later.

However, Blackmun goes further, as this is not merely a case of contraceptives within a marriage. This is the far more controversial topic of actually ending a pregnancy, and, in the eyes of some, ending a human life. Whether or not the Constitution considers a foetus a human is still up for debate even now, but within this case, it was determined that it was not sufficient reason to prevent the mother from seeking termination.

In order to establish legal precedent, not only does he cite the language of Griswold, but also of cases having to do with the 4th and 5th amendments. He also cites the 9th and 14th amendments as creating these penumbras which, in the eyes of the court, are treated as constitutional guarantees to privacy. This is important to note as we will return to this later in the essay as we attempt to find the common thread between these cases.

In regards to the dissenting opinions of the Court, both Judge White and Judge Rhenquist were found to give emphatic opinions regarding the case. Indeed, Judge White famously writes in his dissent that:

“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes…As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

This dissent here aims to critique the ruling of Roe v. Wade through the lens of originalism. White intends to say that by interpreting the law in a way that is not consistent within the original meaning of the text, that it opens up ways for the Court to use it’s power in a way that it was never intended, as the view under originalism is that the Court should simply interpret and mete out the law as it was first written.

The final case that we will be examining is the case of Einstadt v. Baird. This landmark case took place in the year 1971, when a lecturer was prosecuted for the crime of distributing vaginal foam to a young woman after his lecture on over population. The statute in question had in it’s language that married people may seek contraceptives, but only from a licensed doctor or druggist, while single persons may not seek them from anyone. However, the rule was riddled with exceptions, such as the exception that anyone may seek contraceptives so long as the intent was not to preclude the possibility of pregnancy, but to stop the spread of disease. The lecturer appealed his case and went through a long circuitous route to bring his case to court, on the argument that the statute violated the 14th amendment, as the statute unfairly protected married couples and that the same protection ought to be offered to single persons.

In a 6-1 decision, the court held that single persons should be given the same rights as married people with regards to access to contraception. Justice Brennan delivered the ruling of the court in this case. I will reproduce his argument of the case in brief here. He first agrees that that the goals of deterring pre-marital sex and regulating the distribution of potentially harmful articles cannot be a legislative aim. He also agrees that Baird doesn’t have the legal standing to claim the rights of an unmarried person denied access to contraceptives, as Baird was neither an authorized distributer of such items, and neither was he a single person denied contraceptives. Still, it is held that he does have the right to challenge the statute, and the court relaxed it’s policy regarding the challenges of third party entities. In fact, Baird’s giving away the vaginal foam was meant to challenge the Massachusetts statute that banned such an action.

He then goes on to write that the statute, viewed a ban on contraceptives violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment on it’s face. The basic principles regarding the 14th amendment are consistent, as the Court has regularly recognized that while the 14th amendment does not deny entirely the States to treat different classes of persons in different ways, the criteria for doing so must make sense. In this case, the criteria was dubbed as arbitrary, as the Court found no such grounds for enforcing such a difference between married and unmarried couples. In essence, this law failed to pass the “rational basis test”. As married couples were allowed to access contraceptives under the Griswold decision, withholding the right from single people without rational basis proved the undoing of the Massachusetts statute.

The dissent for the case was not based within a necessarily constitutional rights frame of dissent. Instead, Judge Burger claimed that there were no conclusive findings on the health benefits and practices. Therefore, the dissent for this case need only be mentioned in passing, as it does not contribute to our understanding of the case as a whole.

So, having examined all of these cases, their background, the rulings and justifications behind them, what can we conclude? According to the evidence presented to us, we can conclude that the reasoning behind all these cases is internally consistent. These cases all build off each other in order to create a firm defense of reproductive rights for both the individual and for a married couple. This ideological consistency is brought about by subscribing to the legal school of thought known as Doctrinalism, which I mentioned briefly in the beginning of the paper. However, now that we know of the doctrine, it is important that we examine it closely so that we may understand not only how it works, but how it may be applied to future cases and why this matters to both us as legal scholars and to the feminists who are interested in furthering their movement. In the rest of this paper, I will display the tenants of the doctrine that I believe that the decisions ascribe to.

The Court is concerned with insuring that the rights of the individual are not violated, as most courts well would be. However, a particular right comes into focus when looking at these decisions regarding reproductive rights. This is the right of privacy. As the dissenting Justices mention it above, no such right exists within the Constitution as explicitly stated. However, according to this particular reading of the Constitution, there exist what we described earlier as penumbras. These are considered to be rights as they are guaranteed through the implication of other rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Legal standing can be found in these penumbras when one also folds in the doctrine of precedent and stare decisis. Precedent, as also mentioned earlier, is the doctrine that looks to older court cases in order to determine a ruling for a present court case.

The Constitutional Amendments that these cases have used to justify themselves include the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments respectively. While it may seem strange that such disparate amendments could be used to justify the decision for the court to rule that there is such a thing as a right to privacy, by looking again at legal precedent, we can find cases where these particular amendments were found to extend to cases beyond their strict definition. Where this occurs, we see the idea of penumbras take hold. These are zones where an amendment does not explicitly state a protection, but can be held to do so through a particular interpretation of the Amendment. For example, the 4th and 5th amendments were found to have penumbras through the court cases Terry v. Ohio, Katz v. United States and Boyd v. United States. The 9th amendment was used to justify penumbras as well, although the first use of it in protecting the right to privacy was most powerfully enumerated in the Griswold v. Connecticut case described above. However, it is important to note that Griswold’s case also revolved around the conception of certain implied and guaranteed rights through the interpretation of the 9th amendment and bases this conception that the fact that penumbras are extant on the bases of the cases referenced in regard to penumbras in the 4th and 5th amendments.

Precedent is also an important tenant of the doctrine as well. This is the basis of the legal philosophy known as stare decisis, which is deference to previous cases when adjudicating a court case. For stare decisis to be considered viable with regards to the decision of the case, the case must have similar enough qualities to the past case to justify ruling on that basis. Otherwise, mentioning how other cases have been decided is providing precedent and evidence for a case, but does not necessarily involve stare decisis. While citing penumbras is an important part of the argument, stare decisis is also a tenant that is incredibly important to reference. Almost every case is decided at least in part by cases that have been decided in the past. Going by this, it is extremely difficult to subvert years worth of legal precedent, or to create new legal principles out of whole cloth. It may be that legal principles can be modified, which is often the case with Court decisions. But it is rare that precedent is overturned. By adopting this principle into the doctrine, the feminist landmark cases gain more credibility and can stand up to more intense scrutiny as they subscribe to often looked to tenet of legal philosophy.

The feminist landmark cases that I’ve examined above appear to consistently demonstrate the tenets of the doctrine that I’ve just described. In picking them out, we can now claim to have a more fundamental knowledge of how feminist sourt cases come to be passed in favor of feminists.

But the real question comes to us now. Why is it important to understand the doctrine behind these court cases? There are several reasons to consider this. The first one being that it aids feminists themselves. By understanding how it is that their court cases came to pass, they can understand how to frame their arguments in such a way that it would be more convincing in a court of law. With knowledge of how to frame their arguments then, it is conceivable that feminists could forward their own legal agenda in accordance with their social one, as feminists are concerned not only with creating new policy in favor of easing the burden on those with marginalized identities, but also in repealing the legislation that caused the marginalization of these identities in the first place. This would not have to stop at the rights of women. Indeed, if we look at the transformed movement now known as intersectional feminism, its very possible to see how learning to formulate an argument couched in this legal terminology would benefit the various causes underneath this umbrella.  

For example, intersectional feminism also focuses upon the rights of people who are transgendered. By knowing how and why the legal cases are decided, a convincing defense of having trans people recognized is very possible. If I were to build the case, with regards to trans people having access to hormones, I would cite the cases of Griswold v. Connecticut and the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird. From these cases, I would cite the 14th equal protection clause as it stands with regards to how it was applied in Eisenstadt. My opponent would then have to show a meaningful distinction between a trans woman wishing to go on hormones and why she should be denied this right and a cis woman who wishes to go on hormones. While it is possible, I’d then have standing on that point. I’d also cite that my client should be allowed to identify as they so desire, citing the penumbra of the 9th amendment. A clever lawyer would argue that people’s gender identity should be determined not by another person, as a matter of a right to their body in the same way that was determined in the Roe v. Wade case.  While naturally a true court case and argument would require a far more detailed argument and far more eloquent language, based on the rough sketch of the argument I’ve provided and comparing it to the others that I’ve seen, it’s one that could at least stand a chance.

Additionally, while this knowledge can benefit feminists in crafting legal arguments for their cases with regards to acknowledging the reasons behind the court decisions, by also understanding the dissent, feminists can also learn to shore up their arguments against the common criticisms that these decisions faced. Some of course, will not be able to be addressed, as the doctrine cannot defend itself against the criticism that it is a doctrine. However, against such things as the Eisenstadt decision, where the dissent is largely about the health findings, then feminists can make certain that their reasoning is sound. Secondly, by assessing the doctrine of originalism and examining the opinions of the court, they can find where the Justices would be lacking in applying only an originalist lens to the problem.

Another reason that feminists would want to learn the reasoning behind these court cases is simple. By learning this doctrine, they could modify their justifications and ideologies to create something internally consistent and effective. With a stable core to their ideology, they could then refine their message and get across the point of the movement far more easily. For intersectional feminism, which I have mentioned in my above example regarding how the ideology could be used in protecting the rights of trans women, has transcended the original aims of the movement. Therefore, intersectional feminism needs to reformulate it’s own ideology so that it has something easy to refer back to when crafting a message or protest so that every part of the movement links back to the core ideology and goals.

Intersectional feminism differs from feminism in an important way. Instead of advocating for women alone, as mentioned above, intersectional feminism fights for other marginalized identities as well. They see the movement as one surrounding individual liberty and the right to one’s body, and fight against the instances where individual liberty is abridged, much in the same way that the second wave feminists did. However, intersectional feminists pay special attention to how marginalized identities (such as people of color and people who experience same gender attraction) are more powerfully affected by these abridgments of liberty because of the institutional biases that exist within our society. In essence, an intersectional feminist would say that a black woman faces not only sexism, but also racism, and that this intersection looks different than either issue on it’s own.

With such a broad scope of people involved, with so many complex and interwoven issues, it may happen that the over all message of the movement becomes lost in attempting to pull together so many different messages and projects. But by insuring that they have consistent and clear ideological work, they can always be sure to tie their project at the time back to the original message of the movement.

This ideological stability also has another benefit to feminists. By understanding the legal reasoning of the courts and modifying and clarifying their own ideology to become more effective, not only are they more likely to succeed in their aims in a purely legal setting, but they can far better ready themselves from outside scrutiny. This has become an increasing problem for feminism, both intersectional and otherwise. As the movement has become more visible and generates more discourse, it also means that there are more people looking to pick apart the movement.

Without a clear set of principles, the people who seek to advance the feminist movement will be left on their own to form their own arguments and principles in order to defend themselves to their neighbors and peers. Without a common set of rules, the legitimacy of the movement could be picked apart slowly, as differing definitions would cause the movement to split apart into smaller and smaller movements. This would create instead a host of factions, all of which were weaker than the original movement they came from. Each would go after it’s own pet project, and would therefore not be suited to implement large-scale change, as it lacks the force that a larger and more national movement possesses.

The feminist social movement has undoubtedly made progress over the years that it has been in existence. They have come a long way from protesting their right to vote and securing suffrage as they did in their original iteration. The court cases that we’ve examined not only show us how feminism justifies itself. They tell us the story of the movement. The progress that the movement has made can be embodied in the decisions. Griswold v. Connecticut serves as the beginning of the story, with the decision serving as a jumping off point for the next cases. After securing reproductive rights for married women, Roe v. Wade goes a step further in allowing further control of their bodies. And even further beyond is Eisenstadt v. Baird, which allowed for birth control for all persons, whether they are married or not.

What’s not clear is how the story ends. Feminism, while having made great strides towards the change they want to see in the world, has clearly not achieved their vision. Even people who aren’t a part of the feminist movement are forced to admit that sexism and other forms of bigotry campaigned against by feminists still exists, with the dispute only finding ground in whether or not there’s an acceptable amount of sexism. While it’s unclear as to whether or not the movement can ever have a definitive end, by learning about the legal philosophy behind the decisions, feminists can alter their campaign and message to make their movement more effective, and with luck, they can actually achieve their aims of expanding social and legal equality to everyone.

Bibliography

Skelton, C. (n.d.). Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Retrieved May 05, 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html

Skelton, C. (n.d.). Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Retrieved May 03, 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/case.html

Skelton, C. (n.d.). Eisenstadt v. Baird 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Retrieved May 03, 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/438/#annotation

#law #politics #legal philosophy #feminism #portfolio

[lettertotheinternet]

The Failure of Conscious Consumerism

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 15.0px} p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'} p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 15.0px} span.s1 {text-decoration: underline ; color: #0433ff}

The Failure of Conscious Consumerism

Public Venue: This will be posted on my own discussion blog on tumblr. The url is lettertotheinternet.tumblr.com and will posted under my writing tag. The link is here: https://lettertotheinternet.tumblr.com/post/173229408585/the-failure-of-conscious-consumerism 

How often is it that you go about your usual trip in the supermarket and find alternatives labeled ‘eco-friendly’? As the years have gone by, more and more environment friendly products have popped up. Helpfully labeled in cheery shades of green, these products announce that they are made of 100% recycled materials. Or your latte comes with a cuff that reads not only is your coffee fair trade, but your cuff is also made of reclaimed cardboard? It would seem that these greener alternatives abound from everywhere from chain drugstores to high-end coffee shops.

Allowing people to support things with their dollar is fantastic, and I’m not about to argue against having these options. No, my argument is something else entirely: that the emphasis on consumer choice distracts from more institutional detriments to the environment, and more systematic change is achieved through political advocacy. If I were to neatly sum up this premise, conscious consumerism is nice, but it is not a solution.

I am not creating this criticism out of thin air. Other people have voiced similar concerns online. Alden Wicker writes in his piece that ‘Choosing fashion made from hemp or grilling the waiter about how your fish was caught is not a substitute for systematic change’. (Wicker, 2017). The fact of the matter is that all the locally made clothes that you can possibly buy won’t make a dent in the environmental degradation going on. Akansha Gupta echoes this sentiment in her article Ethical Consumerism Doesn’t Fulfill Its Promise. In her article she states that you opening up your wallet doesn’t solve the realities of problems and that time is better spent volunteering for NGOs or protesting (Gupta, 2017). This isn’t to say that I or any of the other authors are insulting your choices if you are someone who wants to wear locally made clothes. I fully support your decisions to eat only wild caught salmon from a sustainable fishery. A case study cited by Alden Wicker explains that there is little to no statistical difference between ‘green consumers’ and ‘brown consumers’ (M, 2012).  I need you to know that I support you but that this isn’t a solution.

 What is a solution is advocating for systemic change through the formation of protest groups. Voting with your dollar is a step in the right direction to be sure. But unless this becomes a nation wide movement, corporations are more than happy to continue these environmentally damaging business practices. And so organizing for boycotts and organizing for public demonstrations and marches are the next step beyond this. 

You may ask ‘Why should I protest? Why should I personally go out and be active? Do protests even work?’. Well, I can tell you that they do work. Perhaps not in the immediate way that you might like, but every protest and boycott has an effect. Policy Responsiveness to Protest Group Demands explains: “This relationship suggests that, when confronted with protest groups, community officials often look to active groups for cues and "respond in some way . . . [which] satisfies their reference publics.” (Schumaker, 1975, p. 512). This doesn’t come as a surprise; the loudest voices in the community are naturally going to have the biggest amount of pull when it comes to changing things. But when combined with the idea that protests bring issues to the forefront of society, that’s where things get interesting. Protesting can be thought of similarly to political campaigns. By spreading your message and appealing directly to lawmakers, you are bringing large amounts of attention to your group. And when you bring large amounts of attention to your group, it’s more likely that the ‘active public’ described by Schumaker will take a stance on the issue. And if you argue convincingly on your case, the active public will support your protest and policy changes. This idea is further supported in the essay entitled Social Movements and The Policy Process in which the premise is that protests are not necessarily only successful when they change policy. Rather, Rochon and Mazmanian, the authors of the essay state that: “…movements that fail to alter particular policies may nonetheless have a significant impact by gaining access to the policy process.” (Rochon & Mazmanian, 1993, p. 76). With this in mind, we can understand the true power of protests and see that this provides a much more powerful tool for systematic change than individually voting with our dollar.

Being conscious environmentally speaking is wonderful. But it is not enough at the individual level. People who have decided to make the choice to participate in conscious consumerism are now presented with a solution with regards to how they can make a big impact. 

References

Clarke, R. A., Stravens, R. N., Greeno, J. L., Bavaria, J. L., Cairncross, F., Etsy, D. C., . . . Scott, J. (2014, August 01). The Challenge of Going Green. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1994/07/the-challenge-of-going-green

M, C. (2012, May 2). The ecological footprint of green and brown consumers. Introducing the behaviour-impact-gap (BIG) problem[PDF]. Bregenz, Austria: Corvinus University of Budapest.

Wicker, A. (2017, March 07). Conscious consumerism is a lie. Here's a better way to help save the world. Retrieved from https://qz.com/920561/conscious-consumerism-is-a-lie-heres-a-better-way-to-help-save-the-world/

Schumaker, P. (1975). Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands. The Journal of Politics, 37(2), 488-521. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2129004

Rochon, T., & Mazmanian, D. (1993). Social Movements and the Policy Process. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 75-87. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1047792

Gupta, A. (2017, March 31). Ethical Consumerism Does Not Fulfill it's Promise. Retrieved from https://gunnoracle.com/2017/03/31/ethical-consumerism-does-not-fulfill-its-promise/

#discussion #environment #conscious consumerism #portfolio

[lettertotheinternet]

Antigone is heroic, but Creon is human

In the Greek tragedy ‘Antigone’ two characters take the stage as the most interesting and dynamic of the cast. The first is the titular character Antigone, a young woman who strives to bury her brother’s body against the law. The second character is the enactor of said law. This is Creon, the new King of the city and the uncle of Antigone who has venerated one of her dead brothers, but condemned the other to rot outside for eternity. At first glance, both characters are similarly stubborn and inflexible, but upon closer examination of the text, one can find a great deal more of character and personality, especially of Creon, a man seemingly one dimensional in his hard headedness. While Creon possesses several less than admirable qualities, he also possesses many virtues and a great depth of character which makes him the most interesting and most human character of the play.

A great part of what makes Creon the most interesting character comes from his motivations. The primary motivation is his desire to be a great and unquestioned ruler of his city. We can observe this from his very first appearance in the play when he speaks his opening speech of the play on lines 135 to 176. In these he states that he “has contempt for the kind of Governor that is afraid,” and that he will always speak his mind when he sees the ship of State going in the wrong direction. Creon desires his voice to rule sovereignly and unquestioningly. This desire informs all of his other decisions in all other spheres of his life. Even his personal life takes a toll from this, as evidenced by his interactions with his son Haimon and his niece Antigone, who are actually supposed to wed. Due to her breaking the edict though, he spares little time in sentencing Antigone to death; believing that not sentencing her would make him appear weak.

However, this driving desire does not make Creon beneath reason, and in fact provides him many virtues, that we also see in his opening speech. He refuses to have any sort of dealings with the enemies of the State, showing steadfastness and loyalty (lines 155-156). He refuses to be bought by anyone and constantly lectures throughout the play about the evils of money as evidenced when he berates the sentry on lines 249 to 263, displaying remarkable restraint against this kind of temptation. He spares Ismene from death, saying that “No you are right/ I will not kill the one who’s hands are clean”, displaying a desire for fair and accurate judgments (lines 630-631). Creon is not a man that one would consider flexible by any stretch, but this reconsideration from his initial stance at least suggests that he is not incapable of revoking a bad decision of his once he sees the error in his way, which is further evidenced later in the play. He even goes so far as to lift the punishment of death by stoning from Antigone, though perhaps granting her the crueler fate of eternal solitude in a cave.

His second rationale for his actions though, is fear. This one is subtler, and less boldly stated. Creon is uncertain of his ability to rule competently, and therefore acts rashly to solidify his kingship. This fear is hinted at in his opening line when he states that he understands that a King may not expect his subjects’ full loyalty until he has been tested, allowing him a small disclaimer against his fears of not being listened to initially (lines 146-147). His fear also makes him suspicious and unreasonable at times, for his fear does not make him indecisive, but instead stubborn. He is so concerned with appearing strong and unwavering that he persists with bad decisions and only very reluctantly changes his mind. This is evidenced in the scene where he confronts Haimon, who attempts to counsel him against having Antigone slain, begging him to see reason and to revoke the edict. Creon denies his son’s pleas however, accusing Haimon of “having sold out to a woman” and then refuses to entertain any further notions of changing his mind (line 599). The only thing that budges his stubbornness is a prophecy/warning from the prophet Tiresias, which still takes quite a bit of time and further convincing from the choragus to affect him. By then it is too late though, and the audience sees the tragic fate of both Antigone and Haimon.

Despite his hard headedness and unrelenting nature, Creon is still a character that evokes sympathy from the audience. Though I at first disliked him thoroughly, feeling Antigone to be the more righteous character over all, a second reading changed my feelings regarding Creon. While he may not be the hero exactly, it would be unfair to call him a villain either. He is a new ruler who made very human and understandable mistakes. He banned Polyneices, the man who laid siege to his own city, from being buried in an attempt to set right the State, but went against Antigone and his religion in doing so. He attempted to be bold and failed, as humans are wont to due. Similarly, when Antigone defied the edict, he condemned her to death and then imprisonment, fearing the appearance of favoritism or weakness. Both of these he condemned in his very first speech Insecure in his rule, he bulled ahead and insisted on his poor decision. This is not unlike many people I have known today who will continue in the face of all opposition to execute a bad idea. Though of course, the people I know don’t decide whether or not someone lives.

At the end the audience truly feels the most sympathy for Creon. Finally seeing the error of his judgments, he rushes to reverse them, only to be too late. His dialogue on lines 864 to 866 clearly displays his change in heart when he cries, “That is true…it troubles me/ Oh how hard it is to give in! but it is worse/ To risk everything for stubborn pride.” (lines 864-866). After hearing the prophecy and the choragos, he rebukes his stubborn pride, but all too late. His son has died as well as his niece, both going to consummate their marriage in Hell. Creon’s regret and despair is only too poignant as the audience sees Creon ask for mercy in the form of his own death. Despite my initial feelings of dislike towards him, it would have been nearly impossible for me not to feel sympathy for this broken man. I took no satisfaction in seeing his ruin, a sentiment I believe most share.

Now that we have discussed the personality traits of Creon and his mistakes, what might Sophocles have wanted to show us with this character and his story? In my opinion, the tragedy of Creon is meant to show how truly damaging it can be to persist with a poor idea. Creon falls to ruin because he can neither compromise nor listen until very near the end when everything falls to pieces. Creon is also a warning against not taking advice from anyone, as Creon listens to no one until Tiresias scares him into submission by telling him it is the will of the gods that Antigone should be freed from her prison and her brother should be buried. Sophocles is urging the audience to be open to the advice of others and to be more careful in our decisions. Rashly made choices followed up by stubborn persistence lead Creon to ruin and to desire his death.

An alternative meaning for Creon may lie in the fact that in seeking to make his own order, he destroyed it. Creon serves as a warning to those who might seek to overturn the natural order of things so that they might make their own rules. For Creon sought to leave a corpse unburied on the surface of the earth, and to bury a living woman in a cave. If one seeks to overturn the natural order of things, it will only come to tragedy, warns the character of Creon. Man’s rules are not above the rules of nature or the gods, though no god appeared by name in the play and none were seen to interact directly with the characters in the play.

In all, it can be said that Creon has the most depth of character and vies with Antigone for the best character of the play overall. No character has as much personality or as many lines as Creon, and none strike me as quite so human as Creon. While I like and admire Antigone, I cannot relate to her as I now relate to Creon. I have never faced my death, but I have faced swallowing my pride and admitting I was wrong. I have faced my stubbornness and trying to undo my mistakes. Antigone wavered none and is admirable in that respect and was brave and virtuous all throughout. But while that made her heroic, it also isolated her in some regard. And so, it is fair to say that while Antigone is the heroine and the most righteous character of the play, Creon is the most relatable and sympathetic character of the performance.

#discussion #creon #antigone #portfolio

[lettertotheinternet]

Euthyphro

The types of piety

Socrates is arguably the most influential person with regards to western philosophical thought ever. His dialogues such as The Apology and The Crito are referenced constantly in college Philosophy classes. In this essay however, we will be examining the Euthyphro, a dialogue revolving around the definition of piety. The Euthyphro takes place in the agora and it details the conversation between the prophet Euthyphro and the philosopher Socrates as they attempt to find a suitable model to determine whether or not an action is pious. There are four proposals made that we will examine and see how Socrates is able to deconstruct each to show contradictions. At the end, we will argue on behalf of Euthyphro see if any of these proposals could be modified to satisfy Socrates.

The Euthyphro begins with Socrates seeking Euthyphro for help in his indictment by Meletus. Meletus has accused Socrates of refusing to worship the old gods while creating new ones. So, Socrates seeks a definition of piety such that he may disprove Meletus’ claims of impiety in court. Euthyphro confidently answers that of course he will teach Socrates of piety and proposes this definition, which runs thus: “…what is dear to the gods is pious, and what is not is impious.”(page 6). This next definition would appear to please Socrates. However, he quickly finds a fault with this definition. He asks Euthyphro if he believes that there is strife among the gods and if they are at war. Euthyphro agrees, which leads Socrates to assert that if there is strife among the gods then there must be some actions that are dear to some gods and not to others. Euthyphro agrees. Therefore, Socrates argues that makes all actions both pious and impious depending upon which god is consulted at the time. This rules out the possibility of using this first definition as a model.

Undeterred by this first failure, Euthyphro returns with a second definition of piety that he believes will stand up to the scrutiny of Socrates. On page 9, Euthyphro says, “I would certainly say that the pious is what all the gods love, and the opposite, what all the gods hate, is the impious.”  This is an improvement over the first two definitions, as it requires all the gods to approve of an action for it to be considered pious. Therefore only actions that are entirely agreed upon are pious and all that are not agreed upon are impious. However, Socrates also finds fault with this argument. His response is perhaps a little difficult to follow in English, and would likely be more elegant in the native Greek, but I will do my best to reproduce Socrates’ argument in brief here. Socrates explains that there is a difference between loving a thing and being loved. Because of this difference, Socrates raises the question of whether a thing is pious because the gods love it, or if the gods love it because it is pious. He goes on to explain that Euthyphro did not make the nature of piety clear and merely gave an aspect of piety, rather than explained it. (revise this)

Socrates is still invested in learning the nature of piety, so he helps Euthyphro to propose yet another definition of piety. He begins by suggesting that piety and justice are linked and illustrates this point by giving a first comparison of fear and shame, and how one may be part of the other, but they are not always overlapping. There are parts of shame that include fear, but not all fear includes shame. Thusly, there are parts of justice that include piety, but parts of piety that do not include justice. On page twelve, with the help of Socrates, Euthyphro posits “the godly and pious is the part of the just that is concerned with the care of the gods, while that concerned with the care of men is the remaining part of justice.” This differs greatly from the previous two definitions, and was inspired by the words of Socrates. And yet the great philosopher still finds fault with this definition.

Socrates begins his critique of the definition by asking about the nature of caring for things. “Is horse breeding the care of horses” “Is cattle raising the care of cattle?” asks Socrates. Euthyphro replies that these statements are true. However, when Socrates asks if piety is the caring for of gods, such that they benefit from it, Euthyphro vehemently denies it. The gods do not need piety to exist. So Socrates asks then what kind of care it is that piety is. Euthyphro responds that it is the same care that a slave gives to the master. Therefore, piety cannot be the care of the gods because the gods do not need piety to thrive. There is no goal for the care of the gods as they are sufficient. So why do the gods then love piety? Euthyphro cannot answer this. He merely evades the question.

So we have now gone through three definitions of piety. Yet there is one more that remains. Socrates himself proposes it. If the definition of piety is not the care of the gods, then perhaps it is “the knowing of how to beg from and give to the gods.” (insert page here). In essence, it is a proposed trading partnership. Socrates seems to be accepting of this particular definition. It is important to note that this differs greatly from the other definitions in some important respects. It does not assume that piety is what is dear to the gods, but something that the gods want and will give in exchange for favors. Thus, particular sacrifices are given for particular favors and a sort of currency system can be established.

However, when Socrates pursues the issue, he also finds this definition to be lacking. Socrates asks whether the gods are benefitted by these sacrifices. Euthyphro says that they are not, because the sacrifices do not make the gods healthier, nor are they necessary for raising the gods. And so they are pleasing but not necessary Socrates concludes. Socrates then accuses Euthyphro of going around in a circle, as now the definition of piety is again what is dear to the gods. Thusly, the problem with the fourth proposal is linked with the problem of the second proposal. If piety is trading with the gods, what do the gods gain from it? Nothing except that it pleases them. And if it we revise it to be that this pious action is what is dear to all the gods, it is unknown whether the gods love these actions because they are pious or if an action loved by the gods is pious.

This leads us to the classical definition of the Euthyphro dilemma. What appeared to be a solution in the fourth proposal has actually looped around and presented the same problem as the second proposal. This problem featured within the second proposal has been a subject of philosophical and theological debate for a long time, with several solutions being posed. While it is rephrased, it retains the gist of the problem discussed. Does God command us perform certain actions because they are righteous or are certain actions righteous because God commands them?

After looking through many possible answers to this dilemma, I will make the argument that the fourth proposal can be viable if amended thusly: Piety is knowing how to pray and to sacrifice to the gods, who find these prayers and sacrifices good because they are evidence of devotion not because they benefit from them. I would think of it in the way of parents. Children will beg and present small useless trinkets to their parents and the parents delight in these without benefitting from them. All the gold in the world is as a lump of mud to the gods, who cannot be bettered by the gifts and prayers of humans. Yet these actions still delight them, as they are like parents to their young children.

In answer to why the gods love piety, there have been several different responses to this dilemma. I would argue that the gods love piety because it is just. Critics argue that this would establish a moral code outside of the gods, as there is something that stands apart from them, thus threatening their omnipotence. However, this can be resolved if we understand omnipotence to be the ability to do what is possible then we resolve this conflict. Perhaps the only way in which to create a world with humans in it is to create one like this, which obeys certain laws of logic and science. If this is so and it does not threaten them, then neither does the idea of certain unbridgeable morals. Death being a bad thing is simply logical for a species that thrives through community. Omnipotence does not allow for things that are completely outside of possibility. Therefore, the omnipotence of the gods is left intact. In this way, we might understand how the fourth proposal is then considered acceptable. The gods now bargain, but seeing them as paternalistic figures that love piety because it is right, which is acceptably determined to not abridge their omnipotence, and then perhaps we might find this a satisfactory answer.

For those looking for a true definition of piety, the Euthyphro is a disappointing piece. But for those looking to familiarize themselves with the great debates and learn of important points in philosophy, the Euthyphro is invaluable. Its questions are still discussed today, and still stimulate theological and philosophical thought as educated men and women attempt to puzzle out how the horns of the Euthyphro dilemma might be solved. While I have posited a solution in this essay, discussion continues as greater and more satisfying theories and solutions come to light.

Works Cited

• Plato, ., & In Burnet, J. (1924). Plato's Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates and Crito. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

#euthyphro #socrates #discussion #portfolio

[lettertotheinternet]

Soylent

Changing the way we think about eating

Food is one of those essential things that we almost don’t question. We take for granted its presence in our lives, often times trying to get it out of the way as we rush through our day. Some of us even make a habit of skipping meals like breakfast; so much in a hurry are we to get to class or to work. How can we ensure that we get enough nutrition to sustain ourselves without sacrificing our time? Rob Rhineheart, creator of the meal replacement shake Soylent, has the answer. With the nutritionally complete Soylent, we now have another option to ensure that we get our daily nutrition.

As mentioned above, Soylent is intended to be a meal replacement shake. The FDA and other nutritional scientists to make certain that it is nutritionally complete have constantly vetted this shake. For those who are unaware of the FDA, it stands for Food and Drug Administration. They work in tandem with the United States Department of Health and Human Services. By working this closely with the FDA to ensure that the Soylent formula is nutritionally complete, the manufacturers are having the best oversight they possibly can. If we have this kind of oversight, then we can be assured that Soylent is as nutritional as it claims to be. Another benefit of Soylent is that it is listed as an open source meal replacement shake, meaning that the company freely shares the ingredients that it puts into its product. With the ingredients open to anyone, people who wish to change the formula can. In fact, the open source nature of Soylent has spurred several users online to make their own formulas, some adding chocolate, others adding different proportions of iron to create their own super meal replacement shake.

Another benefit of Soylent is that it provides the same nutritional content of a meal at a fraction of the price.  Looking at Soylent’s website, it lists the drink version, Soylent 2.0 at $2.69 a bottle and promises 400 kcal per bottle, approximately 1/5th of your daily value in a bottle. With Soylent being this affordable, everyone benefits, but most especially people living on low income. Cheap, non-nutritional food has long been a plague on America’s lower class and has lead to the rise of childhood obesity, as families unable to purchase groceries have resorted to using calorically dense fast food to keep themselves on their feet, at the cost of nutrition. While it is unlikely that Soylent would be able to solve the problem on it’s own, it would be a step in the right direction towards ameliorating this problem.

Several people have criticized Soylent, but most people’s criticisms boil down to one main argument. Critics argue that without meals, we lose much of our social interactions with other people. Traditional meals provide us with more than just nutrition, they allow us to interact with other people. However, Soylent isn’t intended to replace every meal, critics are misreading the intentions of Soylent. It’s supposed to replace the meals we eat without thinking about them. It replaces the unhealthy frozen TV dinners and fast food orders that we eat by ourselves and then forget about. Traditional or home cooked meals won’t be ousted in favor of a bottled replacement that is not the intended use of Soylent. People who worry about Soylent being the end of food are stressing themselves out unnecessarily.

A similar argument in the same vein is that people have stated that they cannot be entirely certain that Soylent could provide all the nutrients that a human could possibly need. Surely they’d become deficient for some nutrient or another. Again, this argument is easily refuted, as Soylent is not meant to be our primary source of calories. It is instead meant to be a meal replacement. However, several people who have taken the plunge and gone on a Soylent only diet for thirty days have reported that they have actually come out healthier for it. While these anecdotes cannot provide conclusive evidence that this diet of Soylent alone would be beneficial for every individual, it does lend credence to the idea that using Soylent as an occasional meal replacement would be viable. Especially when paired with phytochemicals found in plants.

A final argument against Soylent has just recently arisen due to reports of gastrointestinal complaints from some customers. Around the month of July this year, customers who consumed the meal bar reported complaints of severe gastrointestinal distress, with a few customers even reporting going to the hospital due to the duress. It could be argued that a product that causes such gastrointestinal distress is a bad product. Following from that premise, a bad product should not be consumed or sold. Therefore, as Soylent falls into the first category, it should necessarily not be sold or consumed. This argument however, would also exclude several other products that are definitely beneficial.

A similar argument in a similar vein shows how ridiculous this argument truly is. A medication that causes a low percentage (.05%) of its consumers to break out in hives. Medication that causes any percentage of its consumers to break out in hives is a bad medication and should not be consumed or sold. Therefore, the previously mentioned medication should not be consumed or sold. With such a low number of consumers effected, banning the medication entirely would be overkill. A more effective solution would be to add this to the list of possible side effects for the medication. As such, Soylent might include a warning label on their product, but should not be forced to recall their product entirely.

While Soylent is certainly not a perfect product, it certainly has its advantages. It is not only inexpensive, but as mentioned before, nutritionally complete. With these pros, it would be reasonable to welcome Soylent with open arms, rather than worry about it being ‘the end of food’ as some critics claim.

Sources

Helton, J. (2015, September 8). Soylent: What Happened When I Went 30 Days Without Food. Retrieved December 09, 2016, from http://thehustle.co/soylent-what-happened-when-i-went-30-days-without-food

Ketchiff, M. (2016, March 14). I Tried a Soylent-Only Liquid Diet. Retrieved December 09, 2016, from http://www.shape.com/healthy-eating/healthy-drinks/i-tried-soylent-only-liquid-diet

#discussion #soylent #portfolio