1 (pragmatic vs. morality)

An example of a pragmatic law would be the Brush Clearing law that says that a township can make the execute decision about brush clearing without a referendum, meaning a vote or decision made by the government, not by the people. In this law it says they will finance the collection, transportation, and disposal of leaves in that certain area whether the people approve or not. The people in that area are the ones basically paying for this maneuver because of taxes, so to make a decision without their input is slightly irrational. In other words, this is pragmatic and not quite moral because the authority is not doing what is favorable for the majority and is rather doing it because it makes logistical sense. On the other hand, an example of a law integrating morality and appears as the opposite of pragmatic is the Copyright Restrictions law. This law explains that is is forbidden to take/"borrow" sound recordings after a certain date. If that law is broken it is considered copyright or plagiarism, which is prohibited. This is a considerate and valuable law because it includes the interest of individuals, and the mass. This is not particularly a pragmatic law because they do not need this law copyright law to keep things organized per-say; they could do without it. But it is moral to respect the work of others and provide consequence if that protection is broken. Some might argue we need strictly pragmatic laws and others might argue we need solely moral laws. I think that we need a combination of both types of laws in order to keep society both civil, and humane- both sides are essential. We need laws that the governing body decides and that keep things in order, yet we also need laws that are the opposite. That aren't there only because the government decides, but are rather existent because we the people have elected them and chosen them to be moral and just.

3

Accountability was an essential and adequate shift that happened in an appropriate time in history. I say it was an appropriate time because without accountability, we would have never known how life was like without citizen input. In other words, by not having it, we learned even more to appreciate it and learned how society was different without it. Prior to the Roman Republic, laws were made simply to create and maintain order in society. They were made with little if any democracy or interest of the people. They were more of efficient laws rather than good and effective laws. However, when the rise of the Roman Republic occurred, accountability came into action and laws were made with more interest in the general public than ever before, and not made with no purpose. If the government was willing to give the right for people to influence the government, than they clearly cared about integrating and acknowledging those opinions and ideas. Accountability means respecting people while creating laws, and I think that is a very important shift that occurred a long time ago, but the issue is still addressed today, and will still be apparent in the future. Without the citizens being accounted for, we would not have many of the human or civil rights we have today. People's voice while creating laws is vital because laws are followed best when the majority of the people agree and are willing to accept them. Without accountability, society would most likely be more chaotic and negative a lot of the time. People would complain and I feel like accountability was one of the first steps towards democracy. Without accountability, the governing body and their processes would look more like monarchies, or totalitarianism, or anything far from democracy. The Roman Republic, "created a sense of accountability for all," which was why they were so significant.

2

Fairness Vs. Justice

By definition, fairness means a state or condition free from bias and injustice. Fairness is the opposite of injustice. And by definition justice means righteousness and morality. Where do the two intersect, and where do they not overlap? I believe fairness and justice are almost interchangeable, however they do have slightly different meanings. What is the difference between something that is fair and something that is just?

Example 1, Socrates: I think that it was fair for Socrates to escape jail, and it was also just. It was fair because he did not deserve to be in jail in the first place, and he was not truly guilty of the accused crimes. It both fair and just of him to disregard the wrong opinions of others, because if something is simply incorrect, than it is fair and acceptable to ignore. It was fair for him to escape because if he escaped and was let back out into society, he would benefit the mass, the majority. He would educate people and be placed back where it was fair for him to be.

Example 2, Taxes: (I know/recognize you used this example in class, but I am going to elaborate) Lets say Justin makes 1 million dollars a year and I make 100 dollars a year, it would be sort of fair to give us the same taxes, but certainly not just. Law plays a role in fairness and justice, and so do moral principles and consequences. It would be fair because the person who makes 1 million dollars obviously deserves that much money, is working for that money, and has basically earned the opportunity and privilege to have that money. Whereas the person making 100 dollars is not as lucky and does not have as good of an occupation. It is not very just to place them with the same taxes because while the poor person is getting poorer, the rich person is not negatively affected. The poor person needs to work basically day by day and is living on the thread, while the rich person takes money out of his pocket to pay the taxes and is not harmed. It would be more just for the struggling person to pay less taxes and the rich person to pay more taxes.

Example 3, Westboro Baptist Church: I personally do not think it is fair or just for this protesting group to be able to protest. It might be legal, (even though I strongly don't think it should be) but it is not fair or just. If they are loudly, obnoxiously, and ignorantly, and everything negatively protesting at a funeral, it is not fair or just. It is not fair to the emotional and serious people at the funeral, and it is not morally or righteously acceptable. Even though we have the right to free speech, and even though it is an opinion, it is so clear that what they are protesting, enforcing, and doing is rude and unnecessary so the government should enforce certain rules regarding protesting and where it can be done, and consider more of what is fair rather than simply what is the pure law.

1

           In the Mosaic Code, there is a law that states if a man hurts a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, he must serve a consequence decided by the court. If the woman dies because of the mans’ actions, the man is put to death. An example of one of Hammurabi’s code is if a man goes into a fire in attempt to stop it, but steals something, that man is killed in the fire. Both the Mosaic Code and Hammurabi’s code contain the idea that if you do not follow the rules, you are either dead or receive a penalty from the governing system. In the Ten Commandments (part of the Mosaic Code) it says “Thou shalt not steal,” and in Hammurabi’s code it says “If a man has robbed and been captured, the man shall be put to death.” In both these codes they enforce the idea of no stealing, as well as no cheating, and no murdering, etc. Although Hammurabi's code is more based off of social values and the Mosaic Code derived more from religion, they still have several similarities. They both have morals implemented in the laws; aside from the consequences of breaking the law if you steal, there are morals in the laws that came from religion, cultural diffusion, and social values. Additionally, I think it is important to take a tradition and make it into a written code, or “codify” something because once something is officially written down, it allows for that thing to spread more easily and affect people throughout history- to be passed on. A tradition turned into a written law is what created religions and creates routines that develop overtime, but are based off of traditions.  Codifying traditions also turn simple routines into more of expectations that people learn to follow and reflect on. Now people look at laws and that can almost guide them through life and people can refer to them both negatively and positively. They can look at the good laws and make the world better and practice those laws, and they can look at the bad laws and figure out how to make things better. Codifying laws is essential because it culminates a governing and safety aspect along with a reasonable and valuable sense, therefore people want to follow it.  

3!!!

I just realized that I spelled Hammurabi wrong on my other blogs, sorry!!!

A lot of Hammurabi's code is similar to today, and a lot is different. Some aspects and rules that are similar consist of no stealing, no murdering, and you must have reasoning/an explanation for your actions. Some rules that are different in this code of laws is that several of them involve slavery, and lots of them contain the idea that if you do something wrong, you are immediately put to death. Today we have more of a governmental/trial/investigation process, but as written in these codes, they were less tolerant and more vulnerable to quick deaths. Another aspect that is different than what we have today besides the mentioning of hierarchy and kings, is the missing presence of social values. In other words, Hammurabi's code is extremely detailed and specific, and serves more like commands than laws like we have today. For example, if a fire broke out and someone tried to put out the fire but happened to steal something, they were pushed into the fire. In this 25th code, it is very specific and has no social value or religious moral clear in it. However there are some that have to do with religion such as the 8th code, that says if a man steals an animal from the temple, he must pay his respects back and if that is not possible, he is put to death. Who argues against these code of laws? I think that these laws can be argued from a religious standpoint, a governmental standpoint, and a communal standpoint. Hammurabi's code can both compare and contrast with than the rules we live under today.

Human Rights (2)

To be honest I am not really sure if human rights exist, but I am leaning towards the idea that they do exist, but where they came from and whether they are executed, varies. I think that some human rights originated from groups of people/communities, and others originated from the government. Like Jeremy Bentham of the 1800’s said, human rights do not exist just because people want them. Throughout history people have gathered and created values, morals, and ideas. Those combinations of thoughts then formed/helped shape some laws we have today. Why? Because their ideas were strong and they spread, and people argeed with them and used them to a further extent passed just some idea. Other human rights initiated by communities were those in religious communities, and those human rights came basically from G-d, which were then passed on to people/spread through diffusion and turned into human rights. As stated in the declaration of human rights, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Where did this right come from? It could have come from a group of people who once lived and decided that killing each other or hurting each other was not right. But those values probably came from one of G-d’s religions which were then passed down to the government. This leads into the idea that some human rights came from the government. I think there is a difference between human rights and civil rights, but I think both of them come from the government to some extent because what the government enforces usually influences people and can alter their opinions. I believe an example of a human right would be the right to be free. In another sense we are not born with human rights because depending on the time period and depending on where you live, we do not all have human rights. We are born into a family and born into a society but whether or not we execute our human rights depends on our surroundings. Less than 100 years ago we were not all free because blacks and whites were not equal, and even today people still murder each other daily and that is not an example of living freely or peacefully. I think the whole issue of human rights and where they came form is one that can be debated with both facts and opinions, and I am learning to develop more knowledge about the difference between human rights and civil rights, and also where they were originated from.

Hammarabi's Code (1)

I think Hammarabi's Code is so important because it enforces the idea of equality. It implements the idea of having equal laws, regardless of class. These code of laws would also make everyone equal because they were laws from G-d, therefore they were above everyone else making those below G-d all on the same wavelength. In Hammurabi's code, there were three separate sets of laws for the three classes, and each set was manipulated and created in a way that fit the class. Today we are equal, I think, because we all have the same laws placed on us by the government. Whether we execute or abide by those laws, and no matter what social class and economic class we belong to, we still have the same laws. A homeless person and I are equal because we live by the same rules, even if we were raised with different opportunities, which has little to do with the government's laws. That is society now, however society just 100 years ago and even more recent than that, was not equal. Blacks and whites were not equal because they did not have the same laws and the government did not "place people on an even plain" like Hammarabi's code was doing. One social value that the Ancient Babylonians under Hammarabis code possessed was that of an efficient government with comprehendible and fair rules. In this reading was explained that the reason for establishing laws was to avoid disputes and basically protests against individuals or against rules. Moreover, that having a set of laws that were not fluid but rather stable would prevent disputes and prevent people trying to change them, and make sure that everyone understands the unshift-able laws. I would disagree with that though because even if we have laws decided by a strong government, not everyone will agree with them and people will still protest against those laws and want to see change in the rules they are forced to follow. Just by having those laws set and stone, does not mean people won't dispute, it could even cause more dispute even if it was a democracy. Various laws and numerous definitions of what is "just" have changed with changing societies and communities, and will hopefully continue to change in order to fit the time period.

Law vs. Justice (3)

I think that law outweighs the justice in this movie, which even though was sad and we would like to think was not true, made the movie more powerful and conveyed a stronger message. The last scene stood out to me because it was a clear example of following laws, and not processing or realizing what is just. There was a large group of Africans protesting that they should not have to learn Afrikaans, which is like us Americans protesting that we should not be obligated to take Spanish (or a certain language) in school. They were fighting for nothing against the government, nothing inappropriate, nothing offensive or racist. It made me so frustrated that the white police had to pull out their guns and just start firing. How was the protest in any way affecting them? The land they were in? It did not disturb their days or negatively affect their jobs or their lives in any way, shape, or form. They could have moved about their days smoothly without killing hundreds of innocent kids and adults. The fact that the police were white, and the group of Africans were black, made the situation even worse. This was an example of authority figures just blindly and obediently listening to the law just because it is the law. Who made that law where protesting in that way is illegal? Were those people bias or racist? Was it a diverse and and tolerant group of people, or just a few people's close minded opinions? Did they consider every factor before making the law and realize how seriously people would take it? I know that the government is a specific, intellectual, and carefully chosen group, but I feel like that diversity should expand even more. Every law goes through many people and levels before it is seen or passed, but not necessarily did that happen during the time of the Apartheid, which is unfair. It is unfair for that rule not to exist because the lack of that rule led to hundreds and hundreds of deaths and injuries, which you cannot do back and change. Did those people ever feel bad? Where were their hearts? Similarly, during the Holocaust followers of Hitler were listening to him because they were afraid something would happen to them and/or because they had to follow his rules. The fact that law overrode justice led to MILLIONS of deaths in this case, which definitely changed the world. Times when justice is not a part of the picture and laws are ignorantly followed, are the times where history has changed. But times when people go against the first instinct of the laws and promote justice and peace, are also when things change. We need to keeping pushing for justice because none of what happened in "Cry Freedom" in the last scene was just or right in any way.

Steve Biko (2)

When I asked my dad about Steve Biko the first thing he said was "Gosh, I remember hearing about him on the news almost every night." He remembered vague things and overall remembered what kind of person Biko was and how he affected the world, but not necessarily specific details. My dad recalled that Biko was a young African American leader of the Apartheid movement, and he was part of an uprising, and was a true leader. Something that also stood out to my dad was the Peter Gabriel song, Biko, which really spoke and resonated with him. "When I try to sleep at night, I can only dream in red, the outside world is black and white, with only one colour dead, Oh Biko, Yihla Moja." These are Gabriel's lyrics and Yihla Moja is Afrikaans meaning, "the man is dead." The line that stood out to me most was "You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire." Meaning you can kill one African, one black man (Biko) but the rest of the community will still be there, and will never die. "They are like a strong storm" my dad stated, and they are a force that cannot ever be killed. Their spirits are stronger than fire, and when one black man died (or white man), it is a communal mourning and affects everyone. Especially in this time of the Apartheid when everyone was even more unified than ever because they were protested and fighting side by side. In the Apartheid prevalently, you can blow out a candle and not a fire because Biko was one important and inspiring man, and if anything happened to him there was that "storm" to support him and remember him. I found it interesting that even though my dad did not particularly remember specific details about Biko, he remember the overall message Biko was trying to convey and how he was a role model during the Apartheid movement.

P.S. I asked my mom if she knew who Steve Biko was and she said "No not really besides the Biko song by Peter Gabriele and the fact that he stood up for black people in the 80's"... uh oh!

Apartheid (1)

After one day of watching video:

So from my understanding and without much education on this subject, the Apartheid laws were a set of laws that black africans and white africans could not live together. It was a system of racial segregation by the National Party in africa, but it was more than segregation and a controversy, it was a legal set of laws that were in affect from nearly 1950-1994. The Apartheid was a time of political, economical, and racial discrimination in South Africa. South Africa is a place divided into 9 provinces, and it is a diverse place containing people of all ethnicities and origins. South Africa is a country where over 10 languages are spoken and 80 % of the population is black. South Africa is at the very tip of Africa, and an important man by the name of Nelson Mandela basically represents South Africa today.

Furthermore, the movie we are watching reflects the Apartheid in South Africa and how that actually looked in society. It was interesting, rather disturbing how the main african black man could only be in a room with one person at a time. One scene stood out to me where he was at the doctor and his wife came and said that she needed money form the cash box so the doctor stepped out of the room and his wife stepped in. This happened to him because he was banned from speaking out about the Apartheid, but people like him are the ones who make a difference. He knew the entire government, and additional people were completely against him, however that did not stop him from speaking out. He put his needs behind those of his people by serving as a voice of those who felt like he did but were not as strong or brave. At the football/soccer game he spoke up and demanded change in front of hundreds of people. It was inspiring and intriguing to see how the Apartheid laws digested in people differently. Some people took it as a way to gain power or just hate even more, and some realized how inhumane it was, and knew it could not last. The main guy in this movie so far reminds me of MLK Jr. who spoke up as a minority for his people, and would not let things get to him. The whole idea of someone stepping out (the doctor) and then someone stepping in (his wife) was like a metaphor for the story of that mans life during the Apartheid in South Africa. When he did something good for the benefit of his people, he always had the drag and degrading feeling that the government was against him and he was banned. In other words whenever something good happened or someone stepped near him, he could unfortunately rely that something negative would come along as well, and someone would step away- nothing was ever completely balanced or perfect. These hateful and victimizing laws were so disturbing, and the movie does a realistic but touching way of showing them.