I listen to the radio coming back to campus late at night and there's this talk show that's always on that I listen to and it actually gives some interesting information as well as starting some discussions that spark some interesting debates about different duties.. So here are some interesting pieces of information that I learned/discussion points that might even help review the different philosophies we've learned.
1) Diamonds - this was brought up because around the Christmas season lots of diamonds are being purchased and there is growing concern about not purchasing conflict diamonds. There was a researcher on the show who gave some alternatives to buying conflict diamonds such as purchasing vintage diamonds (she said those mined from the early 1800s to 1930s are definitely clean), or opting to buy a different stone such as sapphires (which are popular forms of engagement rings in Europe and cited Princess Diana as having one). But she said if someone is set on buying a diamond there are ways to purchase non conflict diamonds such as buying those mined in Canada. You can also ask the stores up front their policy on conflict diamonds - although she did not say this I believe that if enough people were to refuse buying conflict diamonds and told stores that, eventually these huge stores would realize people care and would make changes. I just thought this was interesting because Professor Harwood has brought this up in class a few times.
2) Duty to country or family? - One of the stories brought up on the show was about a woman who had an infant child, but was also a cook for the army and was recently said she was going to be deployed for Iraq. Because she was single and her mother could not take care of her child as she was in a nursing home, she was told she would have to put her child in foster care, which she did not want to do. Thus, she went missing for a period of 10 days and missed her deployment and is now in jail. People were then asked their thoughts on this and many people said it was unfair, that the woman has a duty to her child first since there was no one else to take care of him. Others couldn't believe that there weren't any other options from the army other than foster care and some said she shouldn't have gone AWOL because now she's committed a crime. What would any of the philosophers say about this situation? Granted, she probably could have handled the situation differently than running away, such as asking for a leave of absence for an extreme situation, but the fundamental point of this is does one have a duty to one's country or family first?
3) Duty to spouse or child? - This last story was about a man who got a call from his wife saying she and her son had wrecked their car and gone of the road into a river and by the time the husband arrived at the scene the car was so far under water that he could only save one person and had to make the decision between his wife and his son. When I first heard this last story I thought oh that's kind of dumb but then started to think about it more in relation to duties as people began calling in their answers. People did really seem to have strong feelings about one or the other such as - you and your spouse made vows to each other and now have a duty to each other. Others though said those vows could be broken by the spouse, but your child will always be your child no matter what. If you think about it yes, you would be doing good by saving one person, but at the same time you're willing the death of the other. I know that's an extreme situation, but I'm sure each person has their own strong opinion for it and each philosopher would as well.
Anyways I just thought those would be some interesting things to think about as we think back over all the philosophies we've read this semester.. I didn't really have any specific questions about them, but feel free to put anything you found interesting or relate one of the examples to a philosopher we've read!
For the woman who was a single mother, I think she did what any mother would have done. She put her moral duty to her child above her secular duty to her country. Obviously this relates to MLK and Thoreau, in that she feels as though this law is unjust, and therefore isnt following it. While I dont think the law must be moral, I also dont think you have a moral duty to follow the law as a result.
ReplyDeleteWe ( the world) punished people like Eichmann for following mans' laws instead of doing what he should have known was right, following ones natural law. So when you think about it, its really hypocritical to punish a woman and send her to jail for following her natural duty when she knew the law was wrong. As long as she did everything she could and was still told she had to put her child in foster care and had to be deployed, i think she made a smart decision. wooo civil disobedience!
I would be hate to be place in the situation that the man who had to choose between his wife and child. I feel like he would feel guilty regardless of who he chose. I mean I am just going to assume he loved his wife and this wasn't his way out of an unhappy marriage. But how do we know which is right? I think it goes along what Sartre would say and that it is the individual's duty to make the decision (similar to his example involving the soldier). Given this is a bit different because he would have very little time to decide which is right since they were sinking.
ReplyDeleteTo Mary's comment. I don't think we necessarily want to say that we should always follow natural laws and completely disregard positive laws. (Muslim Extremists follow natural laws).
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind the right we are talking about. The right for a women to be able to take care of her child for the duration of a tour of duty. Is this a human right? Maybe, I think that's debatable. Further is it a right that she gave up when she swore to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? I think it is. Military members give up a lot of rights and freedoms to serve the country. In the military you hang for going against lawful orders. Its in the USMJ, look it up. Even if it is a human right, its one she gave up for the service of the country.
*UCMJ
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elise that this would be a very hard choice to make - wife or child - although I feel like the most logical choice would be to choose the child, since it has more potential for life than the older woman. What's more, I feel as if the father would have more duty towards his son, since he had more of a part of the creation of the child, whereas with the wife he had not responsibility for her creation. Since he helped bring the child into the world, it is almost as if he has that much more responsibility for it. Also, since the being is a child, the father still has stewardship over the child, and again, has that much more responsibility towards it.
ReplyDeleteBefore you condemn me as a monster, I want you to think about the following question: Why do we always side with the young over the old? E.g., every time there is a natural or intentional disaster, news reports make sure to tell us how many kids died. "50 people died in bombing attacks today, including 8 children." And the reasoning is always the same: "She had her whole life ahead of her! She could have been a doctor/lawyer/(Episcopalian)priest/humanitarian/curer of cancer/etc., but her life was cut short..." Think about it for just a moment. Hitler was a child once too. Ergo, basic logic tells us that this child could just as easily have been the next Hitler as the next Gandhi. Or the child could have been just another "endless addition of zeroes," to quote Louis Mackey's assessment (or condemnation) of the vast majority of human beings who die without ever really living. There is no reason to believe that any of these scenarios is the case, but--again, basic logic tells us--there is no reason to believe otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThus, the question is more complicated than it might seem regarding duties to individuals based on roles (e.g., father, husband, etc.). What about duties based on humanity as such (e.g., I know my wife is a brilliant significant parrhesiastes/I know my wife is a willfully ignorant insignificant statistic/I know my wife is a terrible person/etc.)? Put another way, statistics demands that we assume that the child will be another worthless (consider this term literally, please) addition to Thoreau's adage: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." Don't I have just as much--and, if we are to be honest rather than sentimental, more--justification to consider what I KNOW regarding my wife rather than basing any decision on that which I DON'T know regarding the child's potential?
-W.