Group items tagged

This article informed me about the genocide in Rwanda. I have done investigations of the genocide in Darfur and Sudan because George clooney and his father were jailed for protesting and I wanted to know why the media brought more attention to an actor and not a country that is killing itself. Genocide is mass murder and it is unfortunate that if there are no incentives for America or other countries to help then they turn a cheek. Notice how USA invades countries where oil is plentiful. This to me explains USA avoidance to act on humanitarian issues like this.

I feel that we should have done something to help what was hapening overseas, but at the same time where does our role as the "international police" end? It is sadly coming to the point where if there is an international issue and the US is not involved then it looks like we are not doing our job of protecting. Yes we should have helped the genecide, but the issue was not with our country so why are we being criticized? I am not saying that we should not of helped, only that is it not fair to question the character of the US

The article describes the mass killing of approximately 800,000 people in Rwanda, East Africa, in 1994. Two ethnic groups were in competition with each other: the Hutu people and the Tutsi people. The Hutus massacred the Tutsi population brutally, trying to eliminate it completely. The rest of the world did nothing to help. We learn something very terrible: that the US was a bystander too genocide. It was sad to read how President Clinton did not even want to help out or respect the situation. Actually, it was ignored. He did not have any interest in stopping the genocide and he stood by as many deaths were occurring. Genocide is a serious crime-the worst possible. One population was trying to eliminate another by terribly violent means. People are asking themselves how it is possible for a country like the United States not to know about it. I, myself, wonder how the President of the United States cannot know the details. Why did he show no interest at all? I think the reason is that he and the United States simply did not want to get involved. That is why he issued the "Clinton apology," which was actually a carefully hedged acknowledgement" Another issue I found interesting was the fact that the policymakers declared the deaths as "casualties" and war deaths. Were they ashamed into admitting that it's partially the US fault that ignored this problem that affects everyone? Was this a way to create a kind of distance between the terrible violence and the typical political situation in another part of the world? At the end of the article the writers says that policymakers don't want to talk about suffering because it affects them and it shows one's "rational" arguments are weak. To me, this means that very often countries and political leaders do not want to risk anything by taking a stand or making a strong decision. It is easier not to do anything -- and apologize for it later! It makes me think that we need strong, intelligent

Personally, I had a hard time understanding the article because it did not really spark my interest but with that being said certain parts actually opened my eyes. The part where the author discuss how we choose with our emotion first then decide second with reason came as a complete shock to me. As many of the other people in the studies I too agreed that it was ok to kill one person to save four or five. I did not think about it at the time because I was not using my reasoning skills. Of course the first thought that I had in my mind was to yell at the workers to get them off the tracks. But if you did not do that and you choose either path they offered, how could you live with yourself knowing that you killed one person or multiple people with one movement?

I find it interesting how scientific understanding of how the human mind computes and solves problems continues to evolve. To me, asking to push the man to his death to save the five other people is an indisputable no. I feel it should be that man's decision to sacrifice himself for others. However; I am not in complete understanding where this decision of mine came from. Is it reasoning? Or is it morality? Or morality then reasoning?

This situation comes down to the individual in the heat of the moment. Depending on a person's emotions, they will either choose the logical solution or the solution that will make them feel emotionally correct. In most cases, people tend to think with the emotional side rather than logic and reason.

I discussed this ethical scenario in depth last semester in my American Political Thought Class. The idea is: Is it ethical to harm one person in the act of saving another? We as humans tend to think these scenarios over all the time. Even at parties, we often entertain ourselves with silly "Would you rather?" questions. The thought is: What makes us reach such conclusions? To me, it seems people reach such conclusions based on the experiences they have had throughout their lives. I agree with the poster above me in the sense that we are not "hardwired" with a sense of moral knowledge. I feel we derive our own morality in decision making based on our own upbringing and lived experiences. For example, I grew up with parents whom were both police officers. From birth, I had my sense of morality influenced by their want to see me follow the law and be respectful to authority. Although I am now an adult, I still feel their parenting has installed a set of values that determines what I view morally right and wrong. I hate people who text and drive, and where do I get such a judgement? From my parents. Now, if I had parents whom texted while driving I most likely would have a different view on the subject. In conclusion, our own so-called moral compass comes from the own circumstance in which we are brought into the world. A boy growing up in Bel Air with rich parents will obviously have a different sense of morality regarding assisting the poor than someone born to more frugal parents. Although the concept of men being born equal can still be held as true, it is the culture that we are brought into that ultimately determines our fate.

It says in this article that conservatism is a partially heritable personal trait, but I was told in highs school that people learn their political preferences mostly through what they were taught by their families (political socialization). This idea goes very well with the nature/nurture debate. I used to wonder about what made something sacred; was holy water holy just because someone blessed it? Mr Haidt's idea that "Sacredness is really about society and its collective concerns" makes a lot more sense. By the way, holy cheese comes from holy cows. Holy cows come from India!

It is fascinating to try to understand why people vote one way and other people vote another way. Republicans seem to offer simple solutions of "moral clarity" which are easy to understand and like. It is easy to like their positions-who wouldn't! The article talks about morality and the author discusses his research. He gives some very dramatic examples of situations (people eating their dog, using the American flag to clean their toilet) to provoke us into thinking about how we feel. These are all really good questions-and they do not have easy answers. He mentions that when people have "gut feelings" they do not use their heads to think about things clearly. This is true and I am like this, too! Morality also depends on culture. In some cultures it might be acceptable to eat dog! He talks about his trip to India and how he gradually came to like people who were very different from him. This is how he lost his "righteous passion" and how he, in my opinion, became more human. This is the most important point of the article to me: you can respect someone else's opinion even if you do not agree. The author calls the Republican party a "sacred" one and the Democratic a "profane" one. I think this is a good way of putting it because Republicans talk about big issues like God and religion and the Democrats talk about society and its problems. I also reflected on the national motto of the American flag: "e pluribus unum (from many, one) and think that both parties should promote this.

Freedom of speech and the freedom to practice your beliefs is what seperates the USA from France. However you cannot impose religion it is the bases of why church and state must remain seperate. If the church slips into the state that is over riding our constitutional rights.

This article is very true; society does not emphasize being creative nearly as much as they emphasize doing things the "right" way. It is sad that it is so because it defeats the spirit of innovation. In careers, people who can make the quality of life better and more efficient in ways that others have never thought of are the ones who become successful and are remembered, not those who do what has already been done.

In the prescribed article, the author Akim Reinhardt was asked the simple question of are newer students getting better or worse. Akim Reinhardt accepted that the new students are both. I agree with the professor in some aspects because in many ways the students of the newer generations are good with some skills and bad with others. For example, the newer generations are always getting better with the new technology always coming out then the older generations. We are better at this because we grew up around technology when computers and the internet were a new and interesting thing. Because of all the advances in technology we are able to always adapt to the different types of technology. On the other hand I would say we are worse if we have to give up our technology and open up an encyclopedia to do our work. The internet has always been a source of information for us were you could find anything about a certain topic. But if we were told to just use outside information, I believe that we would struggle finding the information as the older generations would not. We grew up in a society where everything was just given to us and we were told what to do. We are so dependent on people telling us what to do that we forgotten how to basically think for ourselves and do the work that we want to do.

I agree with this article by Reinhardt, in society today too many people are worried about doing things the right way or the accepted way, and no longer are using their creative talents. When Reinhardt says, "When confronted with a round peg and a square hole, they are less likely to try and jam the peg in, or to blame it, judge it, and then cast it out." I agree completely with his description of students today. If i am confronted with a problem like this, I would look for another way to find a solution to my problem.