Myanmar Update May 22, 2008

Please visit the new Aware of Your World page for additional information.

May 22, 2008

     UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon met with Myanmar officals today to try to convince the government to allow more aide into the country (AP).  I’m frustrated with the government’s lack of initiative to protect its country’s people, but I won’t give up my fundraising efforts.  Some relief organizations are filtering their money and supplies to Myanmar’s neighboring countries which are being granted access into the devastated areas with help.  However, only an estimated 25% of victims have been reached.  With over 2 million people affected, that’s a big statistic! 

I’m hoping these t-shirts sell well.  They look really awesome, but the cause is more important than just making cool shirts. 

What Makes a Morally Good Life? May 21, 2008

What makes a morally good life?  This is the mother of all questions.  Previous ethical issues such as what is right and what makes right acts right seem like an infant’s teething toy compared to this epitome of all moral dilemmas:  How should I live my life?  The study of ethics and morality mean nothing, if we don’t implement these values into daily life.  What is the ultimate goal of learning right and wrong, if not to utilize such important insights?  But like all of life’s great questions, it’s hard to determine the best answer.  If right versus wrong seemed like a moral quandary, there are infinitely more ideas from centuries of philosophers telling humanity what makes a morally good life.  Through examining the reigning theories of the “good life,” perhaps we can find a stable answer to this ultimate question and build a firmer foundation for an ethical existence.  The article “No Laughing Matter” by Pilita Clark presents some useful examples that can help to analyze moral theories.    

Often considered the wisest of antiquity philosophers, Plato and Aristotle shared similar ideas on how to live a good life.  “Virtue ethics,” or the theory that one should get himself in order so as to be on the right path, is the overarching theme both philosophers preach.  Plato believed that justice (the essence of morality) is simply to be at peace with oneself.  By unifying the parts within that drive our choices– reason, passion, and appetite – we can maintain integrity or wholeness of being.  Reason must be governed by wisdom, passion dictated by courage, and appetite controlled by moderation.  A morally good life is one in which, each facet does its job and only its own job with wisdom in command. 

Aristotle held close views to Plato, also believing that reason is a key factor to an ethical life.  However, Aristotle’s concept is somewhat more complicated than his predecessor’s.  He thought that for something to be good, it must excel at its purpose.  As Dr. Myers’ stated, basically a good X is an X that excels at X-ness.  So how do we excel at being good humans?  Aristotle factored out the characteristics that plants and animals possess, until he was left with just one solely human quality…rationality.    Just as Plato saw reason as king over appetites and motivation, Aristotle saw rationality as superior to the plant-like wants of nutrition and reproduction (appetites) as well as the animalistic desires of movement and sensation (motivation).  Because we are rational animals, we must use rationality to lead a good life. 

The next step in Aristotle’s logic is that the way to excel at rationality is to be virtuous.  According to him, we are both born with and develop two kinds of virtues, intellectual and moral.  Intellectual virtues are theoretical in nature and can be learned by practice or from teaching.  Practical, moral virtues, in contrast, must be experienced.  By habitually practicing virtues, one can become a good person.  That may seem daunting, because how do we know what is the virtuous act?  Aristotle notes in the Golden Mean Theory that it is usually the mean between polar vices that is right.  For example, truthfulness is a virtue, but too little truthfulness would be false modesty and too much is boasting.  But no, Aristotle does not suggest that a medium amount of adultery is ethical.  Certain vices are always vices.  The bottom line is, we must delight in doing the virtuous thing, and it is what we do that determines our character. 

Many of Aristotle’s ideas are mirrored in the article “No Laughing Matter.”  In the book Stumbling on Happiness, Daniel Gilbert agrees with the good of rationality stating, “Humans will always be distinguished by their brains’ ability to imagine.”  However, author Nicolas White of A Brief History of Happiness would wholly disagree with Plato and Aristotle’s view of a moral living.  These philosophers, White counters, had a happy life too “rigidly planned.”  Taking the perception of theorist Virginia Held (who will be mentioned later), White understands that, “Real life, of course, can be far more complex.”  While I personally think Plato and Aristotle had some great points with virtue ethics, they aren’t so relevant in today’s society.  Wisdom and rationality are very important components of life, but I’m sure the ancient philosophers may have revised their theories a bit, had they seen the last couple thousand years.  Rationality, alone, is not the final answer.      

Virginia Held, on the other hand, would agree with White that life is too complex for such a rigid theory.  A contemporary thinker, Held helped bring “feminist ethics” to the forefront of philosophy.  Feminist ethics, also known as “care ethics,” challenges centuries of the traditional patriarchal perspective of morality.  Although some people believe in “equality phase,” that women should be treated equal to men, Held sees this as condescending.  At first I didn’t understand how equality could be condescending, but Held further explains; Philosophy is written from the male point of view, and just because men now allow women in on their philosophies, this still assumes that the male perspective is correct way.  Held offers the “difference phase,” that men and women are different, and so their values differ.  She understands that there are many ways to be human and to live a moral life, not merely one path.

To me, Virginia Held makes the most sense of any of the philosophers I’ve studied.  With care ethics, she fills in the gaps and holes which haunted previous theories, making them impractical.  In three well defined sections, Held presents the conflicting stances.  First is reason versus emotion.  Aristotle and Plato obviously put reason on a pedestal, but they dismiss emotion as lowly animal instinct.  Held argues that emotion is a valuable and honorable part of living a happy and ethical life.  Next, feminist ethics notes that traditional theories overemphasize the public side of life, and shun the private home life.  A good life, care ethics replies, is not just excelling at the job, but also having a fulfilling family and private life.  Finally, patriarchal philosophies present people as rational, self interested individuals, yet they ignore that self identity is proportional to our relationships with other people.  As illustrated in the article, “detachment or emotional indifference are harder to accept today.”  The ethics of care takes into account multidimensional complexities of humans.

    The next theorists, Epicurus and Epictetus, represent opposite sides of the same coin.  Epictetus believed in invulnerable morality, morality which is not based on a matter of luck.  As a Stoic, he thought man should focus his passion only on what he could control to have a good life.  The only thing in one’s control is personal thoughts.  Gilbert, however, might disagree, because people now have to decide “where to live, what to do, and whom to marry.”  These were decisions Epictetus would have little control over, which are major decisions for a good life today, “…for the first time, happiness is in our hands.” 

In contrast, Epicurus and Gilbert go hand in hand, because what Gilbert refers to is a matter of luck.  Epicurus represents moral luck, the theory that much of our happiness is based on circumstances, environment, and the teachers that shape our decisions.  Yet within whatever situation we find ourselves, we must use reason to tamp down appetites and pursue pleasure in a rational way.  The grand finale of Epicurus’ philosophy is the thought that everything that exists is just particles randomly globing together. 

Overall, I find Epicurus’ theories a jumbled mess.  I can agree that much of life is due to circumstance, so moral luck isn’t too abstract to grasp, but it doesn’t link very well with the rest of his opinions.  Epictetus’ ideas are also interesting, but they also lack relevance that I think a moral philosophy needs to survive.  Plato and Aristotle had something with the thought of being at peace with oneself, but they left too much of life out of their rigid plan for a good life.  So, what makes a morally good life?  I believe Virginia Held ultimately gave the best answer.  The key to a good life is balance, care for others, and recognizing the many shapes life takes.           

“Pass/Fail” Anxiety April 28, 2008

“Pass/Fail”

by Linda Pastan

You will never graduate
from this dream
of blue books.
No matter how
you succeed awake,
asleep there is a test
waiting to be failed.
The dream beckons
with two dull pencils,
but you haven’t even
taken the course;
when you reach for a book -
it closes a door
in your face; when
you conjugate a verb -
it is in the wrong
language.
Now the pillow becomes
a blank page.  Turn it
to the cool side;
you will still smother
in all of the feathers
that have to be learned
by heart.

 

Poet Linda Pastan shows that one doesn’t have to have the eccentricities of William Faulkner nor the tragedies of Robert Frost to be an exceptional writer.  She turned what may have been an ordinary, mundane existence into beautiful poems that stir the deeper meanings of life.   In the poem “Pass/Fail,” Pastan touches on sentiment every student has encountered: exam angst.  It’s a dread that wakes us up, screaming in the middle of the night.  At least for the next two weeks, “Pass/Fail” is the most relevant poem I have ever read.      

To understand the issues behind her poetry, it’s important to get a sense of Linda Pastan’s history.  In 1932, Linda Pastan was born into a Jewish family in New York City.  As the only daughter of a physician, Pastan’s family could afford to send her to a private school for free-thinking Jews (“Linda”).  The school emphasized the study of ethics, which played a role in her later poetry.  Because she had no siblings, Pastan began writing at an early age as a way of “talking to the characters in those books…books were my main companions.”  At age 12, she started submitting her poems to the New Yorker, though her first poem in the magazine wouldn’t be published for another 30 years (Pastan and Adelman).

                Linda Pastan then continued her writing and education at Radcliff, in a time when women were not expected to enroll in college.  During her senior year, she won first place in the Mademoiselle poetry contest, beating out Sylvia Plath (Wart).  Unlike Sylvia Plath, however, Pastan quit writing to have a family.  She raised three kids with husband, Ira Pastan, while studying English Literature in grad school.  Yet Pastan still believed she couldn’t meet expectations as a wife and mother while seriously writing poetry.  Pastan jokes that she was a “product of the 50’s…I had to have a homemade dessert on the table for my husband every night” (Brown and Pastan).   It’s difficult to imagine in today’s society, a woman disregarding her passion and education to follow expectations.  Our modern era is that of the “supermom,” where a woman must have a successful career, care for her family, and do anything and everything.  The expectations in Linda Pastan’s generation forced her to be a good housewife and stay-at-home mom.  Even though it’s clear from her poetry and interviews that her children and family come first, Pastan admits that she was bitter about not writing for ten years.

                Remarkably, Pastan eventually chose to unleash the passion for poetry which she had tamped down for so long.  She returned to writing poems in her thirties, and has since published eleven volumes of poetry and won numerous awards (Brown).  Not only nominated for the National Book Award, she has also been deemed by The Gettysburg Review “among the finest contemporary poets in America” (Adelman).  By looking at her thought provoking writing, one can see why. 

                With her simple style and vivid imagery, Linda Pastan’s clear voice brings words to life.  The inspiration for her poems is evident, as her daily life is a reoccurring theme to her work.  What sets Pastan apart is her unusual way of prodding the ordinary happenings of life to view the latent emotions underneath the mundane surface.  Short, free verse lines break up the allusions and metaphors to emphasize various emotions of every poem.  She believes that poetry is meant to be enjoyed, stating, “Poetry is not a matter of knowledge but of emotional experience” (Pastan and Adelman). 

                “Pass/Fail” is a perfect example of Linda Pastan’s unique style.  The simple title says it all: “Pass/Fail” explores the common unease related to test taking.  Short and condensed, Pastan’s poem packs an emotional punch in every word.  Each line is a fear that subliminally haunts our thoughts and nightmares.  The very first line “You will never graduate” sums up the ultimate terror.  “Now the pillow becomes / a blank page,” by linking dreams to test anxiety, Pastan creates the perfect combination of familiarity and alarm.  Every word in the poem serves to build the tension, just as a nightmare increases in terror.  “Pass/Fail” lets the reader experience emotions to which everyone can relate.  Linda Pastan’s ability to connect a person to the intense feelings of everyday life is her gift in poetry.  While not everyone can relate to a Robert Frost poem, or “see” the words of Sylvia Plath come to life, Linda Pastan’s poetry springs to life.  Her poetry’s relevance to a vast array of people proves her importance as an outstanding contemporary writer. 

  

 

Works Cited

“Linda Pastan’s Interviews and Profiles.” Preview Port 2 Apr. 2002. Contemporary Authors Online. Literature Resource Center. Gale. 18 Apr. 2008 <http://linccweb.org>.

Brown, Jeffery, and Linda Pastan.  “Conversation: Pastan.” PBS 7 July 2003.  18 Apr. 2008 <http:www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec03/pastan_07-07.html>.

Pastan, Linda, and Ken Adelman. “Word Perfect: For Linda Pastan, Revision is the Purest Form of Love.” Washington 31.8 (May 1996): 22 – 31. Literature Resource Center. Gale. 18 Apr. 2008 <http://linccweb.org>.

Wart, Alice Van.  “Overview of Ethics.” Poetry for Students: 8.  Literature Resource Center. Gale. 18 Apr. 2008 <http://linccweb.org>.

Observations on Preoperational Conservation Tasks April 18, 2008

                Theorist Jean Piaget, though not entirely accurate, revolutionized our perception of how children reason by categorizing key cognitive developments into schemes (stages).  Working largely with his own kids, Piaget observed typical steps young minds make in the growth to more advanced logic and awareness.  Generally, between the ages of 2 and 7, preschoolers make great leaps of logic in representational activity.  Piaget refers to this phase as the “preoperational stage.” The term preoperational means before a child is able to perform some complex mental operations and relies instead on the way things appear.  Piaget then created conservation tasks which test a child’s limitations of preoperational thought.  

                In my Human Growth and Development class on Tuesday (Apr. 15, 2008), with the help of some adorable volunteers, we observed the difference in success, depending on age, of children performing the conservation tasks.  Our group of youngsters consisted of 5 year old triplet boys – Austin, Brandon, and Cody – 6 year old Brianna, and 7 year old Bailey.  From youngest to oldest, the children came up one at a time to do various conservation tasks.  Brandon was the first of the boys to “play” with Dr. B  At almost 6, Brandon was able to count in his head (representational activity) both rows with four blocks each.  When the rows were back to back, he agreed that both had the same number of blocks.  However, when Dr. B spaced out the back row of blocks, Brandon thought the spaced out row of four had more blocks than the row with four side-by-side.  This reflects Piaget’s theory of irreversibility, or a young child’s inability to mentally reverse the steps and return to the starting point (both rows have the same number of blocks).

                Cody, the second of the triplets, also exhibits Piaget’s concept of irreversibility, but in a different way.  An interesting point is that a child may get one task right and fail another, showing that the cognitive process is not a single step.  Also, one triplet may fail a test, while another succeeds, illustrating that age is not the only factor.  Cody was given 5 pennies and one nickel.  After Dr. B explained that 5 pennies equal one nickel, Cody agreed they were the same.  Dr. B then took away 2 pennies, leaving 3 pennies and a nickel.  Cody was then asked, would he rather have all the pennies or one nickel.  Successfully answering the conservation task, Cody said he’d rather have the nickel because, “Three pennies won’t buy anything.” 

                Austin, the last of the triplets, was given two equal balls of playdough.  After understanding that both were the same, Dr. B rolled out one of the balls into four “snakes.”  Austin believed that the four snakes had more playdough than the other ball.  When asked how the snakes got more playdough, Austin didn’t know.  Again, this is an example of irreversibility.  Five year olds just don’t remember that the 4 snakes were an equal ball only a few minutes before. 

                The most telling conservation task was the cup test.  It truly showed the vast reasoning differences between 5 year olds and a 7 year old.  Both girls (ages 6 and 7) and all three boys (age 5) were presented with two identical cups with equal amounts of juice.  Dr. B poured one of the cups into a tall, skinny glass, raising the level of liquid above that of the other cup.  He asked everyone if one cup had more juice.  Both girls understood that the skinny glass had the same amount as the original cup, and were able to explain the logic.  All the boys, however, demanded that the skinny glass had more juice.  When Dr. B poured the contents of the tall glass back into its first cup, the boys were shocked to see it had the same amount of juice.  Through Piaget’s conservation tasks, we can observe the incredible differences a mere couple of years can make on the minds of children.  

Perceptions of Mary Magdalene April 14, 2008

       

                                                         

                                    

         

 

 

The life of Mary Magdalene has remained a mystery for millennia.  Her controversial role in the Bible and in history has captivated the hearts of the masses. Yet recent controversy has shrouded the popular image of the Magdalene.  When the bestselling novel, The da Vinci Code by Dan Brown became a star-studded movie, I became intrigued with the story of this infamous woman.  Though The da Vinci Code is merely a work of fiction, it made me realize how little I knew about the Saint and woman Mary Magdalene.  This woman, who has held a central role in Biblical scenes and centuries of great art, is an ambivalent figure to the world.  She is either characterized as the sinner or the saint.  By analyzing the art of the masters, we can glimpse the opposing perceptions of Mary Magdalene throughout time. 

                Perhaps the easiest way to justify this division in depictions is by looking at the Bible itself.  In the King James Version of the Holy Bible, Mary Magdalene is first mentioned by name in Luke 8:2.  Other than stating that she had been healed of seven demons, no more is said about her past.  So where does the common belief that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute before she was saved by Christ originate?  The passage shortly before that which names Mary describes a sinner who gently washes Jesus’ feet with her own tears:

And, behold, a woman in the city, who was a sinner…stood at his feet behind him, weeping; and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with ointment.

                                                                                                    Luke 7:37-38

Although the woman is not named, this passage led to two assumptions. 1. That the sins committed were prostitution and 2. that Mary Magdalene was the unnamed woman.  Such assumptions created the Magdalene image on one extreme side of the spectrum.  Countless art masterpieces portray a beautiful, sensual, Venus-like woman with flowing hair as the “sinner” Mary Magdalene.  The Venetian painter Titian exemplifies this view of the saved sinner in the Penitent Mary Magdalene (Plate 1).  Completed in 1535, this stunning Renaissance painting conveys a both powerful and serene realism.  Mary’s sexuality is vivid with her uncovered body and long, luxurious hair.   Yet she gazes upward, repenting her sins to the heavens.  The long hair and ointment jar are reminiscent of the unnamed woman who washed Christ’s feet in Luke 7:38.

Much like Titian’s work, Peter Paul Rubens later depicts the same scene of Luke 7 in Christ and Mary Magdalene (Plate 2).  Rubens’ use of warm flesh tones and draping fabrics add to the more subtle sensuality of Mary Magdalene as she stoops to kiss Christ’s feet.  Her lengthy hair and barely clothed body are, again, a reminder of her label as a prostitute.

Many other artists, however, chose to portray Mary Magdalene during her years of repenting in a desert.  This is still under the assumption that the Biblical sinner was also the Magdalene.  Rather than a sensuous beauty, she is thin and haggard.  

Fra Filippo Lippi renders a stark contrast to previously mentioned works in his painting Saint John the Baptist and Saint Mary Magdalene (Plate 3).  Her ever-present long hair is no longer the center of attention.  Mary Magdalene’s scrawny body and discolored skin show the suffering she was said to have endured as penitence for her sinful ways.  Looking down, she draws into herself, no longer holding Venus attributes of beauty.  Though ragged, she is the redeemed Mary Magdalene who became a Saint in the Catholic Church, a symbol of piety and devotion to Christ.

Just as Fra Filippo Lippi depicted an emaciated Mary Magdalene, Donatello also exerts this same view with his statue of St. Mary Magdalene (Plate 4).  This is a powerful wooden figure with a shockingly emotional face.  But as Martha Levine Dunkelman asserts, “her face and upright figure illustrate not only the frequently emphasized pain and suffering, but also a great deal of strength and endurance.  She can be read as a representation of continuing physical and emotional tenacity in the face of adversity” (Dunkelman 1).  The tenacity of the suffering Magdalene would have appealed to many of the Saint’s followers in Christianity throughout centuries.  She is a reminder that faith must remain through hard times.                                     

Unlike other beliefs, some Christian sects, such as the Eastern Orthodox, never combined the two women of the Bible into one sinner (Marrow).  As Jean-Yves Leloup points out in The Gospel of Mary Magdalene:

Mary’s identity as a prostitute stems from Homily 33 of Pope Gregory I, delivered in the year 591, in which he declared that she and the unnamed woman in Luke 7 are, in fact, one and the same, and that the faithful should hold Mary as the penitent whore:

She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark.  And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?…It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts.

                                                                                                                                       Leloup xiv   

In fact, many artists chose not to relate Mary Magdalene to the prostitute or decided to focus on her saintly rather than sexual qualities.  Thus, the other end of the Magdalene spectrum is the iconic Saint.  Mary Magdalene is mentioned again in the Bible as the first witness to the resurrection of Jesus.  After the Crucifixion, Mary is crying when she doesn’t see Christ’s body in the tomb.  Two angels in the tomb where Christ had been ask why she is weeping and she answers that they have taken her Lord away.  When Jesus appears, she mistakes him for a gardener.  She begs him to tell her where Jesus’ body is.  He says, “Mary!” and she recognizes him as her teacher. Christ then says to her, “Noli me tangere (do not touch me), for I have not yet ascended to the Father,” (John 20:14-17).  “Noli me tangere” became a very common scene from innumerable artists. 

Often, “Noli me tangere” works include a more suitably dressed Mary Magdalene bowing in wonderment to the rebirth of Christ.  Hans Holbein the Younger shows just that in his Noli me Tangere of 1524 (Plate 5).  Radiating from the empty tomb, both angels can be seen in a glow of heavenly light.  On the opposite side of the foreground, Christ stands back from Mary, hands raised, asking her not to touch him.  The juxtaposition of their bodies creates the interaction of the Biblical passage that lets the viewer fully feel the emotion of the scene. Mary Magdalene is elegantly dressed, unlike the ragged clothes or naked body of other depictions.  Her hair is covered and behind her back, unable to be seen, which differentiates her from the implied sexuality of long hair.  In this rendition, Mary is definitely more saintly and not at all a prostitute.

Only a year after Hans Holbein the Younger’s Noli me Tangere, Correggio completed his masterpiece of the same title (Plate 6).  These two works are, in fact, quiet similar.  Christ and Mary Magdalene balance each others’ figures in the foreground and a detailed bushy landscape occupies the background.  Again, Mary Magdalene takes on a much more saintly appearance.  Though her hair is blonde (a symbol of sexuality), it is mostly behind her and thus not an emphasized point.  Her finely made garments, while emblematic of the advances in the textile industry during the 16^th century, suggest a more conservative role than the scantily placed drapery of a whore. 

Perhaps a more traditionally Catholic perception of Saint Mary Magdalene is Signorelli’s 1504 Mary Magdalene (Plate 7).  The detail of the brocade fabric and the draping red mantel she adorns lend to the appearance of importance.  Her expressionless face and faint halo imply the quiet piety of saints.  Her flowing blonde hair is overshadowed by the rich texture of her garment and nothing about her is reminiscent of Luke’s unnamed sinner.  Signorelli’s Mary Magdalene is every inch a saint. 

From blatant sexuality to tattered penitence to saintly poise, Mary Magdalene’s image is vastly different.  Maybe it is with these wide-ranging attributes that the Magdalene has reached so many people across so many eras.  Her human qualities make her a touchable saint that any person can look to for guidance.  It is easy to see why so many artists have focused on Mary Magdalene, for she is an enduring figure that spans across classes and through generations.  Her life may remain a mystery, but her likeness will always be carried on in the great masterpieces. 

  

Works Cited

Dunkelman, Martha L. “Donatello’s Mary Magdalen.” Woman’s Art Journal 2 (2006): 1.

King James Version Holy Bible. Luke 7:37-38, 8:2; John 20:14-17. New York: Oxford UP, 1969.

Leloup, Jean-Yves. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. 1st ed. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 2002. xiv.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Makes Right Acts Right? April 11, 2008

 

            Every day, we are confronted with questionable circumstances that test our ethical judgment.  While they might not seem inherently wrong, some situations leave the lingering thought, “Is this really right?”  There is still no perfect answer to the question “What makes right acts right,” but many theories attempt to help us define good actions versus bad choices.  After reading the article by Miguel Bustillo, “Behave, the Video Vigilante is Watching,” I was even more unsure where the line falls between right and wrong acts.  While a behavior in the article may seem somewhat unethical, it can also be honorable taken in another light.  By analyzing the “Video Vigilante” through the reigning moral theories, utilitarianism, deontology, and prima facie duties, we may get a clearer sense of what constitutes a right act.

            Activist Brian Bates, aka the “Video Vigilante,” cultivated fame by busting prostitution throughout his community in Oklahoma City.  After years of watching “Johns” pick up prostitutes on the streets of his neighborhood, in full sight of schools, parks, and young children, Bates decided to put a stop to this growing problem.  Although prostitution is a crime, many previous police attempts to slow this illicit business resulted in dropped charges for the men, and women still working the streets.  Bates took matters into his own hands and began following perpetrators to the scene of the crime.  He would sneak up on a “John’s” remotely parked vehicle with his video camera, surprising the man and prostitute.  His camera, however, was not directed at the prostitute, but instead on the lady’s client.  The revealing video would then end up on Bates’ website, JohnTV, with dozens of other exposed men.  Many of these men have girlfriends, wives, or families, but will forever be “outed” on the internet.  Bates’ brags that, “If you get caught by the cops, you pay a fine. If you get caught by me, you get a life sentence.”  Right or wrong, Bates has indeed reduced the amount of prostitution on the streets of his community.               

Taken at first glance, the “Video Vigilante” fits very well with the theory of utilitarianism.  A term coined by philosopher Jeremy Bentham, utilitarianism has one basic principle: Do the greatest good for the greatest number.  This “greatest happiness principle,” as explained by Peter Singer, comes down to two basic assumptions.  First, suffering and death are bad, and second, we ought to prevent suffering.  Singer would most likely agree that Bates is doing the right thing, because prostitution is bad.  However, Singer probably feels prostitution is bad, because the money spent on tricks could be better spent on ending the suffering of starving children in third world countries.  This may seem like an odd way of looking at the matter, but Bates would be ethically correct to reduce prostitution according to Singer.  If you had the choice between spending $20 on sex or $20 on food for dying children, the moral option would be pretty obvious.  

If that seems a little too far out of the box, other utilitarians edited and added some provisions to the greatest good theory.  Instead of impractically trying to count the “utils” or amount of happiness an act generates, other philosophers focused on the quality of happiness. Not only does the “Video Vigilante” help a great number of people by reducing prostitution and making the town a better place for its children, but he’s also improving the quality of his community.  John Stuart Mill believed that pleasure was the ultimate goal for humans, but not inferior pig pleasures (“swine doctrine”).  Prostitution may lead to many utils of pleasure for the “John,” yet as Mill would agree, that is not the higher type of pleasure people should be seeking.  In order to have the greatest happiness (and thus least suffering) in life, one must strive for quality rather than quantity. 

In contrast, other ideas within the theory of the utilitarianism might disagree with Brain Bates’ unceremoniously interfering with other peoples’ lives.  Even though Mill preaches quality over quantity, to know the calculations of what is the greatest quality happiness, people must have experience with all possible choices to know which is superior.  In order to have these experiences, we must try all options to gather data.  Though doing a possibly unethical action, the experiment cannot be interfered with until data is collected.  Thus, the principle of liberty further complicates utilitarianism.  How do we know prostitution is morally wrong unless we experience both sides and decide it’s a lesser quality than another option?  Bates’ surprise ambush on prostitution could be interrupting a valuable experiment, making the “Video Vigilante” the unethical one.                 

Deontology, based on the good of the action rather than the good of the outcome, would probably not be as supportive of Brian Bates’ JohnTV.  Relying on reason rather than experience to judge ethical validity, deontology explores the basis of human rights.  As Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant reasoned in the late 18^th century, “It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will.”  Unlike utilitarianism, Kant suggested that good will is not good because of what it achieves, but it is doing the right thing with the right intent – duty for the sake of duty. 

What started as a Good Samaritan act in Oklahoma City, JohnTV soon drew national attention, and with it, an ulterior motive.  To stop prostitution for the sake of children and the community is good will.  But as Brian Bates’ fame magnified, he began to exploit the subjects of his videos for profit.  Not only is Bates degrading the dignity of these people with public humiliation, but he is earning $70,000 a year off others’ shame.  Kant did not support using people as a means for “self-seeking purposes.”  While Kantian theories may disagree with Bates’ actions, other loopholes in deontology might sustain the “Video Vigilante.”  Although people should not be used as undignified means, Bates’ has “implied consent.”  Because the people are engaging in an illegal activity, we can assume they consent to the consequences.  Implied consent seems vague and patchy, and it is.

But even more vague and patchy than deontology loopholes are prima facie duties.  While I personally love the theory of prima facie duties, they are based mostly on personal duties, rather than ethics of entire societies.  W. D. Ross makes a strong point that most questions of morality are between right versus right actions.  Choosing between right choices causes a much more difficult moral quandary than right against wrong.  People, Ross explains, have many moral duties to themselves, but those duties often contradict.  Prima facie, translated “at first glance,” can mean rebuttable duties, or values that you can choose between.  So how do you know which act or outcome is right?  According to Ross, you don’t. 

Fortunately, Ross does give some examples of prima facie duties that help us analyze the “Video Vigilante.”    Duty 1. Me:  Bates is being loyal to himself by earning money from what he enjoys doing.  2.  Others:  Based on the article, little or no gratitude has been given to the “Johns” or prostitutes that spurred Bates’ fame.  However, he did happen to save a prostitute by chance, by videotaping as she was being mugged.  3.  Justice:  “John’s” get what they deserve…humiliation.  Bates gets more than he deserves…a living off exploiting people.  Prostitutes get nothing.  4.  Non-maleficence:  Bates does harm people, in a way, by destroying dignity.  5.  Beneficence:  However, Bates also helps the children of the neighborhood by giving them a safe environment with less prostitution and drugs.  6.  Self Improvement:  Financially, Bates improved his life, but ultimately, he didn’t improve much as a person.  So good or bad, prima facie duties are personal preference.                     

Every theory has many more offshoots than discussed and can be interpreted in multiple ways.  The exciting thing is that unlike a complicated math problem, ethical dilemmas have no one answer.  Brian Bates and his stint as Oklahoma City’s “Video Vigilante” seems both right and wrong to me.  We might not yet know what makes a right act right, but through centuries of theories, we can better understand the world…which is a good thing.        

 

Southern Madness or Grotesque Faith March 31, 2008

 

     

  

   

  

 

      Flannery O’Connor quickly captivated my attention with her unconventional writing style in quirky short stories.  More revelation than plot, her fiction was often considered crazy, because it didn’t follow the traditional story outline of her contemporaries.  But as a devout Catholic, O’Connor was determined to base her writings around a “moment of grace” for her peculiar characters, as opposed to the standard rise and fall action of typical plots (Meyer 438).  It is through these unique characters that she establishes the “Southern Grotesque” genre, a rich blend of dark humor and elegant southern drawl.  With her distinguished voice, Flannery O’Connor uses character revelations to inspire profound revelations in her readers… producing from the madness, a clear message of faith.  Though O’Connor’s message of faith may seem vague at first, deeper inspection of “A Good Man is Hard to Find” reveals this obvious theme in many of her writings.  

        An often misunderstood story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find” brings to light the true meaning of “moment of grace” (O’Connor 445-455).  This is the pivotal point at which a character can choose the right path, redeeming himself with the grace of God.  Flannery O’Connor often presents this climactic moment in her stories using violence to get through to her audience.  Many readers may miss the spiritual implications, however, because to them, violence and grace can’t coincide.  Tragedy and violence may eclipse the pious meaning, but redemption is the strong theme behind “A Good Man is Hard to Find.”  

     O’Connor’s comical depiction of a dysfunctional southern family enhances the complex epiphany in her classic story.  Any reader with roots in the deep-south instantly recognizes her unusual characters as possible relatives.  Each personality in “A Good Man is Hard to Find” reminds me of a bizarre person in my own family tree.  The sullen and tight-mouthed Bailey is my Uncle Harrell.  The snotty, rude children are cousins Mitzy and Clarissa (pronounced “Clarisser”).  And the grandmother who considers herself a fine, God-fearing, southern lady is great-aunt Jean.  Flannery O’Connor’s remarkable ability to relate strange characters to people everyone knows, develops the vivid imagery that make her stories so universal.  This commonality helps a wide range of readers understand the epiphanies O’Connor tries to pass through her stories.

     The ultimate epiphany comes at the end of “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” with the grandmother’s untimely revelation.  While the grandmother considers herself a good Christian, her arrogant mannerisms and racist thoughts expose the flaws of her character.  When the grandmother and her family come face to face with a notorious criminal, The Misfit, her faith is tested.  In a horrifying scene, The Misfit and his gang murder her family, leaving her begging that he “wouldn’t shoot a lady.”  Suddenly, she loses her faith that Jesus will save her.  O’Connor then introduces the grandmother’s “moment of grace.”  Her head clears, implying that her faith has returned and God has given her the answer.  The Misfit shoots her anyway (O’Connor 454-455).  The profound message O’Connor is trying to send is that it took this tragic event for the grandmother to follow her faith and become a good person, suggesting that the reader should not wait for a catastrophe to see the light. 

     Flannery O’Connor’s unique “Southern Grotesque” style creates a remarkable story with an inspiring theme.  Her unconventional pairing of violence with holiness fits seamlessly into the short story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find.”  O’Connor tests the readers’ faith, while providing entertaining characters and situations, for truly unparalleled writing.

         

 

 

Works Cited

O’Connor, Flannery.  “A Good Man is Hard to Find.”  The Bedford Introduction to Literature. Ed. Michael Meyer. 8^th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008.  445-455.

Meyer, Michael, ed. The Bedford Introduction to Literature. 8^th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 438-444.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Makes Morality Moral? February 24, 2008

    

A major question concerning philosophers for centuries is “what makes morality moral?”  With numerous theories and countless opinions, it’s difficult to come to a true conclusion.  However, it may be possible to narrow down the ideas by determining how they fit in to the world around us.  In the article “The Cutting Tradition,” author Sara Corbett presents the controversial practice of female circumcision.  While there are strong opinions on both sides of the spectrum, which perception is right?  By analyzing the “The Cutting Tradition” through philosophical theories, we may better understand what makes morality moral.

     One prevalent theory and seemingly the most fitting in this case, is cultural relativism.  Professor James Rachels explains that it is the culture that defines morality (Cahn 651).  Although he himself is not a believer in cultural relativism, he first makes a strong argument as to why it is a plausible theory.  This idea would seem to explain how female genital mutilation is still a common practice in many countries, as it is viewed as a positive thing in those areas.  Medical Officer Laura Guarenti states that the mothers of these girls believe they are doing a good thing for their daughters when they have them circumcised and, “for our culture that is not easily understandable (Corbett).”  We, as cultural relativists, cannot deny the practice as wrong, merely as a difference in culture.

     That is exactly where cultural relativism fails.  As James Rachels further explains, through cultural relativism we can no longer judge horrendous practices in other countries, only acknowledge that they are quiet different from our own.  Furthermore, it holds the practices in our own culture as morally right.  This denies any sort of moral progress (Cahn 651).  Things may change in a society, but they are neither good nor bad.  For example, in early 19^th century America, we could not call slavery wrong.  While we know it is a terrible act now, in that time period, it was culturally and thus ethically right.  Right now, it is considered “right” to mutilate the female body, because it is a tradition in many places.  This false logic merely steers away from the original purpose of female circumcision: domination and power.

     Another theory of morality stems from the “might makes right” mentality, or ethical nihilism.  In Beyond Good and Evil, Fredrich Nietzsche sums it up by saying, “life simply is the will to power.” Any possible action we have is for our own selfish betterment (Cahn 352).  Everything comes down to exploitation for personal gain.  Through this mentality, it is the powerful that make the rules and moral standards and the weak who must follow.  Only when people are equals does the question of ethics even matter. 

     While this may be a highly cynical and depressing theory, Nietzsche does have a point.  The underlying purpose of female genital mutilation is male domination.  Men strive for power by controlling women’s sexuality. The tradition is only permeated by religious leaders passing this form of oppression off as religious duty.  Corbett notes that it is through the religious leaders that change can occur, thus emphasizing Nietzsche’s point that whoever has the power makes the moral status quo.

     However, it may be hard to change the opinion of the religious authority who follow the Divine Command theory.  The pious believe that because something is holy, it is a moral obligation to uphold that sentiment.  “The Cutting Tradition” illustrates the ritualistic tone of female circumcision, as a religious right of passage (Corbett).  Not only is it hard to change cultural traditions, but it’s even more difficult when that tradition is based on religious context. 

     Using Socratic irony in Euthyphro, Plato presents the “Euthyphro Paradox” that emerges from Divine Command (Cahn 5).  Euthyphro is a highly religious man who is stepping out of a courtroom, having just prosecuted his father for murder by negligence.  Socrates is approaching the courtroom for his own trial, when he begins a discussion with the pious Euthyphro.  Socrates asks how he knew it was right to condemn his father.  Euthyphro answers that it is the gods who decide what is right, and he was serving the gods by prosecuting his father.  Socrates continues by asking, is it right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it’s right?  Euthyphro, no longer so confident in his religious expertise, bids farewell to Socrates, and the Euthyphro Paradox is still unanswered.  So, is genital mutilation right because God commands it?  Or does God command it because it is right? 

     Regardless of the Euthyphro conundrum, or of the powerful asserting their power, or the culturally relevant morals, I know with every fiber of my being that female circumcision is just plain wrong.  Logic cannot sweet talk its way into convincing people why terrible things seem right or seem wrong.  Philosopher David Hume perfectly asserts his perception of morality in Enquiry into Morals (Cahn 224).  Hume understands that morality comes down to a feeling that cannot be explained by logic.  With every logical answer, another “why” can follow.  Eventually, one just has to feel that something is moral.  These feelings all stem from a universal sympathy that drives amiable characteristics such as honesty and kindness.  We don’t help people purely to make ourselves feel better, as Nietzsche would attest; we do it because of sympathy.  Sympathy is a universal human trait.  Hume admits that some have stronger feelings of sympathy, or that it may reach as far as our culture teaches us, but it is the underlying reason driving morality.  As Dr. Myers explained, eyesight is a universal human quality, though some people are blind.         

     Obviously, I am a fan of Hume’s concept of sympathy.  Female circumcision will always seem wrong to me and the right thing for others.  However, this is an issue that will remain a source of controversy for years to come.  Centuries of philosophers have debated the ever elusive question, “What makes morality moral?”  Yet for all the theories and personal opinions, the ultimate answer is, we just don’t know.    

 

 

Works Cited

Cahn, Steven M., and Peter Markie. Ethics; History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford, 2006.

Corbett, Sara. “The Cutting Tradition.” New York Times 20 Jan. 2008 

Astronomy February 18, 2008

 

Astronomy: simultaniously the most boring and most interesting class I’ve ever taken.

What’s in a Name? January 28, 2008

 

Last year, I sat at a quaint country restaurant with my family in Georgia.  I glanced up from my fried chicken and spotted a handwritten sign next to the register.  Glaring at me in big, bold letters was: “Do not accept checks from HANKSON’s!*”  I turned to my grandma, “Please tell me that sign isn’t referring to our family.”  A blush spread across her gracefully wrinkled face, “Well…”  Her silence was answer enough.

            Psychology Today released an article in December 2007 entitled “Talent Dynasties.”  In it, Carlin Flora introduces families with remarkable legacies in many spectrums of life.  One is a family of literary geniuses, the next are world-renowned artists, another is generations of musical talent with all five kids now studying at Julliard (80-87).  Nature verses nurture theory aside, how did these people win the genetic lottery? 

While I am proud of my family in many respects, our name is somewhat more tarnished.  To be fair to my grandma, she married into a family of lying, stealing, scoundrels, and my immediate family has little to do with those of which the sign was referring.  However, I’ve been handed a less than luminous legacy, merely because I share their last name.  Anywhere in this small town in Georgia, our reputation precedes us.  Some years back, when my mom was buying an antique chandelier in her hometown, she handed the store clerk a check.  One look at her last name and the lady at the counter asked, “Are you cousins with so-and-so Hankson?  Well he owes us $2,000, and I reckon ya’ll have to pay us back for that before I let you buy anything else.”  Appalled that she should be expected to pay for the sins of family she hasn’t spoken to since high school, my mother left.  My mom is a hardworking business woman with the highest credit rating I’ve ever heard.  It’s laughable to think that she shares the same genes with some of the characters in the Hankson family.  Among such characters are the cousins who burned down three houses for the insurance money, while all the family valuables happened to be in a washing machine in the barn, the uncle who is serving life in prison for a foiled kidnapping crime he committed, and the various other members who scheme and cheat whatever money out of people they can.  I know it’s asking a little much to want to be born into the Kennedy’s, but at least their checks would be accepted at a buffet. 

It is said that man fights mortality by creating a legacy.  Humans try to preserve themselves through their lineage, and from that continuous legacy they are immortal.  In the play, A Raisin in the Sun, much of the drama surrounding the family revolves around the legacy that will be passed on to future generations.  Just as Walter’s father worked hard to pass values onto his children, Walter also strives to pass pride onto his son Travis.  Walter wants to provide him with the best possible.  He wants Travis to have any education he chooses, regardless of cost.  Walter most desperately wants his son to be proud of his family.  The greatest achievement in Walter’s mind would be to pass a grand legacy onto Travis (Hansberry 1876-1877). These are universal wishes that all parents aspire to pass on to their children and their bloodline.  

My mom has stood up against the flawed legacy she was handed, a gift to her own future lineage.  Through strength and will, she has worked to change that reputation which haunts the family name.  During high school, she broke the norm set by her misbehaving cousins, and graduated with honors at the top of her class.  My mother went on to graduate from college and later run her own business.  Her actions have set a new precedent within the family to value integrity, diligence, and education beyond the quickest way to make a buck.  She has passed these standards onto my sister and me.  While sometimes it’s difficult to live up to this new legacy with high standards, I’m thankful to have a better reputation to leave for my future children.  Just as I now look to my mom with pride, I hope that someday my kids will do the same to me.  Maybe with the example of this new legacy, my descendents will continue to reach higher and not settle for the negative connotations society may throw at them.  And maybe, just maybe, that little restaurant in Podunk Georgia will accept a check from a Hankson.   

* Name has been changed for protection of the innocent  

Hansberry, Lorraine.  A Raisin in the Sun.  The Bedford Introduction to Literature.  Ed.

            Michael Meyer.  8^th ed.  Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 1836-1898.

Flora, Carlin. “Talent Dynasties.” Psychology Today Nov.-Dec. 2007: 80-87.