narshie-blog1 - Tumblr blog

[narshie-blog1]

When Civil Disobedience is Morally Justified

Civil disobedience refers to a form of protest conducted to raise awareness about injustices through willfully breaking the law. Although civil disobedience is a common practice in the world, the contours behind civil disobedience remain debatable.

Unjust or immoral law is designed to be broken. A just law refers to human-made code that is supported by morality or the law of God. Unjust law, on the hand, refers to codes or laws that are not in harmony with the moral law. An immoral or unjust law is human codes that are established out of the natural and eternal. Unjust laws attract rejection and civil disobedience from society. St. Augustine was one of the early Christians who lived between 354 CE and 430 CE. He introduced the phrase, "An unjust law is not law at all." Being a law student, I would take a positivist stance by agreeing that laws are virtue by position defined within the legal frameworks. Although St. Augustine outlines that "an unjust law is not law" within the legal frameworks, the unjust law is still a law. However, having defined unjust law, I believe that what may be just to one individual may not be only to the other. Since the rule applies equally to all, no matter how we feel it, I disagree with St. Augustine and stress that law is law, whether just or unjust.

People have a legitimate right to participate in civil disobedience when they are responding to instances of clear and substantial injustices, but in a way that does not interfere with the entire system of law. For example, people can take part in civil disobedience when denied avenues of political participation, or whenever a law violates the rights of individuals. People have the right to disobey without being punished.

[narshie-blog1]

Legitimate use of Civil Disobedience

Certain conditions make it morally justified to break the law. Civil disobedience may be justified if people want to bring changes about unjust or discriminatory laws. The change in the law would most likely make society just for everyone (Myers, 2017). Another moral justification for civil disobedience may be the refusal by the military or the police to shoot and kill the citizens for unjust reasons such as protection of a dictator. The other moral justification is to gain attention of the ruling class to remove policies that favors the ruling class and/or the rich in favor of those that favor the average citizens (Ogunye, 2015). I would endorse civil disobedience to protest against unjust or discriminatory laws and/or policies. Besides, I would endorse use of civil disobedience to protest against child labor and/or forced labor practices. I would define an unjust or immoral law as that that applies discriminately against a section of the population or does not go in-line with the moral conscience of most people.  I do agree, without doubt, with St. Augustine that ‘unjust law is no law at all’ since laws that goes against dominant moral views and tend to degrade human personality rather than uplift it.  The cases in which I can count my view on the use of civil disobedience as legitimate is when other strategies/avenues for resolving issues or changing the law such as negotiation has failed and when an authoritarian government does not provide its citizens an opportunity to vote or air their views. 

In conclusion, civil disobedience is justifiable in some instances so long as it is peaceful and nonviolent.

References

Myers, P.C. (2017). The limits and dangers of civil disobedience: The case of Martin Luther King, Jr. Retrieved on Nov 17, 2019 from, https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/report/the-limits-and-dangers-civil-disobedience-the-case-martin-luther-king-jr 

Ogunye, T. (2015). Global justice and transnational civil disobedience. Ethics & Global Politics, 8(1), 27217. DOI: 10.3402/egp.v8.27217. https://doi.org/10.3402/egp.v8.27217 

[narshie-blog1]

Individual and the State

The different political ideologies as propagated by classical liberals and those sympathetic to Marx are instrumental in creating a deeper understanding of the relationship that ought to exist between the state and the citizens. In essence, I tend to agree with both concepts highlighted despite seeming to align more on the Marxist theory. According to liberals, individual sovereignty is critical in political decisions, which makes them presume that governments should exist to protect the freedom of individuals. However, they also recognize the fact that the government, through the powers bestowed upon it, can pose a threat to liberty, which creates a concern on how to balance the power necessary for the government to protect individual rights as well as prevent it from abusing such powers.

On the contrary, Marxists believe that individual freedom only becomes useful in the absence of inequality. That is, they postulate a more rational society that focuses on the highest moral motives, including political and economic equality, which are necessary to assure the individual of his welfare, thereby subsequently augmenting it to the welfare of society. Therefore, for such to materialize, the government has to protect individuals from coercion arising from economic disparities, which is only possible through government intervention in the affairs of the citizens. Furthermore, the reality of differences in economic endowment makes it possible to presume that where individuals do what they feel is necessary without government interference, the economic disparities will trickle down to coerce the people into making decisions, which may then hinder their liberty. Notwithstanding, Marx also believed that the presence of the state could make life more complicated since it results in two classes of people, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, where the former can succeed in suppressing the liberty of the latter because of their ownership of means of production.

[narshie-blog1]

BUDDHISM

Buddhism and The Contemporary US

Buddhists believe the primary source of people’s suffering is their preoccupation with own desires as well as some self-cravings. As result, they conclude that the only way that people can get enlightened is by detaching themselves from the narrow concerns about themselves. However, I do not think that it is possible to live according to this teaching in the United States. The reason for such a position is that in the US the society is largely capitalistic. As a result, individuals are mostly split between the capitalists; who own the means of production and the working class; who sell their labor to the capitalist class in exchange for pay (wages). As such, people are ways concerned on how they can amass as much wealth as possible and hence live a better life. Every individual in the US seeks to mass enough wealth to enjoy life and become comfortable. As such, I do not think that people can be detached from thoughts about their concerns and desires.

In the US, there seem to be a disconnect between the teachings of Buddhism and the manner in which we are encouraged to think and act in the society. In specific, we are always taught in schools and in the society to work hard and be successful in life. In this respect, we always endeavor to get a better life through hard work. However, Buddhism discourages people from being preoccupied with their own desires. I think that the two positions are contradictory because the society teaches people to work towards addressing their own problems and leading happy lives. As such, what Buddhism teaches is in conflict with what the real American society teaches. The disconnect between the two makes it hard for the American society to align with what Buddhism teaches.

[narshie-blog1]

Cosmological Argument and the Design Argument

The general perception that many people have is that philosophy does not correlate with religion. The idea resonates from an old intuition that science and theology have different theories that explain the origin of life. However, recent studies suggest that the two entities have a number of similarities in that one field of study could be used to explain the occurrences in the other (Wach 18). Some of the common philosophies used to explain the origin of religion include the cosmological argument and the design argument. Ostensibly, many scholars believe that these two theories can easily influence one’s religious convictions. 

According to the cosmological argument, the presence of nature justifies that there exists a unique being that impacts all the changes present in the universe (Way 3). Initially, many scientists attested that the possibility of God’s presence in the universe was relatively vague. However, the introduction of the concept proved that for anything to come into existence, there has to be another existing entity that is not affected by the laws of science. Likewise, the design argument, also known as the theological argument, uses nature to describe the existence of God (Kojonen 295). According to the theory, the order in which the natural world is organized proves that there is a superior being who designed the universe and all that there is in. 

In conclusion, the two theories could easily convince any individual, irrespective of their belief, that God exists.

Even though the cosmological and the design argument show relevance between philosophy and religion, the two fail to describe the aspect of time, which is highly associated with the latter belief. A significantly powerful entity would be capable of traveling back in time to the point when it came to existence. A keen reader would question the relevance of the two theories in explaining God’s existence, considering that the Bible clearly articulates this issue in the first chapter of Genesis (King James Version 1).

[narshie-blog1]

Comparison between Computers and Human Programming

           Computer programing is the process of developing and instigating various sets of instructions to enable a computer to execute particular work. On the other hand, human programming is imaginative and incisive on how culture or societies should behave on an issue facing them. This essay, therefore, compares computer programing and human programming based on language. It further confirms that indeed computers are programmed to respond depending on their programming and so are humans programmed by society and education.          

The debate on whether computers are intelligent or not has not been concluded with many philosophers putting up their perspectives. However, this essay supports the premise that computers are programmed and operate the same way humans are programmed and operate. This is based on the fact that in both, the programing is developed to control how the two – computers and humans – operate, behave, and execute duties and instructions. For example, human language is a program that is developed, and it is instilled humans. Therefore, it determines how humans speak and respond to issues. On the other hand, programmers develop computer language to execute the same as instructed.

Nevertheless, the two language programming differ in that, a computer programming language cannot evolve and develop the same way human programming language does. Therefore, the former lacks room for errors and creativeness while the latter can be developed and improved through libraries. Additionally, human language programming is prone to imperfections like dialect, slang, argot, accent, and mispronounced words. Human language is also logical and emotional.

           In conclusion, computers are not intelligent and operate on programming, which controls how they respond to instructions just as human beings who have language programming from society and education. However, the two programming differ in a language in terms of flexibilities.    

[narshie-blog1]

Ourselves as Two Distinct Substances, Body and Mental

Contrary to the argument fronted by physicalism that we are purely physical beings, I concur with Descartes argument that consider ourselves as made out of two distinct substances, body and mental. Our mental life appears to be tightly connected to a physical organ, the brain. In my view, our mental life constitutes our personality and identity as humans. Individuals can possess different personalities, which are attributed to their different mental lives.

Several life scenarios or events can justify the argument that we are made out of distinct substances: body and the mind. One of these events involves the concept of mind transplant, which entails the transfer of a person’s mind or brain to the body of a different individual or animal. The concept of mind transplant is evident in many science fiction movies where an adult’s brain can be transferred to an infant’s body, an animal’s body, or another adult’s body. When such a process has occurred, the animal, infant, or adult that has received another adult’s brain assumes the personality of the person, whose brain was transferred to a different body. Such an experience shows that our mental lives are tightly linked to an organ; the brain.

Going in a comma is another life scenario that proves the existence of a tight connection between our mental life and the organ, brain. When a person goes, into a comma, the aspect awareness, which is provided by our mental life, which is closely linked to the organ, brain, becomes absent. In such a situation, the body cannot respond to stimulus, thereby proving Descartes’ argument that the body cannot think and that the mental can occur outside of the body. 

[narshie-blog1]

Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology

I understand that epistemology denotes the study of knowledge and justification of beliefs (Kim 17). Guided by this understanding, I came to learn that feminist and pragmatism epistemology both challenge the view that knowledge is not only detached, but also an intellectual activity. I wholly agree with the statement since both use credible arguments to define and justify knowledge. 

As a result, the argument convicts me to think of knowledge as something that is natural and innate to human beings. People only get to gather additional knowledge through learning and experiences as they progress through different stages of their life. The ongoing process of amassing knowledge boosts their mental development and makes people critical thinkers who can question right from wrong.

Having concluded the section on epistemology, I second the pragmatist social feminist view that argues in favour of the relational perspective of knowledge. I think knowledge is anything that is fallible in the eyes of the subjects and knowers, uses a corrigible criterion and conforms to socially constructed standards thus can be reconstructed and critiqued as someone encounters new experiences (Gascoigne 56). Knowledge is anything that stands to be corrected since the intellectual capabilities of the fallible knowers tend to change with changes in social constructs of knowledge.

I think of knowledge as a pivotal guide to all human activities since they have to apply it in their daily lives. It is supposed to be challenged and critiqued in a creative way. Knowledge entails creating and doing novel things that have not been done before. This explains why feminist epistemologists have continuously challenged previous philosophies by insisting that it should be gender neutral.

[narshie-blog1]

My Take on Empiricists’ Claim on Knowledge

Empiricists claim that all knowledge is based on the use of senses. In my view, this claim is sensible but it is not sufficient to account for all knowledge. In as much as there is no knowledge gained without involving the senses, senses alone cannot be the source of all knowledge. In other words, senses are needed for the derivation of all actual knowledge but they are not adequate to give all knowledge. This is because the senses, as opposed to giving everything, only provide instances or what can precisely, in the current conversation, be conceptualized as individual or particular truths. Importantly, these instances or individual truths help in confirming what may already be known to be generally true. Here, it emerges that the senses provide instances or particular truth that only corroborate a given general truth. The problem arises when considering the fact that no matter how numerous the particular truths are, they cannot be considered adequate to ascertain the general truth’s universal necessity. This is so because things do not always happen the same way, as in what has happened before may happen again but not necessarily in the same way. Merit is found in pointing to the areas of pure mathematics, more specifically geometry and arithmetic where application of certain principles can always yield the same results or inferences in similar circumstances. However, the proof of these principles or laws is not dependent on instances (or what has been termed as particular truths in this case), implying that senses become relevant, though not as irrelevant because without them it would not have been possible to even think of such. This takes me back to my earlier assertion that all knowledge involves the senses but they alone cannot be the source of all of it. Other subjects in metaphysics where the senses claim fails to give a satisfactory account include the existence of God because such knowledge does not flow from the senses.

[narshie-blog1]

Methodological Skepticism

Methodological skepticism is the means through which people understand life from their standpoint as opposed to others perspective. Fundamentally people do not follow methodological skepticism in their daily lives. Everyone views the world from a completely different angle. Intuitively, regardless of the number of times or ways through which an issue is defined or clarified, everyone will have a different view at the end. Further, most people usually fail to check around their environment to understand how the world originated and has transformed. They hardly realize that humanity has changed entirely since the beginning of the world and as a result, live with the rules and facts set by those in power. Even when they doubt something, they hardly express their views because they believe that they are required to strictly follow the masses and what they have said. For this reason, people indeed tend to believe everything they hear from various sources even when it becomes imperatively impossible to believe. They only doubt what they hear but hardly express their views or opinions on the same. To them, the essential thing is that they are living and they cannot express their views or opinions since there is no reason for doing so. 

People's tendency to believing everything until it becomes impossible for them to believe does not imply that methodological skepticism is an ineffective strategy. However, it means that methodological skepticism is a tool not well understood by many. Through methodological skepticism, people are taught how to behave and live in a particular way. Most people are used to simplicity or simple life as they are not raised to question anything they listen to or observe in life, but rather follow masses that lead them. Nonetheless, through methodological skepticism, they will learn through observation and listen to views and opinions of others before determining whether what they have observed or heard are false or true.

[narshie-blog1]

The Allegory of the Cave

I support Socrates’ assertion that human beings resemble prisoners in the cave when there is no philosophical education. Just like the prisoners who believe that puppets hanged on the wall are indeed real and accurate, people think that different things they socialize with within their political, religious, social, and economic lives are indeed correct without focusing on the critical factors that drive such things. Further, Socrates’ assertion also resembles the theory of stages of education where persons move from a situation where they do not know to a situation where they have gained knowledgeable through exposure.  Just like prisoners, human beings are guarded by a woven fabric of expertise through which they are enslaved, and this limits them from moving freely to pursue knowledge. The stated limitation makes people prisoners as they lack knowledge beyond what they have learned in class and thus view the world with regards to their senses and experience gained.

Philosophy is liberating since it transforms a person’s thoughts and ways of thinking. It frees people’s mind from the imprisonment of fundamental and essential thoughts and enables them to explore various ideas they have never had. It makes people question their thoughts continuously. Philosophy is liberating by allowing people to acquire knowledge beyond what their physical senses can view and frees them from prisons created by societal knowledge. In particular, it exposes people to philosophical truth and knowledge beyond what the entire community knows, thereby allowing people to understand issues that influence them and the society. 

 I think Socrates is wrong to feel pessimistic about life without philosophy because philosophy, especially, Socrates and Socratic teachings have a myriad of limitations in liberating persons. In particular, the philosophy fosters passivity among persons who are not involved in direct discussion with philosophers and reinforces a tendency of permitting short absolution to fairness and justice among individuals who support Socratic teachings. As such, philosophy, particularly Socratic teachings, should be accompanied by other experimental techniques that would improve people’s ability to solve challenges in various real-world scenarios.

[narshie-blog1]

what I hope to gain from this philosophy class at the end of the semester is to  be able to use more logic in certain situations that can help everyone around me to benefit in a positive outcome rather than a negative outcome. I honestly want to understand how to analyze the way in which people express themselves through language, politics, histroy etc in order to understand how they view the world and not be bias on their views. Learning to have a balance between logic and understanding will not mmake sound ignorant to people oponion.  I also want to go in depth with my critical thinking and not stay on the surface, I want to be able to dig deep and deeper so i can be more interesting when speaking . By the time the semester is over i should be able to master the way of thinking invloves the 4 R which are  responsiveness, reflection, reason and re-evaluation. The aim after this class is also deepen my  understanding.