Rawls

I’m not sure I understood this reading, but Rawls seems to articulate his idea of “justice as fairness” by basing it off of the principles of justice “These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness” (Rawls 199). He also discusses conception of justice which seems to tie into the principles of justice. It is almost as if the conception of justice is a part of the principles of justice “Justice as fairness, begins as I have said, with one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely with the choice of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions” (Rawls 200). I think by this he means that in order for people to have a concept of what justice means, there must be principles of justice that people must follow. If they don’t know the principles of justice then they cannot have a concept of it. He gives many examples as to what his idea of “justice as fairness” is “One feature of justice as fairness is to think of the parties in the initial situation as rational and mutually disinterested” (Rawls 201). I think in order to understand his idea of “justice as fairness” a person has to have a concept of the principles of justice, because this is what he bases his idea off of.

Rawls, John. “A Theory of Justice.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 195-206.

Stanton

Stanton seems to feel that men have had power over women by controlling what they can and cannot do. The way she describes how women were treated in this essay, it’s almost as if women were just property of men at this time and had no rights at all “In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming to all intents and purposes, her master-the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement” (Stanton 165). Men could control everything about women because at this time women could not do anything without men, and they couldn’t voice their opinion about it either. If the woman was married and worked, everything that was rightfully hers went to the man regardless of whether she earned it or not. It’s hard to imagine a time like this, when women had nothing without a man. Today it is not unusual for a woman to be independent and successful. Many women today are financially stable on their own and do not need a man to help them. Another thing that is surprising is that at the time that Stanton wrote this when a man and a woman got divorced, the man received sole custody of the children “He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes, and in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women-the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands” (Stanton 165). It is hard to believe that this at one time was the case, when now in the majority of divorced couples the mother gets sole custody of the children. I can’t imagine living at a time like this when women weren’t considered actual people, but just the property of a man.

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins. 2006. pp 161-169.

King

Martin Luther King Jr. was a man who was very much against injustice. In Birmingham Alabama is where he found to the most injustice. The white community showed no feelings towards the black community, therefore there were many demonstrations which he found to be unfortunate, but felt that the white community had left the black community without any alternatives “It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative” (King 175). At the time that Martin Luther King Jr. wrote this he thought that Birmingham Alabama was one of the most segregated cities in the United States “Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States” (King 175). I think what he found the most unjust in this city was the fact that it was so segregated and that no one seemed to pay any attention to the black community that they had to have sit-ins and rallies in order for people to notice them. Blacks were also unfairly tried in the courts and were treated unjustly. There were also many attacks on the homes and churches of black people that were pushed aside and not paid attention to. Blacks were brutalized and then ignored, as if their lives were not important “Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in an other city in the nation” (King 175). Leaders of the black community tried to fight for their justice by negotiating however the leaders of the white community found no reason to negotiate “On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation” (King 175). It seems that there were several injustices in Birmingham that Martin Luther King Jr. sought to repair.

Martin Luther King Jr. “The Letter from Birmingham Jail” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.

Thoreau

I found Thoreau’s reading to be very long, and hard to read. It seems though that the kind of government that Thoreau feels would be the most just is the kind that allows a person to have a say in their government. He states “But to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it” (Thoreau 138). I think by this he means that by being able to attain a better government, those who enforce the government should consider a person’s thoughts and let them help decide what goes into the government. Thoreau also thinks that “A government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it” (Thoreau 138). What he is trying to say is that just because the majority rule doesn’t mean that it is right, and that there can’t be justice when the government is only going by what the majority say. What about the minority? Do they have a say in anything? Though he brings up good points there is no way to please everybody. It is impossible to provide everybody with “justice”. In a government such as ours it is hard for people to agree on all the issues, that is why there are two main political parties. Even though many people belong to one of those parties many people don’t, and they vote for the candidate with the issues that they most agree with. What I don’t think that Thoreau understands, since this was written over a hundred years ago is that it is not that the minority don’t count, just at that time their vote is under powered. Though he does make several good points, and yes the minority does deserve respect, this type of government is also better than a government that is lead by a dictator.

Thoreau, Henry David. "Civil Disobedience." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp133-158.

Carter

I feel as though the first amendment is protecting religion from the state. If the government were to make it so that nobody could practice their religious beliefs then I feel that majority of the country would find some form of rebellion. However, I feel that the separation of religion and state is what is protecting religion. I think that it gives people the right to practice what their religion is, without getting grief that their religion is not the majority in this country. Though it seems that majority of the country is of Christian decent, there are several other religions that take part in this country as well. That is what makes this country so great. People all over the world come here to make their lives better, and religion is a part of many people’s lives. The government cannot simply take away religion, because it is mainly a belief system. Though many religions practice rituals regularly, many do not. People of the Islamic religion for example, practice rituals five times a day. They pray five times a day towards Mecca, but at their own discretion. They are not required to go to a Mosque five times a day because for many people that is impractical because of work, school, and other things that go on in every day life. Another example of ritual is people of the Catholic religion. Strict Catholics go to mass at least once a week. People of the Hindu religion however do not practice rituals regularly, and when they do practice rituals they are not required to go anywhere, they can do it from their own home. This is why I feel that separating religion from state protects it. It gives people the right to practice whatever religion they want at their own discretion.

Arendt

I found this piece by Hannah Arendt to be more interesting than the others so far. I think because it is something similar to what we have learned about in today’s culture it makes it easier to read and easier to understand. We have learned about World War Two and about the concentration camps that the Jews were forced to go to. I think that though anti-Semitism still exists in the world, most people are disgusted by what the Nazis did to the Jews and that’s why I find this reading a little bit easier to relate to, because I am one of those people. According to Arendt, human beings in concentration camps are degraded, exterminated, and experimented on, “the camps are meant not only to exterminate people and degrade human beings, but also serve the ghastly experiment of eliminating, under scientifically controlled conditions, spontaneity itself as an expression of human behavior and transforming the human personality into a mere thing, into something that even animals are not; for Pavlov's dog, which as we know, was trained to eat not when it was hungry but when a bell rang, was a perverted animal,” (Arendt 88-89). It is very clear that she finds concentration camps and what they do to people appalling. I also think by referring to Pavlov’s dogs she is saying that human beings are being brainwashed. Though they are not being brainwashed in an indifferent way, as Pavlov’s experiment really had no effect on the dog’s life, they are being brainwashed by fear. If humans are being punished negatively for not doing something, or doing something wrong they tend to be fearful, therefore they are more likely to do what they are told and do it correctly. This gives others power and control. By writing this piece, Arendt is showing how easy it is for government to brainwash people. All they have to do is be terrifying and the people will fear them and in return do as they are asked.

Arendt, Hannah. "Total Domination" A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 88-96

Machiavelli

In the opening pages of this piece, it seems as if Machiavelli is insistent on warfare. It is clear that he finds war to be extremely important, but it seems as if warfare should be the only thing that a prince should be thinking about. It’s almost as if he is saying that to be a prince, you have to concentrate on war, and only war because that is the most important thing of all, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war” (Machiavelli 36). I took this statement as basically saying, if you can’t place warfare at the top of your list, then you should not be a prince. He is also saying that it is extremely important as a Prince, to be armed, and if you are not armed then you are automatically not liked, “For among the other bad effects it causes, being disarmed makes you despised” (Machiavelli 38). I find these opinions to be very odd. Although being prepared for war is very important, I don’t think it should be the basis of a Prince’s duty. I also do not think that not being armed would make a prince less liked. I have to disagree with what Machiavelli is saying. War should not be the basis for anyone’s duty whether it is a prince, a president, or any other national leader. As I said before, being prepared for it is important, because it could happen at anytime and there needs to be an organized plan for if and when it happens, but to base principles upon it is absolutely ridiculous.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 35-50.