Do we know why we are in mourning this day, September 11, 2010? It is because 2, 996 American civilian and rescue worker lives were lost nine years ago. That is the reason today is a day of national mourning, and remembering.
We have not been allowed to forget, not that we would want to, that this event shook our country to its core. What bothers me, is that the those responsible for this attack upon our nation still, nine years later, have not paid for their deeds. We can wave flags, make music tribute videos, debate the issue of "who" is really responsible; until we have avenged the lives of the innocent, we are dishonoring their memory.
We were pacified by some lame excuse, "they hate freedom," as an explination for the attacks. We watched as our government turned its back on finding those responsible for the deaths of these near 3,000 people and waged war with a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on that fateful day.
Why does this not bother any of you? Why do you insist that I am wrong for remembering that our government betrayed the memory of those who died nine years ago today? Why am I wrong for insisting that we must demand answers? Is it just easier to wave your flag then to show real respect? Is it just easier to blame Obama, someone who wasn't even in office when the towers fell? Is it easier to let the government do your thinking? Order your troops, your protectors, your children, brothers, and sisters into harms way without knowing why?
I cry shame upon you America! Shame on you for waving your flags in faux patriotism without demanding truth and justice! Shame on you for allowing the memory of those who died nine years ago to be used to wage a war that has cost over 4,000 more lives of American military men and women! Shame on you for giving in to fear, hate, and separation by partisanship! Shame on you for allowing the wants of the few out weigh the needs of the many!
I choose to honor the memory of those who lost their lives nine years ago by telling you, the ones who say you care, that you are full of shit! That you wave your flag today, and go about your life tomorrow! I honor their memory by remembering their families, who still to this day do not know why their sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers died nine years ago! I honor their memory by reminding you of your shame in not demanding the truth. Lies and willful ignorance does not honor their memory. So, which one are you guilty of? Accepting what you know to be a lie, or accepting that you are ignorant of the truth!
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Kant vs Aristotle
I did this as an assignment in my ethics class. I thought it made a very good point about partisanship, so I decided to post it here. Also, I think it can be related to other insignificant differences, such as religion, culture, etc.
Kant's theories of austere ethics make high demands. Kant insisted that "one must be motivated exclusively by rational commitment to the universal moral law" (Waller, 2008, pg 188). He attributed this capacity to the powers of will and reason. Kant believed that humans must strive to "rise above all natural feeling and inclinations" (Waller, 2008, pg 188). To Kant, moral activity in human beings was a special, unnatural ability honed by the use of reason. He asked human beings to rise above what he believed to be our natural state and behave in a moral and ethical fashion.
Aristotle believed that human being were naturally moral and good, and that we only needed to develop this natural tendency in us. This development of our moral goodness, according to Aristotle made the high demand that our actions be what he called "virtuous." To Aristotle, "the ideal of virtuous behavior is doing the right thing because you want to do the right thing, because you desire to act virtuously” (Waller, 2008, pg 189). Aristotle asked human beings to do good for its sake, and not to do good for hope of reward or fear of punishment.
These two theories, while seemingly founded in opposite beliefs about the state of human nature, make nearly the exact demand upon human beings. To act in a moral and ethical fashion for the sake of doing a moral or ethical act. To not take into account reward, punishment, or any other middle ground consequence. Kant says to do good to escape natural human immorality; Aristotle says to do good to develop natural human virtue. It is my opinion that this common thread in these two theories is what we must take from them, to do good for the sake of doing good. The foundation of mysterious powers or natural order of human beings is nearly irrelevant at this point. We know that doing good for the sake of doing good is the right thing, and it is my opinion that we must move on with that as the new foundation. Are we naturally ethical? I really do not know. On one hand I see in the news, human beings doing the most evil things to each other. On another, I see people doing the most kind things to complete strangers without asking for reward. In my opinion, it is less important to know what we are "naturally" inclined towards then it is to strive to do good. We already have an answer to both suggested theories of how we develop our moral and ethical capacity. Use reason or use virtue, either way the goal is to become a good, moral, and ethical person or society.
Reference:
Waller, B. (2008). Consider ethics: theory, readings, and contemporary issues. New York: Pearson Longman
Kant's theories of austere ethics make high demands. Kant insisted that "one must be motivated exclusively by rational commitment to the universal moral law" (Waller, 2008, pg 188). He attributed this capacity to the powers of will and reason. Kant believed that humans must strive to "rise above all natural feeling and inclinations" (Waller, 2008, pg 188). To Kant, moral activity in human beings was a special, unnatural ability honed by the use of reason. He asked human beings to rise above what he believed to be our natural state and behave in a moral and ethical fashion.
Aristotle believed that human being were naturally moral and good, and that we only needed to develop this natural tendency in us. This development of our moral goodness, according to Aristotle made the high demand that our actions be what he called "virtuous." To Aristotle, "the ideal of virtuous behavior is doing the right thing because you want to do the right thing, because you desire to act virtuously” (Waller, 2008, pg 189). Aristotle asked human beings to do good for its sake, and not to do good for hope of reward or fear of punishment.
These two theories, while seemingly founded in opposite beliefs about the state of human nature, make nearly the exact demand upon human beings. To act in a moral and ethical fashion for the sake of doing a moral or ethical act. To not take into account reward, punishment, or any other middle ground consequence. Kant says to do good to escape natural human immorality; Aristotle says to do good to develop natural human virtue. It is my opinion that this common thread in these two theories is what we must take from them, to do good for the sake of doing good. The foundation of mysterious powers or natural order of human beings is nearly irrelevant at this point. We know that doing good for the sake of doing good is the right thing, and it is my opinion that we must move on with that as the new foundation. Are we naturally ethical? I really do not know. On one hand I see in the news, human beings doing the most evil things to each other. On another, I see people doing the most kind things to complete strangers without asking for reward. In my opinion, it is less important to know what we are "naturally" inclined towards then it is to strive to do good. We already have an answer to both suggested theories of how we develop our moral and ethical capacity. Use reason or use virtue, either way the goal is to become a good, moral, and ethical person or society.
Reference:
Waller, B. (2008). Consider ethics: theory, readings, and contemporary issues. New York: Pearson Longman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)