For What You Believe In

This photo is from season 3 episode 6 of popular Netflix show House of Cards. In the photo, First Lady Claire Underwood is speaking with the recently imprisoned Michael Korrigan during her trip to Russia. Korrigan, a traveling American citizen, was sent to prison following his publicized gay rights activism remarks of gay mistreatment in Russia. Although he was offered release on the condition that he retract his previous statement, Korrigan refused, thus prompting his indefinite sentence. During this conversation, Korrigan contemplates how far he will go to suppose his cause. He suggest that he hopes he would be able to die for it, however questions if he would be strong enough to take it that far. Claire offers her husband’s help in granting his release, however this is again refused. Korrigan states he will not voluntarily leave prison until the Russian government address his cause. The following morning, he is found hanging from the window, having committed suicide sometime throughout the night. This dismisses the question of his strength for his cause, as he knows his suicide will not only draw great amounts of attention but also put vast amounts of pressure on the Russian government.   

One of the first discussions we had as a class was over Socrates imprisonment. This included questions such as “Is Socrates right to stay in jail? Could Crito have done a better job with his argument?”. Socrates faced an almost identical situation to Michael Korrigan in House of Cards. Both were sent to prison over fighting for their respective cause, both had a visitor attempt to persuade them to leave, and most importantly both refused. It was stated during class that Socrates “could leave if he wants to”, however to Socrates this would mean that “If he leaves he destroys himself and his city”. In addition to this, Socrates, unlike Korrigan, knows he faces impending death upon his refusal to comply. Socrates feels that his cause, his morals, and his actions are bigger than this fate, ultimately sending him to his death. Although he personally did not kill himself, constantly refusing to acknowledge his faults knowing it will send him to his death could count as an indirect suicide

State's absolute sovereign: What’s behind the Chinese Victory Day Military Parade

Recently, China marked the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII and its role in defeating the Japan by holding a gigantic military parade in Beijing which had more than 12,000 troops attended including nearly 1000 oversea troops. According to the state media, the main purpose of this parade was aimed to improve the awareness of the importance of peace all over the world and to ensure people’s confidence in the government.

However, there are inner connotations that beneath the seemingly spectacular celebration of the righteous. According to The Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-reveals-guest-list-for-big-military-parade-1440480312, the official government claims it is a victory parade for the ending of the WWII, nonetheless, troops that represent the major forces in the allies power that had dominant impacts in the victory of the war like the United States were not even in the guest lists. Most troops that attended that day's parade were China’s allies nowadays like Russia, North Korea and Cuba. It turns out that actually is a well-planned show off of China’s military power, to pile pressure on its counter powers and to secure the safeness of China’s sovereign and safety both from the domestic and international level. According to Thomas Hobbes, the sovereign itself has the obligation to protect its citizens and help to defeat the outer power; Hobbes also states that once the convents between you and the states once signed, you would never be able to disobey it. Also, according to the words of Chinese state, the pursuance of the party equals to the pursuance of its people, thus people has to act highly consistent with the party. This point is similar to Hobbes saying:“the sovereign is its people, thus his action is the people’s action.”

Though China was one part of the allies power that helped the ultimately defeated the axis power during the WWII, however, the Communist Party of China was not the dominant power at that time in China, it was the Nationalist government that contributed most in the setting of China battlefield. This point can be traced back to Plato’s Politics. In this book, Thrasymachus stated that the justice is the advantage of the stronger. In this case, it truly is. According to the article, it is apparent that the Communists here are trying to rewrite the history like they always do; the party tries to pocket all the glory and victoriousness of this war by fooling the public that they did all the contributions.

In my opinion, the whole military parade was a show that targeted to the interests of the state and the party. Like Thomas Hobbes stated, live in a state that ruled by one smart brain has its sole advantages. Nonetheless, we need to see that people live in society like this would easily lose their consciousness towards right and contribute to  the formation of tyranny, which will make the people the ultimate sufferers.

Protect The People

Edward Snowden released Top Secret information regarding the collection of data by the National Security Agency. In the article "NSA Files: Decoded" that was published by The Guardian in 2013 explains how the NSA and other security agencies argue that the collection of cellular data are necessary to combat existing terrorist threats against the United States. The issue with the colossal collection of data is many citizens argue that it violates their Fourth Amendment right. However, the NSA believes that what they are doing preserves the lives of Americans. The Patriot Act that was put into action after 9/11 allowed the NSA to exercise this program, but many citizens believe they have gone to far and have violated their Constitutional rights.  But what if the NSA is able to prevent another 9/11 due to their massive collection of data? Is the life of the citizen more important than the right of the citizen?
According to Hobbes, the government must protect the lives of their people at all costs. As long as the government protects the lives of the people then it is a just government. Locke agrees that the government must protect the lives of the people, but he believes the people's rights to liberty and property are just as important. After 9/11 people felt threatened within their own country, which was not the case before the attacks. Due to the fear of the people and the threat of Al Qaeda the government took a Hobbes like approach to policy making. The government was empowered more and security agencies were more aggressive in tracking potential threats. However, with 9/11 in the history books and the revealing information released by Snowden, some citizens feel that the government has violated their 4th Amendment rights by collecting cellular data. Hobbes would most likely feel that the collection of data is just because the government is making the lives of the citizens the number one priority. Locke, however, would feel that the government is being unjust because it is taking away the rights of the citizens. Personally, I feel that the collection of data is necessary because I am certainly willing to give information that could possibly lead to the apprehension of terrorists cells living within the country. I also want to ensure the protection of my family, and the prevention of another 9/11. The Al Qaeda network and lone wolf attacks such as the Boston Marathon bombing have proven that terrorists have the capability to infiltrate this country with intention of murdering its people. Therefore, I believe that it is just for the people to sacrifice their rights in order to guarantee the protection of the citizens living in this country. With the increase in technology use and the increase of terrorist threats in the country the argument between protection versus rights will continue.

Justice: Immigration and Living Under the Law

Currently  according to the American Immigration Council's article The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine | Immigration Policy Center The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine while the number of illegal immigrants entering the country has slightly decreed. More illegal immigrants are being deported now then in past years. Under President Barack Obama's administration, two million illegal immigrants have been deported from the United States. The modern policies aim towards automatic deportation. As the number of deportations since 1980-2012 has increased the numbers of voluntary returns offered to the offenders has decreased due to the governments new policies and outlook. As time passes, more and more laws are created or altered to make staying in the United States harder for illegal immigrants and resulting in criminal offenses.

In class we covered and discussed Plato's Crito, about Socrate's reasoning for remaining in his cell. Two of his reasons can apply to the response of the US Government to Illegal Immigrants. First of all one of Socrate's reasons was that when a person choses to live in a state and benefits from it, they have entered a contract do abide by the laws and punishment's. When an immigrant wether they be legal or illegal, enters a new country for example the US. they should expect to cooperate with any laws regarding immigration. And if they violate these laws they should expect repercussions.  So it should be fair that any immigrant who enters a country should follow the rules and the justice system of the land they have chosen to live in. The second reason for Socrates remaining in Athens was that if he left he would be leaving his sons behind with is tarnished legacy. When many illegal immigrants enter a country. Their cheating of the system which legal immigrants enter through. Can cast a bad reputation to all immigrants because the public will often personify their anger on both types of Immigrants. Leading to accidentally displacement of Legal immigrants by mistake.

Justice is not relative

Can States Ignore the Supreme Court on Gay Marriage?

In class, we have had discussed the notion of justice as both a metaphysical concept and as a concrete manifestation occurring in law.  I believe that it is important to consider the metaphysical concept of justice first, and then apply it to the law.  It is not easy to create a solid outline of what is justice, however.  In Crito, we find an argument that justice is founded in reason.  This seems like a reasonable starting point in understanding the concept.  In Plato's The Republic, it is suggested by Thrasymachus that justice is the advantage of the stronger.  I reject that idea based on Socrate's assertion that about the just man being controlled by reason.  Hobbes' state of nature is a great example of an unjust society that has succumbed to chaos, and is dominated by the strong.  Part of banding together and creating a social contract means protecting the weak; people who are as human as the rest of us and have the same basic human rights that extend to every person.  In our class discussion, many people argued for ethical relativism.  This is a problematic belief to hold.  For example, Ted Bundy used ethical relativism to defend his actions during his trial.  This is what he said, as cited by Louis Pojman in the article "A Critique of Ethical Relativism":

"Then I learned that all moral judgments are "value judgments," that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong." I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself - what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself, that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring the strength of character to throw off its shackles. ... I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self."  

It is difficult to reconcile holding a belief that would give a serial killer reason to believe that his actions were as just as eating ham.  There is much to critique about ethical relativism, though it is an attractive idea that allows one to hide behind it rather than tackle the difficulties of defining an objective system of morals.  It is especially attractive when one considers how one might go about defining an objective system, because in that case it is easy to argue for the existence of a higher power who would be able to dictate right and wrong.  Which, in my opinion, is another cop out.  One can be moral and just without having to subscribe to any sort of spirituality, as we see with Socrates in Crito.
This brings us to the law, which in America is a sort of objective system of justice that is independent of the church.  Our courts make the ultimate decisions about what justice means, and write opinions which defend their judgments.  The Supreme Court is the most important interpreter of the law, as it determines what is just for every citizen.  However, there are some who decide that the Court has made the wrong decision- that perhaps they have misinterpreted the meaning of justice.  One recent example of this is found in the rejection of the Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay marriage.  One judge in Alabama argued that judicial restraint was the best way to handle the issue, and refused to adhere to the Supreme Court's decision.  We also see Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee arguing against the adherence of the law.  This, however, is quite wrong.  As Socrates argues in Crito, the law has shaped us as a people, and it is the law that protects us from falling into the state of nature.  We owe it to the law to abide by it.  The Supreme Court's interpretations have ended many injustices being committed against the weaker.  By rejecting the law, we weaken it and lose something very valuable.

Justice: Exclusions May Apply

After the Supreme Court Ruling favoring same sex marriage on June 26, 2015, the United States was in a frenzy some were jubilant while others were distraught, but none of those emotions could amount to the action that Kim Davis took against the Supreme Court. In the Huffington Post article Kim Davis Asks Appeals Court To Let Her Refuse To Issue Marriage Licenses, Steve Bittenbender explains how Davis,49, was sentenced to jail for 6 days after her refusal to distribute marriage licenses to gay couples. While she was away deputy clerks were signing off on marriage licenses, but without Davis' signature, the licenses were labeled as void. Upon her release Davis's attorney requested that she retain the right to ban same-sex marriage licenses until the case was settled and Davis demanded the firing of all deputy clerks who issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples while she was away.

The reason why this is important is because it has to deal with the essential principles of Justice. As Socrates stated justice complies with following the laws of the land but when the land clashes within itself, then what is a citizen to do? When the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights they included the freedom of religion and also the right to marry. But if you are clerk, like Kim Davis, whose religion strictly prohibits the condoning of homosexual activities, then can we as a people say she was being unjust? Even though she was upholding her first amendment as a U.S. Citizen? The questions this entire case brings up alone does not only show the inadequacies in the government but also arises questions in terms of Justice. Who deserves it? The woman upholding her right as a US Citizen? The same-sex couple who have been fighting to get married in their country? Is there a way to appease both, and if so, how?