Isms

Let me begin by saying, I hate when people trying to be politically correct say “African-American” instead of “black.” While the intention may be to correct a more obvious misconception, not every person who has skin in the range of mocha to midnight is African-American, African, or American. Much like “white” people, people with dark skin come from a variety of different backgrounds and while their ancestors may have originated in Africa, they did not necessarily stay there. And besides, Africa isn’t a country.

In my experience, when people talk about themselves they refer to their ethnic origins. I’m certain I’ve never heard anyone say, “Why yes, I’m European.” There is a general recognition that Europe is a large place and “whites” live in other places than Europe. However, when talking about each other, we use limited generalizations that don’t always make sense. The intention is usually to correct the misconception that people have black or white skin. Clearly this is not the case. However, trying to change this problem by calling a  ”black” person African-American, or an “Asian” person Chinese, does not solve the problem.

If someone calls me “white” I understand. They do not know my ethnic history and should not be expected to. Feel free to correct me, readers, but in the same way, I assume that when a “white” person calls someone “black” or someone who has Asian features “Asian”  he or she would not take offense to the term as long as it is not said in a derogatory tone.

That being said,  this post is not only an examination of racism, but of  sexism and other forms of close-mindedness in various guises and intensities. I think one argument holds true for the others. I truly believe it is possible not to be racist, sexist etc. but that it is impossible for someone to lack any type of bigotry at all. The simple explanation for this phenomenon is that we live in a world where we are conditioned to react in certain ways if not by the media, then by society, if not by society, then by our family, if not by our family then by our own self-centeredness. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

One’s perspective of the world is rooted in the image she has of herself. I am an American woman of Italian descent. I am a writer, an artist, an idealist. I, along with every other human being, am naturally inclined to be attracted to things that are like me.  It is natural and comfortable for us to seek others who share the same core values. But this similarity must be ranked in order of importance. I like mint ice cream, but my love of books is more important than my love of ice cream.

Thus, I form deeper friendships with people who are like me intellectually and more shallow ones with those who share my taste in food. However, someone else’s love of Star Wars might drive him to seek out other “Jedists.” How is it any less valid for someone to place importance on the color of a person’s skin or her cultural background? The idea of this makes us uncomfortable though. Many of us have been raised to do just the opposite.

I am not criticizing this approach. Indeed, I think it is the most reasonable and rewarding one (I like having a diverse group of friends), but why should I be personally insulted that a “black” person doesn’t want to be friends with me because I am “white” or vice versa? Why would I want to be friends with this person anyway? Should I be personally insulted that a man thinks a woman’s role is in the kitchen or that Italians are thieves? What does it matter to me? This is not a man I will be dating or spending any time at all with.

I am not saying I wouldn’t be hurt. Emotion is the first to react. Logic only follows if we allow it to, but if we do, we will realize that what others think makes no difference to our value or ability to pursue happiness and satisfaction.

The turning point occurs when one lets his opinion lead to violent actions or social discrimination (as opposed to personal discrimination). It is a democratic privilege for a person to vote for whichever candidate she chooses, or decide who to be friends with, based on whatever criteria she values, but when these values become the basis for denying civil rights and liberties or become institutionalized, preference has crossed over into social discrimination. In short, separation should be allowed but not enforced.

The major issue in these areas is retribution for past wrongs. What can be done to rectify the abuses committed against slaves, women, Jews etc.? Is it possible to forgive but not forget?

First, we must recognize that as humans we have a collective tale of suffering and hardship. Some of this misery has happened to some groups more recently than to others, but no one group has the monopoly on disadvantage. Each person has the freedom to choose his actions. He can do good, or evil, or both, but he does not have anyone but himself to blame for the consequences of what he does. Simply because you or your ancestors had to face extreme abuse, does not make it acceptable for you to push the burden of your problems onto others, especially those who are not responsible.

If it is not already clear, I disagree with affirmative action. Life, unfortunately, is not fair and we all have our woes. To say that because women were historically underpaid and underrepresented and thus employers must fill a quota is ridiculous. “Leveling the playing field” is irresponsible and, at times, reckless. I do not feel that simply because my grandmother and the women before her lived in a world of discrimination I have the right to compensation. I want the person who is best qualified for the job to have it, not someone who doesn’t qualify but deserves “justice.”

Justice is necessary. However, false equality is not the answer. There is a saying: “The best revenge is a life well-lived.” and it is true. If we don’t like the system, why should we participate in it? Instead, let us build a new system.

It is here that I return to the idea of allowed, not enforced, separation. As long as the opportunity to break away is not denied us, we cannot say that the system is unjust. It may be unfair, but this unfairness is something we must learn to use as motivation. It may be hard, but if it the system you are in is that terrible, it would be worse to remain within it. There is a difference between “God-given or natural” rights and politically granted rights. The “right” of a person to work in a well-paid position is not a natural right, it is a politically granted one.

If you are “Latino” and fed up with the hegemony of “white” theater, start a “Latino” theater company. That is your right. If you are a woman and feel that you have unequal opportunity in the workplace, start a women-run company. That is your right. However, your right is not a federally-funded theater or a token position due to gender. It is simply wrong of us not to accept the responsibility for achieving what we want, then to complain that the system is broken.

People may say “What do you know? You’re “white”, you have an advantage.” That is true, but I did not choose my skin color any more than you did. I refuse to feel guilty because of my circumstances. I did not create them.

I am also a woman. In a corporate setting, this puts me at a statistical disadvantage. However, instead of whining about discrimination, I make myself into the best individual I can be.The beauty of living in a nearly free-market  and socially liberal economy is that we have the ability to make the most of ourselves. Whether or not you take the opportunity is a personal decision. If you work hard, you are not guaranteed success, but it is likely that you will achieve it.

That is not to say that injustices do not happen and those who are responsible should not be held accountable. They do and they should. However, we should not let these injustices be the cause of our unproductive, unhappy behavior. Racism and sexism are prevalent and there are circumstances that necessitate justice. Racial discrimination by law enforcement is just one of many examples. The death Trayvon Martin should be a cause of great outrage to people of every color. It is horrible when anyone dies, and even worse when it is under this type of circumstance. Yet, “blacks” do not have the monopoly on sorrow. What about the Holocaust? What about communism? What about sex-selective abortions?

We cannot continue to live with anger over what has been done to “people like us.” If there is a legitimate cause for anger, by all means, take up the cause. Otherwise we must simply make the most of our circumstances whatever they be.

 

 

Violence Against Women Act

NYT Article: Violence Against Women Act Divides Senate

 

Although I am by no means a Republican, and tend to be pretty socially liberal, I think that the Democrats flaunting the fact that Republicans don’t support the bill and not addressing the reasons why is petty party politics.

Look, as a woman, I support anti-violence measures against women and as a human, I also support ant-violence against humans, no matter who they are. In my opinion, the Republicans are wrong in that sense. If you believe that all human rights are granted by God, as they love to proclaim they do, human rights do not apply only to Americans, or Israelis, or Iraqis, or any other people whom the United States seeks to support through military might; Human rights apply to all people no matter where in the world or who they are. 

That being said, the fact that other humans have the right to to pursue their own interests does not (necessarily) make it our duty to protect those interests. It simply prohibits us from preventing them from pursuing them. 

Therefore, in the sprit of Republicanism (cringe) I have to say I don’t support using taxpayer money to fund this law, although, in the spirit of Democracy, I do believe that criminal offenders should be severely prosecuted for the use of violence against others, women or men alike.

A Response to “The Status of Women in Islam”

Here is a link to the original article: The Status of Women In Islam

I do agree with the reasoning of most of this article. However, I disagree with the part where the author says women are more prone to be emotional and thus should not hold public office.

This is not true in all cases. Women tend to be nurturing, men tend to be aggressive but that is not always the case. Men can be nurturing and women can be aggressive, it depends on the person.

Furthermore, even if this were true, to say a woman is more prone to be emotional does not account for the ability to be rational as well. Surely, a woman or a man who is completely guided by her emotions would not make it into a position of power anyway. In the same way a woman or a man who lacks empathy would likely not make it to office either.

Thus, this argument does not invalidate the ability of a woman to hold a position of leadership.

In Response to the first sonnet of Dante’s “La Vita Nuova”

The heart is the rudder of a ship, and Love at the wheel will direct it where fate wishes. Yet, seeing that the ship will wreck, Love weeps for pity.

Euthanasia

In 1997 the Supreme Court found that State laws which ban assisting in a suicide attempt do not violate the Constitution. However, the freedom for a legally competent individual to choose to end his life and the freedom to assist another in ending his life is implicitly defined in the constitution and should be protected by our government. I will define and discuss the different types of euthanasia, discuss the purpose of government in regards to human rights, and discuss the social and economic ramifications of legalizing voluntary active euthanasia.

All rights not expressly given to the Federal government are given to the individual states. The tenth amendment states, “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The legalization of euthanasia is one such right which is has been granted to the individual States. Euthanasia can be divided into four types: voluntary passive, voluntary active, involuntary passive, and involuntary active.
The difference between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia lies in competence and consent. Legal competence refers to an individual’s ability to make an informed choice. Consent is permission for another to perform an action. A living will is a safeguard against involuntary euthanasia. A living will is a signed legal document in which a person state his wishes regarding medical treatment should he become unconscious or otherwise unable to accept or deny treatment. Typically, even if a person is considered legally incompetent his or her living will is sufficient to prove consent.
Active euthanasia differs from passive in that the death would not have occurred naturally. The dying process is either sped up or facilitated some way.
Voluntary Euthanasia:
Voluntary passive euthanasia concerns withholding treatment such as a feeding tube or a blood transfer from a legally competent individual. Those who practice voluntary euthanasia simply fail to act and do not facilitate the death process. Voluntary passive euthanasia is legal in all states and the patients preference is always honored unless there is a question of competence.
Voluntary active euthanasia occurs when one individual helps another commit suicide. A common example is the doctor who gives the patient instructions on how many pills will provide a strong enough dose to be lethal. Voluntary active euthanasia is only legal in Oregon and is explicitly illegal in 35 states.
In 1997 Two cases were tried before the United States Supreme Court: State of Washington V. Glucksburg, and Vacco, Attorney General of New York V. Quill. In both cases the The State Supreme Court upheld the right for states to prohibit assisted suicide.1 The New York State Supreme Court found that under the fourteenth amendment the right to refuse even lifesaving medical treatment is constitutionally valid if the person is competent. However, there is a fundamental difference between allowing a person to die and causing a person to die. Thus, assisted suicide is not covered under the fourteenth amendment and the ban was upheld.2
Involuntary Euthanasia:
Involuntary passive euthanasia concerns the cessation of treatment on a patient who is unconscious, unable to communicate or otherwise legally incompetent.
Prior to 1975 the decision to euthanize was made by a patient or (in the case of incompetence) his family, and his doctor. The case of Quinlan V. New Jersey was the first time a court was involved in the decision. In April 1975 Karen Ann Quinlan was rushed to the hospital in a comatose state after consuming drugs and alcohol at a party. She was put on a respirator and a feeding tube. Doctors were unable to revive her and although she was not legally dead she was unconscious and unable to respond to stimuli. The Quinlan family decided that Karen would not have wanted to be kept alive by a respirator and asked her doctors to remove it. The doctors refused fearing legal consequences so the Quinlan family petitioned the State of New Jersey to have the respirator removed. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that removing artificial life support is not homicide and cannot be prosecuted as such. They maintained that an individual’s right to privacy – implied in the constitution under the fourteenth amendment and defined in Roe V. Wade and Griswold V. Connecticut – covers the right to refuse medical care. In March of 1976 the court appointed Karen Ann’s father sole guardian of her person and he elected on her behalf to have her respirator removed. However, even after doctors removed the respirator Karen Ann kept breathing on her own and her family decided not to remove her feeding tube. She lived for ten years until she died of pneumonia in 1985.3
In 1989 a similar case, Cruzan V. Director, was tried in Missouri. A state trial court granted Nancy Cruzan’s parents the right to remove her feeding tube and IV hydration but the State Supreme court reversed the decision because there was not sufficient evidence to prove Cruzan’s consent. 4
Involuntary active euthanasia is illegal in all states and concerns the facilitation of death in a legally incompetent patient.5 There is a fine line between involuntary active euthanasia and murder. Although both are the premeditated killing of a human being against his or her will, murder is unlawful. What sets murder apart is the necessary malice aforethought. Because it is next to impossible to determine an incompetent individual’s wishes courts have erred on the side of caution in allowing doctors to practice active euthanasia on an unconscious patient.
Human Rights and the Role of Government:
The fourteenth amendment states, “[...] nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The founders of America regarded these three privileges as the most basic human rights. However, in order to know which privileges are rights and which are not, one must first define rights. A right is any privilege inherently granted to a human at birth by God or nature. A man may exercise his rights in any way he wishes so long as his actions do not interfere with another’s rights. Thus the protection of these rights is an issue that only arises when men live together in a group.
The government’s purpose is not to provide services but to protect the economic, social and personal freedoms of its citizens. This means holding courts to protect property rights, a military to provide international defense and police to provide national defense. The role of the Federal government is limited to these responsibilities. As Ayn Rand states in The Virtue of Selfishness, “A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.6
Potential Ramifications of Legalizing Voluntary Active Euthanasia:
Presently only voluntary passive euthanasia and, in some limited cases, involuntary passive euthanasia are legal. However, voluntary active euthanasia should be protected by our government under the fourteenth amendment right to life which also implicitly includes the right to death. If a man were stranded on a deserted island he would have every opportunity to take his own life if he wished. For this very reason, the freedom to commit suicide should be regarded as a human right which cannot be restricted by the government. Voluntary active euthanasia is not harmful to anyone other than the individual who chooses it. As Zephania Swift states, “[Suicide] is so abhorrent to the feelings of mankind, and that strong love of life which is implanted in the human heart, that it cannot be so frequently committed, as to become dangerous to society.”7 Further, because the government may only exercise its right in order to protect individual freedom, it is unlawful for the government to deny its citizens the right to die. The government has a duty to protect an individual from murder. However, euthanasia is not murder because consent to die is granted.
Beyond the fact that it is unconstitutional for the government to deny its citizens the right to die, the potential benefits of legalizing voluntary active euthanasia are great. The survival instinct is one of the strongest human impulses. Thus, if one wishes to die, it is likely that he has a poor life quality. By allowing him to escape his misery the government promotes the general emotional wellbeing of society.
There are also economic benefits to be gained by the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia. In allowing doctors access to a new field of practice the government is also allowing them access to new sources of revenue. Also, end of life care and life support are costly to provide. These services put a financial burden on the family of the patient, the treating medical facility, and taxpayers. Certainly, this is not cause to cease such services altogether. However, if the patient no longer wishes to receive such care, there are other areas such money might be better spent.
Although there are some risks associated with the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia these are small in comparison to the benefits. One such argument is that an individual might be coerced into ending his own life by family members or others who no longer wish to financially support him. Again, the survival instinct is a safeguard against such scenarios. Another more serious risk is that of the doctor who takes the patient’s life into his own hands. Presently, there are legal consequences for performing any method of active euthanasia whether consensual or not. Opponents of legalization ask whether there might be some confusion over the issue of consent. How is one to know whether the patient truly consented? This is a valid concern. However, there are methods to insure consent. One suggestion is a signed release form proving that the patient is both aware of what the consequences of euthanasia are and that he accepts these consequences. Clearly, the benefits of legalization are greater than any risk it might pose.
In conclusion, there are four types of euthanasia. Voluntary passive, voluntary active, involuntary passive and involuntary active. Voluntary passive euthanasia and, in special cases, involuntary passive euthanasia are legal. Neither voluntary active euthanasia nor involuntary active euthanasia are legal. However, in light of the fourteenth amendment and the purpose of government- to protect individual rights- voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized in the United States.

Good and Evil

What is good? What is evil? How do we know? I’m curious to hear all your thoughts on the answer to that question. Also, if it is possible to know what good is can we know it without knowing what is evil? Can we know what is evil without knowing what is good or do we need to know both in order to define one or the other?

Philosophical Conundrums

http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2010/01/the-epistemology-of-advance-directives.html#more

Thank you to USUPhilosophy.com for providing the link to this interesting article on medical ethics.