The reason why I decided to ask this question was I recently watched a college lecture on Justice and Morality. During this lecture the professor asked a very interesting question: Let's say you are the conductor of a train and you see five workers on the tracks ahead of you. The brakes don't work and it is inevitable that you will kill them. But wait, there is a lever you can pull that will switch the tracks so that you will only hit one worker; what do you do? Is it better to pull the lever and sacrifice only one worker instead of five? Or is that playing with fate? The majority of the lecture hall voted that it would be best to save the five workers and sacrifice the one. The professor then proceeded to set up the same situation with a slightly different option to save the five workers: Let's say you are no longer the driver of this train but you are an onlooker on a bridge watching the whole thing unfold before you. You look to your right (as bad as this sounds)and you see a rather large man leaning over the railing. For the example's sake let's say that you have the coordination to push that man over the edge of the railing onto the tracks and therefore could stop the train and spare the five workers. What would you do? In this instance the majority of the class voted to not sacrifice the one to save the five. The professor then asked: why did you guys change your mind? What happened to the sacrifice the one to save the majority mentality? This whole lecture intrigued me as to what humans think is "just" or "moral".
Atonement: There was only a small part of this book that I could relate to my big question. The middle portion where Robbie Turner describes his experiences as a soldier during World War Two could provide some insight as to whether killing another human being is ever moral or just. Was Germany just in its decision to slaughter humans? During war is any soldier being a good, moral human being when they kill someone on the opposing side? This book could be a good resource for a first hand account of war.
Oedipus: This book is more a reference to government and I am not sure how well it will fit the prompt. I suppose when Oedipus' parents decide to kill him because of a prophecy could be used to try and define justice. Otherwise there are not a lot of useful examples.
King Lear: This book would be good to try to define justice in a monarchy. King Lear gave up his power to his two daughters and then they shunned him. Are they immoral or are they just behaving in a "self-interested" way? Could you argue that because humans are naturally self-interested that they behaved morally, or has society changed they expectations of human behavior?
Survival in Auschwitz: This book is the best example of justice and morality. It examines the treatment of the concentration camp prisoners as well as the psyche of their Nazi guards. The prisoners are essentially reduced to a state of nature where Primo Levi describes in detail their behavior and mentality. There is no longer the "looking out for your comrade" mentality, rather it is "take what is yours and if you can your neighbor's as well". In WW2 the Nazis also thought that what they were doing was justified, was it? When is it ok to take away someone's life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc? This book provides great insight into state of nature morality and justice.
Billy Budd: This book is a great example to use when trying to define justice and justice in the state of nature. Essentially, a very innocent boy who is a foretopman on a ship accidently kills the master at arms. The captain called both of them before him because the master at arms, Claggart, made an allegation that the foretopman, Billy Budd, was planning a mutiny. The captain made Claggart tell Billy Budd what he thought and because of a speech impediment Billy decided to "fight with his arms rather than his words". It is very likely that Claggart was making the entire story up but the captain is faced with a decision: does he condemn an innocent, wholesome man to death because he accidently killed someone who was making false accusations against him? Or does he let him go without any consequences under the assumption that Claggart was in the wrong? If the captain does not punish Billy for murder, there will most certainly be a mutiny.
This book has many examples of how men act in a state of nature. In fact, the author even refers to a ship as a different habitat than land, one which is closer to a "state of nature". In this case, the author insinuates that men do not want what seems "just" (which would be letting Billy go because he had honest intentions); they want what is fair (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth) even if it means killing an innocent man.
This book will most likely be one of the three used in the end of the year paper.
This book really does not apply to my big question. It did not address justice and morality in the real world. In the "fake world" that Christy lives in. He is praised for killing his father and immediately becomes one of the popular people living in a small Irish town. However, when the towns people find out that Christy lied about killing his father, they immediately think poorly of him and he eventually leaves the town. This town is a very twisted version of reality where lying is considered worse that murder. This book is a good parody of society but not very good for this question.
This is a good philosophical book about religion and the meaning of life; but not about justice and morality. Stephen Dedalus has several soliloquies about heaven, hell, religion, and other philosophical topics but none about justice.
This was one of the books we've read this year that I have truly enjoyed; a book that I could see myself reading once a year. Although Camus disagrees, I still think that this book is very existentialist. Meursault believes that the only thing that should matter in someone's life should be completely up to them. For Meursault, relationships did not matter to him and neither did materialistic goods. Apparently, another man's life did not matter to Meursault either. On one hand, you could ask why should it? Whether or not someone else lives should not affect you personally (this would justify Meursault's action). You could also argue though that without society's consensus on what "matters", there would be absolute chaos.
In Camus' preface to The Stranger, he mentions that Meursault is "the only Christ we deserve" because Meursault only tells the truth. Not only is lying not telling the truth, but it is telling more than the truth.
This book would be very good for my big question, however, it sort of shatters the idea of "truth and justice" all together. According to Camus, what is "fair" and what should "matter" is completely individualistic. Therefore, no one actually commits a crime. Depending on what direction I want to go with my big question, this may or may not be used. If I want to argue that truth and justice is meaningless, this would be my best evidence. But if I want to argue whether or not justice is attainable for all, it may be a little tricky.
Regardless, it was an excellent book with brilliant philosophy.
This novel is based on a true story and I read it for my first independent study. Unfortunately, it does not relate to my big question. It is more of a "feel good" book about a strong, independent woman named Lily Casey Smith, who is actually the author's grandmother. It describes the hardships, and bliss, of living and working on a ranch. Although it does not have strong philosophical thesis, it is the ultimate story of if you want something, go for it.
Metamorphosis was an allegory about a man that turns into a bug and how his family treats him. Although we did not completely establish what the allegory represented, it did give insight into what makes society human. In Gregor's "changing" he essentially went from an inhuman mind in a human body, to a human mind in an inhuman body. He starts to appreciate more "artistic" things and he no longer just goes through the motions of going to work and coming home each day. His mind starts to work more like a human's in that he is drawing his own conclusions and is mentally astute. Gregor and his family also have a very interesting relationship where Gregor is the breadwinner and his family lives off of him. When he turns into a bug his family completely shuns him and treats him like a monster when they should be concerned about his well being. This shows how superficial Gregor's family (a symbol of society?) is and shows that what makes us human is not our physical appearance but our mental superiority.
This was a very good, complex book. I am not sure if it will fit with the "justice and truth" theme. But it is a good critique of society and humanity.
The reason why I decided to ask this question was I recently watched a college lecture on Justice and Morality. During this lecture the professor asked a very interesting question: Let's say you are the conductor of a train and you see five workers on the tracks ahead of you. The brakes don't work and it is inevitable that you will kill them. But wait, there is a lever you can pull that will switch the tracks so that you will only hit one worker; what do you do? Is it better to pull the lever and sacrifice only one worker instead of five? Or is that playing with fate? The majority of the lecture hall voted that it would be best to save the five workers and sacrifice the one. The professor then proceeded to set up the same situation with a slightly different option to save the five workers: Let's say you are no longer the driver of this train but you are an onlooker on a bridge watching the whole thing unfold before you. You look to your right (as bad as this sounds)and you see a rather large man leaning over the railing. For the example's sake let's say that you have the coordination to push that man over the edge of the railing onto the tracks and therefore could stop the train and spare the five workers. What would you do? In this instance the majority of the class voted to not sacrifice the one to save the five. The professor then asked: why did you guys change your mind? What happened to the sacrifice the one to save the majority mentality? This whole lecture intrigued me as to what humans think is "just" or "moral".
ReplyDeleteAtonement: There was only a small part of this book that I could relate to my big question. The middle portion where Robbie Turner describes his experiences as a soldier during World War Two could provide some insight as to whether killing another human being is ever moral or just. Was Germany just in its decision to slaughter humans? During war is any soldier being a good, moral human being when they kill someone on the opposing side? This book could be a good resource for a first hand account of war.
ReplyDeleteOedipus: This book is more a reference to government and I am not sure how well it will fit the prompt. I suppose when Oedipus' parents decide to kill him because of a prophecy could be used to try and define justice. Otherwise there are not a lot of useful examples.
ReplyDeleteKing Lear: This book would be good to try to define justice in a monarchy. King Lear gave up his power to his two daughters and then they shunned him. Are they immoral or are they just behaving in a "self-interested" way? Could you argue that because humans are naturally self-interested that they behaved morally, or has society changed they expectations of human behavior?
ReplyDeleteSurvival in Auschwitz: This book is the best example of justice and morality. It examines the treatment of the concentration camp prisoners as well as the psyche of their Nazi guards. The prisoners are essentially reduced to a state of nature where Primo Levi describes in detail their behavior and mentality. There is no longer the "looking out for your comrade" mentality, rather it is "take what is yours and if you can your neighbor's as well". In WW2 the Nazis also thought that what they were doing was justified, was it? When is it ok to take away someone's life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc? This book provides great insight into state of nature morality and justice.
ReplyDeleteBilly Budd: This book is a great example to use when trying to define justice and justice in the state of nature. Essentially, a very innocent boy who is a foretopman on a ship accidently kills the master at arms. The captain called both of them before him because the master at arms, Claggart, made an allegation that the foretopman, Billy Budd, was planning a mutiny. The captain made Claggart tell Billy Budd what he thought and because of a speech impediment Billy decided to "fight with his arms rather than his words". It is very likely that Claggart was making the entire story up but the captain is faced with a decision: does he condemn an innocent, wholesome man to death because he accidently killed someone who was making false accusations against him? Or does he let him go without any consequences under the assumption that Claggart was in the wrong? If the captain does not punish Billy for murder, there will most certainly be a mutiny.
ReplyDeleteThis book has many examples of how men act in a state of nature. In fact, the author even refers to a ship as a different habitat than land, one which is closer to a "state of nature". In this case, the author insinuates that men do not want what seems "just" (which would be letting Billy go because he had honest intentions); they want what is fair (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth) even if it means killing an innocent man.
This book will most likely be one of the three used in the end of the year paper.
The Playboy of the Western World:
ReplyDeleteThis book really does not apply to my big question. It did not address justice and morality in the real world. In the "fake world" that Christy lives in. He is praised for killing his father and immediately becomes one of the popular people living in a small Irish town. However, when the towns people find out that Christy lied about killing his father, they immediately think poorly of him and he eventually leaves the town. This town is a very twisted version of reality where lying is considered worse that murder. This book is a good parody of society but not very good for this question.
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man:
ReplyDeleteThis is a good philosophical book about religion and the meaning of life; but not about justice and morality. Stephen Dedalus has several soliloquies about heaven, hell, religion, and other philosophical topics but none about justice.
The Stranger, by Albert Camus.
ReplyDeleteThis was one of the books we've read this year that I have truly enjoyed; a book that I could see myself reading once a year. Although Camus disagrees, I still think that this book is very existentialist. Meursault believes that the only thing that should matter in someone's life should be completely up to them. For Meursault, relationships did not matter to him and neither did materialistic goods. Apparently, another man's life did not matter to Meursault either. On one hand, you could ask why should it? Whether or not someone else lives should not affect you personally (this would justify Meursault's action). You could also argue though that without society's consensus on what "matters", there would be absolute chaos.
In Camus' preface to The Stranger, he mentions that Meursault is "the only Christ we deserve" because Meursault only tells the truth. Not only is lying not telling the truth, but it is telling more than the truth.
This book would be very good for my big question, however, it sort of shatters the idea of "truth and justice" all together. According to Camus, what is "fair" and what should "matter" is completely individualistic. Therefore, no one actually commits a crime. Depending on what direction I want to go with my big question, this may or may not be used. If I want to argue that truth and justice is meaningless, this would be my best evidence. But if I want to argue whether or not justice is attainable for all, it may be a little tricky.
Regardless, it was an excellent book with brilliant philosophy.
Half Broke Horses, by Jeannette Walls
ReplyDeleteThis novel is based on a true story and I read it for my first independent study. Unfortunately, it does not relate to my big question. It is more of a "feel good" book about a strong, independent woman named Lily Casey Smith, who is actually the author's grandmother. It describes the hardships, and bliss, of living and working on a ranch. Although it does not have strong philosophical thesis, it is the ultimate story of if you want something, go for it.
Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
ReplyDeleteMetamorphosis was an allegory about a man that turns into a bug and how his family treats him. Although we did not completely establish what the allegory represented, it did give insight into what makes society human. In Gregor's "changing" he essentially went from an inhuman mind in a human body, to a human mind in an inhuman body. He starts to appreciate more "artistic" things and he no longer just goes through the motions of going to work and coming home each day. His mind starts to work more like a human's in that he is drawing his own conclusions and is mentally astute. Gregor and his family also have a very interesting relationship where Gregor is the breadwinner and his family lives off of him. When he turns into a bug his family completely shuns him and treats him like a monster when they should be concerned about his well being. This shows how superficial Gregor's family (a symbol of society?) is and shows that what makes us human is not our physical appearance but our mental superiority.
This was a very good, complex book. I am not sure if it will fit with the "justice and truth" theme. But it is a good critique of society and humanity.