Moral dilemma & philosophy

Question:

On 7 January 2015 Corrine Rey, a cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo, returned from picking up her daughter from kindergarten. She was confronted by two Jihadist gunmen, who threatened to shoot her daughter unless she keyed in the entry code at the door for the magazine. She did; and the gunmen entered to murder twelve people, including two policemen, as well as shooting eleven others. Can a mother be blamed for only thinking of protecting her child?

The actions taken by those in dire situations concerning loved ones can often lead to at least a shred of controversy. In the case of Corrine Ray, however, a number of factors played into her decision to spare her daughters life in return for opening the door to two Jihadist gunmen being a morally right one. The first condition is that she should not have had to make that decision. Though the Charlie Hebdo headquarters were protected by the police, they were not efficiently so; resulting entrance of the gunmen, the death of ten workers and two policemen and the injury of eleven other civilians. Due to this lack of protection, even if Corrine had opted to be responsible for the death of her daughter and herself, the gunmen would have undoubtedly found another way to carry out their ‘mission,’ be it by finding another way in or by waiting for the workers to leave the building. Secondly, Corrine’s identity as a mother and the basic overwhelming human instinct to protect her child ultimately validate and justify her actions. One could substitute Corrine Ray with any other mother and the same decision would be made. That being said, it goes against Immanuel Kant’s idea of morality quite dramatically. Kant claims that to be moral is to make decisions entirely based off of rationality; to suppress emotions and desires. Had Corrine been suppressing her desire and feelings in the moment she had to make her decision, she would have weighed the option of two lives against any given number out of those in the building and maybe come to the decision of letting her innocent daughter be sacrificed for several of her colleagues. Kant’s principle of morality being an applicable universal law also suggests she made the wrong choice; if every mother was faced with the decision of being indirectly responsible for the death of twelve for the life of her child, the only people left on earth would be mothers and children. However, I truly believe it is a decision which all mentally and emotionally stable mothers would make, which points out prominent flaws in Kant’s moral philosophy. But, as a relativist, even Kant would have to realize, if not admit, that Corrine’s experience as a mother would factor in to her decision and ultimately justify it. 

Siddhartha Paragraph(s) (sorry!!!!)

Part 1: Question 5: What is the gap in the Buddha's teaching according to Siddhartha, why doesn't he join Buddha's followers?

In the chapter ‘Gautama,’ Govinda and Siddhartha have set out meet the Buddha. The Buddha exudes an aura of inner peace and everlasting calm, and, after hearing his teaching, Govinda decides to permanently join Buddha’s followers. Siddhartha, however, finds fault in the Buddha’s teaching. Deliverance, or freedom from suffering is what the Buddha teaches, but one thing Siddhartha points out is that while that is what the Buddha has achieved, he doesn’t share what he has experienced or how exactly to reach Nirvana. The Buddha also teaches that the world is an unbroken chain of being, made up of causes and effects, and to embrace the unity of their existence, which is not influenced by chance or gods. The contradiction Siddhartha finds in the teaching, however, is in the teaching of deliverance of suffering. If life is suffering and they are taught to overcome suffering, are they not are also taught to overcome life, the physical world, and reject the very unity that the Buddha himself preaches? Nonetheless, Siddhartha reveres the Buddha more than any other mortal, but doesn’t join his following as his goal is to achieve what the Buddha has achieved- inner peace, deliverance, illumination. Siddhartha knows that he will not obtain these things from simply listening to a teaching, no matter how enlightened it is, and sets out to experience these things firsthand, and earn his deliverance. 

Part 2: Question 12: Who are the Child People, what are there values, concerns, weaknesses, and secret?

After leaving Govinda and the Buddha, Siddhartha seeks to learn the ways of the material world as part of achieving enlightenment. He comes across a village where he associates and interacts with more common, materialistic people on a day to day basis than he has been used to for a long while, if not his entire life. Siddhartha refers to these people as “the Child People.” Generally, Siddhartha mocks these people and looks down on them. The Child People are focused more on short term gains rather than long term, and have little to no introspection. They focus themselves in the moment rather than view themselves as an insignificant part of eternity, which allows them to place value in their existence and importance in their life. This, Siddhartha envies of them. However, he still criticizes their lack of law or teaching with themselves, and how easily they are ruled by their desires and anxiety, which he views as a weakness. That being said, Siddhartha realises there is some beauty to their existence in that they are capable of love, which he claims people like him and Kamala are not. That love, which they can give freely, is the secret to their existence and happiness.  

Roman Test Essay - Julius Caesar

By 44 B.C., Rome had seen many victories under the rule of the first triumvirate, made up of Julius Caesar, General Pompey and Marcus Licinius Crassus, their military conquests had expanded Rome to include all of Gaul and much of what is now Egypt. As Caesar won campaign after campaign, his standing and popularity increased. After the death of Crassus and the ensuing civil war, as well as the assassination of Pompey, Caesar’s power continued to increase. Soon, he was made dictator for 10 years, and later dictator for life. Members of the senate, afraid of Caesar’s rapidly increasing power and disenchanted by his policies would conspire to assassinate him, hoping that the so-called tyrannicide would restore their power and, thus, the republican ways. However, due to their political insensitivity and lack of forethought, the murder of Caesar was not only dishonourable and unjustified, but a failure as the murder didn’t serve it’s purpose of restoring the republic and actually precipitated it’s end.

When plotting Caesar’s death, the senators involved failed to consider the fact that the liberties of the roman aristocrats and higher classes were not the liberties of Rome as such. Under Caesar the economic standing of the middle and lower classes had increased, and though masses had lost the ability to vote for most public officials, they had a higher chance of attaining public offices. Caesar had almost managed to accomplish what nearly all republican leaders before him had failed to do; breach the economic and social gap between the plebs and the patricians. The conspirators, though, thoughtlessly, failed to realize that other classes had interests different to their own. They hadn’t expected there to be any opposition to what they had done; they had, naïvely, expected the republic to rise out of Caesar’s body like a phoenix, greater than what it had come from. Understandably, the lower classes were extremely upset that a small group of aristocrats had killed the man who was doing them, the plebs, good simply because he wasn’t working to better the standing of the higher classes. Caesar’s progress was undone in all but the gain of land, the murderers’ blindness to the social reality of the majority of Rome created sociopolitical unrest that led to 13 years of civil war.

Marc Antony sought to capture Brutus and Cassius, the two main perpetrators of the assassination. However, he would need the power and wealth bestowed upon Octavian, Caesar’s adopted son, to raise an army and defeat them. This led to the formation of the second triumvirate, this time consisting of Antony, Octavian and Lepidus. However, after defeating Cassius and Brutus, the second triumvirate turned on itself, succumbing to ambition and jealousy. Antony, once married to Octavian’s sister, Octavia, divorced her to marry Cleopatra. This cut the familial ties binding him not only to Octavian, but to Rome itself; though the ties would be further cut when Antony and Cleopatra divided the southern empire amongst their children. It was at this point that the republic was truly dead- as those charged with restoring it and punishing the senators guilty of Caesar’s murder had turned running Rome into a family business. Antony’s actions led to the Battle of Actium, where Octavian was victorious, leading to the double suicide of Cleopatra and Antony. Four years later, Octavian became Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, creating the Roman Empire as we would know it until it’s fall.

The assassination of Caesar is dishonourable and unjustified because the only thing to come of it were events that would lead to the complete and indisputable end of the Roman Republic. The perpetrators, in their ignorance and working only in self interest, failed to consider the reactions of those loyal to Caesar. Not only that, but the conspirators hadn’t considered taking a diplomatic approach to the situation. Though Caesar left to go to the senate on the 15th of March, 44 B.C. to discuss a petition to limit his power, the petition was not real, but merely a ruse to get him to attend. However, there is no reason why the senators couldn’t have actually negotiated and compromised with Caesar until both parties were satisfied and knew that the best outcome had been reached. Instead, the aftermath of Caesar’s death resulted in yet another civil war and served to empower those who would see the end of the republic.

unnecessarily long essay (2A) for greek unit

Many people who have studied ancient greek civilization view the death of Socrates as the greatest travesty committed by the Athenians; the greatest democracy killing the greatest of minds. However, there are several important factors to keep in mind while considering the decision of Athens to put Socrates to death, and that, while it may not have been just, it was justified and thought to serve the greater good of the community.

In any case of law, when considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and the system itself. While democracy existed in Athens, it is not the same democracy that the vast majority of the population enjoys nowadays, and, similarly, the justice system was also different. So, to understand why Socrates’ death was justified, it is important to understand how the circumstances changed the situation and how, what would seem like ridiculous charges and punishment nowadays, were felt to serve a common good in Athens ca. 400 BC. Back then, citizens on trial had to represent themselves in court, imprisonment was only used for smaller crimes when the guilty party could not pay the required fines, and ostracism was a common alternative to the death sentence. However, death penalty was not uncommon- because of a storm after the battle of Arginusae during the Peloponnesian wars, seven years before the death of Socrates, the eight Athenian generals responsible for the victory were unable to rescue the survivors of 25 sunken or disabled Athenian triremes. Out of the eight, six returned to Athens; they were tried and sentenced to death as a group, despite having been responsible for the victory at Arginusae. This is an extreme example of how the Peloponnesian wars forced Athenians to compromise the morale of their democracy and make decisions which might seem backwards, but ultimately were believed to preserve Athens.  

One of the charges against Socrates was impiety- the lack of reverence for the gods. Socrates had claimed to believe in gods other than the widely recognized Greek gods, and admitted that his understanding of piety is vastly different from the more common Athenian conception. Athenians expressed their piety by participating in festivals, visiting shrines, making sacrifices, so on so forth. It’s hard to say whether or not Socrates participated in these forms of religious observance, but by Plato’s writing one can gather that Socrates lacked to motive to do so. However, he also claimed to have been given direction by the god who communicates through the oracle at Delphi, so he was not entirely atheist. Socrates also felt that the gods would not punish him, as he was a good man; this could be considered an excuse for him to not practice conventional forms of piety, but the suspicious Athenians would argue otherwise. The Athenians didn’t view Socrates’ religious practices as his own way of following their religion, but as simply not following it at all and openly disrespecting their gods. After the devastating plague and military defeat struck Athens, many of the city’s inhabitants viewed them as punishment from the gods and suggested they, the gods, were offended by Socrates’ methods, placing the entirety of Athens at risk. Thus, by trying Socrates, even if not necessarily sentencing him to death; as exile was offered, Athens was, in a way, cleansing and reaffirming itself. And, surely, anything done with the good of the people in mind is justified.

The second charge Socrates faced was corrupting the youth. As F.M. Cornford wrote in Before and After Socrates, “to tell the young that, in order to gain the full freedom of manhood, they must question every received maximum of conduct and aim at judging every moral question for themselves, is to demoralize them in the sense of cutting away every moral prop and buttress with which parents and society have so studiously environed their childhood. Socrates was, in fact, undermining the morality of social constraint- the morality of obedience to authority and conformity to custom...”[1] In a society still reeling from the effects of the Peloponnesian wars, after which Athenian democracy was replaced by the pro-Spartan rule of the Thirty Tyrants, led by Critias, a former student of Socrates, which ruled for 13 months yet killed 5% of the Athenian population, and the subsequent reinstatement of democracy. Another of Socrates former students, Alcibiades, had been an Athenian general in the Peloponnesian wars, ended up fleeing Athens and offering the Spartans counsel on how to defeat their rivals in return for him being allowed to stay in Sparta. He offered the Spartans advice which proved to be successful, but it wasn’t long before he ended having to flee from Sparta to Persia, who he then advised the Persians on how to manage the war. Near the end of the war, Athens, desperate, allowed Alcibiades to return to Athens as a general. He was ultimately sent back to Persia, where he was killed in 404 BC, just as the war was coming to an end. Undoubtedly, the Athenians would in part blame Socrates for the atrocities that had been committed against them as he had taught both of the most hated figures of the time, and, wanting to reevaluate what was influencing the youth, Socrates’ removal would provide a much sought-after solution to the question of how to prevent the rise of leaders such as those.

The matter of Socrates’ execution will continue to raise controversy for as long as people take the time to study it. Was it just; did Socrates deserve to die? Probably not, but his death was nonetheless justified given the context of Athenian democracy and the events which had just come to pass which he was, unfortunately, involved in, even if not directly. In a time of recovery during which democracy was fragile, having influential figures who publicly spoke out against democracy and, through their teachings, encouraged revolt and the rejection of conformity and custom was too dangerous to risk. Because Socrates’ death was thought to serve communal good and reaffirm the Athenians, it was ultimately justified.

[1] F.M. Cornford, Before and After Socrates, Cambridge University Press, 1950, page 48.