More about Responsibility and Judgment

"Responsibility and Judgment consists mainly of lectures on practical philosophy delivered in the 1960s, concentrating on the relationship between the world of public politics and that of personal morality. Arendt argued that the two worlds had a lot in common, in that neither political issues nor moral ones could ever be settled definitively, or by the mechanical application of ready-made categories: The truths of morality and politics were to be brought into being by a process of deliberation rather than discovered by acts of reasoning or observation. Moral and political dilemmas were like artistic ones; they both called for what Kant called "judgment," or the kind of infinite thoughtfulness that is willing to expose its own standards of assessment to the challenge of the issues it encounters. On the other hand, there was also a fundamental difference in that moral judgments are concerned with the self, or the kind of person one wishes to be, whereas political judgments are concerned with the world, and the kind of society one wants to live in. Having established an analytical distinction between public and private life, Arendt went on to warn of the dangers of blurring it in social action."

(http://hannaharendt.net/reports/whateverII.html)

from Lauren

Arendt wrote, "the total moral collapse of respectable society during the Hitler regime may teach us that under such circumstances those who cherish values and hold fast to moral norms and standards are not reliable...much more reliable will be the doubters and skeptics, not because skepticism is good or doubting wholesome, but because they are used to examining things and making make up their own minds."
This idea that people who cling to values and standards are more dangerous than those who are freethinkers makes a lot of sense to me. I think a lot of people spend all of their time making sure that their actions agree with the moral codes they have set up for their lives, even when that code may not necessarily be fitting in a specific situation. Perhaps morals and norms have a "blinding" effect on us when we take them too seriously and choose to live our lives based largely on our moral codes. Times and circumstances change, which is why I believe so strongly that the tendency to question authority and to have facts is so valuable.

moral dilemma

what i got from the reading is a very interesting message. it seems to say that while we of course can hold blame over those who commited attrocities in the past, the blame itself is easy to mismanage. Why should a whole country take the blame for what a Facist military force did two generations ago? Of course the blame should remain on those who commited the acts, but for the whole nation to take the blame seems like the family of a murderer taking the blame for the murder, even if they did only find out at the trial. it is commendable, but is it right? it might help to assuage certain feelings, but i dont know how morally right it really is.
Take an example, if it turned out that dominican was funneling our tuition money in waterboarding at Guantanamo, would the students feel responsible, especially if we never knew? How far would the guilt run? would we try to disasociate ourselves from the school, or try to repair its tarnished image?

Arendt's Responsibility and Judgment--kick off discussion

Arendt writes, "There exists in our society a widespread fear of judging . . .behind the unwillingness to judge lurks the suspicion that no one is a free agent, and hence the doubt that anyone is responsible or cold be expected to answer for what he has done" (19). Can you connect this point to past readings (I am thinking in particular of Kaufmann but you may think of other authors) to help us understand Arendt's concept of judgement and then also unpack this idea further with other points that she makes? What is the connection between our ability to judge and the modern liberal notion that we are all moral agents that must cultivate the internal authority to know the difference between right and wrong? How does she elaborate and support this argument?

Universal morality

I was struck by the truth found in the statement that there can be no absolute or universal morality, much less a strict definition of morality itself. When confronted with that, I tried to see if i could count any of my morals as universal, which i could not, and i even found that a couple of the author's chosen virtues could not be counted universal either. Those virtues are among the best, and yet at times like war and struggle, times when morals are often turned against themselves, these morals would be better if postponed. So it seems that there can be no permanent moral code for all people to follow at all times, but rather a code of rotations. Morals that are to be used as the situation permits, but that should not be used to cover all situations. tell me what you think.

Paul Farmer/Partners in Health--health care as a human right

polemics - the practice of argumentation and refutation of an opponent’s opinions, particularly in theological and philosophical writings.
www.sastor.com/Glossary_P.html

So, the point is that--yes--Humanism is a counter point to religion for many non-religious people. I think that Eugene's point in his post is very well observed and I agree! My own conclusion or view of humanism is, as I suggested in class yesterday, it presents many universal values that people across cultures/faiths share. The big point of contention always has to do with things like the story of creation vs evolution--religious "truth" vs scientific "truth"--is God real and did God give us a purpose or do we need to create that purpose? These are the polemics that we will never resolve and have probably produced some fruitful debate and questioning in some historical moments--but my own personal view is that we don't need to be stuck here any more.
Here is a funny example (I think) of a polemical view:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-humanism-is-religion.htm

Humanism a religion?

the Richard Norman reading, "On Humanism" was great, but i was confused by the fact that he kept pushing humanism in comparison to religion, even as he told us that many humanists wished to make it quite separate. In watching the news, I also found that modern day atheism is treated by the country as a religion, which seems to defeat the purpose of the whole idealism, since religion is classified in the reading as a belief in a higher power, especially a god, goddess or gods. My beleif is that if movements like this wish to be taken seriously, they should take a unique stance and ally themselves with science and the modern world, rather than trying to look like a religion in order to attract the religous. Leave the religious alone, and seek out those who will more likly join the humanist cause. then once the movement is strong enough, others will come at their own accord. What do you think? Is appealing to the religous a good idea for the humanist movement?

Barzun poses a statement about being independent without being rebellious. I was wondering if any of you had any comments about this statement. I personally believe that it is impossible. If I want to be independent I am rebelling against the influence of others' ideas over me, whether this is at work, school or some other environment. It may not be the intention that I have, but never the less is a form of rebellion. I believe that most of the time we are being rebellious subconsciously, without realizing it or wanting to. What do you think? Can you think of times when you have been rebellious without it being your intent?

New Ideas. . .

Eugene said...

Okay, so... new post for this week, but i cant figure that out. Anyway, based in the reading "We make the road by walking," the authors say that teachers must teach in a way that gets the point across and gives specific examples out of social context, but does not impose the ideas of the teacher on the student. my question: remember a time when a favorite teacher may have imposed their ideas on you. has it affected the way you think today? For me, i had an english teacher that was a vegan and very liberal. comming out of her class, i not only inexplicaly loved Bruce Springstein, but looked at the world in a more sensitive and naturalistic way.

February 2, 2009 6:07 PM

sally said...

I finally got this to work.

I guess I'll comment on Eugene's comment, which I found to be very true. In high school, it was almost a rule for teachers to prevent themselves from imposing their beliefs on their students. But I had a very liberal English teacher (who had recently moved here from Australia), and she was always trying to persuade us to follow along to her beliefs.
I found it almost offensive, but I tried not to let her opinions influence mine. They definitely got me thinking a lot more though.

February 3, 2009 1:36 PM