Extra Credit: Wade Davis Culture Ted Talk

"All of these peoples teach us that there are other ways of being, other ways of thinking, other ways of orienting yourself with the earth." - Wade Davis

1. Why is language loss a problem?
Wade Davis explains that language is the vehicle for a particular culture. He says that language loss, or the new generation not speaking a language of the previous generation, makes it impossible for that old generation to explain its culture - its myths and stories, its ancestors, and its significance. On one level, language loss causes a disconnect between generations (my own conclusion). More importantly, language loss causes the loss of cultures.

2. Are these people “Noble savages” or a “Valuable Resource for Humanity”? What do we lose when ancient cultures die out? Isn’t this just natural selection? What’s the urgency?

We don't want to lose these ancient cultures, because it causes death of people as well as destruction of a group of people's beliefs and ideals. We want to live in an interesting "polychromatic world of diversity." Having fewer cultures makes people more narrow-minded and less able to develop a large array of ideals as a whole species. Wade Davis makes it clear we do not "have all the answers to all the questions that will confront us in the coming millennia," so we need these varied ideas and thoughts, and therefore, these people of other cultures are a "valuable resource for humanity."

3. Why was Canada’s Nunavut decision so courageous?

Canada's decision was courageous because it went against how all other countries were treating their native cultures. It was also courageous because it could have upset a large population of Canadian people who might have wanted that land or those resources for themselves. A lot of Candians could have benefitted from the land and resources and the country's economy could have created benefitted from the land, but it was instead returned to the Nunavut group, which I think is very courageous.

Was Malcom X a "human rights activist" or a "terrorist"? What are your thoughts about Malcolm X and his methods to address inequalities and oppression during the Civil Rights Movement?

Malcolm X is a terrorist. Though I do not believe he used violence himself, he did encourage it and he did use threats to intimidate whites and coerce blacks to follow his beliefs in Black Nationalism. 

I grew up not knowing much about Malcolm X, only know that he promoted violence whereas Martin Luther King Jr did not. I viewed it as very black and white: Malcolm X is bad and Martin Luther King Jr is good. However, this is not the case; there are certainly shades of gray. Some of what Malcolm X says in his "The Ballot or the Bullet" speech does make sense. He was beginning to convince me when talking about how all past revolutions have been bloody, including the American Revolution. I recognize that as someone in the 21st century I am viewing this very differently than someone in 1964, in a period of time where they didn't believe peaceful action would work, as we know now. I have always been a pacifist, and reading Malcolm X's speech made me doubt that for a moment, especially when he was talking about revolutionary history. However, even if I was in 1964, experiencing everything as it happened rather than looking back on it now, I would recognize that much of his views are wrong.

Malcolm X is a terrorist, because he believes that African Americans - and blacks in Africa - are superior to white people. Even if I were a black person at the time, I would have been a follower of Martin Luther King Jr, because he was a proponent of equality. Malcolm X called whites his "enemies." MLK may have thought that white people are dragging down blacks just as Malcolm X did, but he had the view that people everyone is equal and should be treated that way, not that blacks should take revenge on those who have oppressed them. Therefore, I do not agree with his methods of addressing inequalities. 

What was the major breakthrough legislation from the Civil Rights Era?

A major breakthrough in the Civil Rights Era was the Civil Rights Act, which was backed by John F. Kennedy. It banned racial segregation, therefore limiting chances for Americans to discriminate against African Americans openly and in public. More specifically, it outlawed the entire idea of “separate but equal”; it was no longer legal or accepted to allow public facilities such as water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants, and stores. This extended to schools. Education was no longer separated between whites and any other races, and all children, no matter their race, were allowed to attend public schools.  It also secured the right for African Americans to vote and provided African Americans with equal opportunities for employment. The entire Civil Rights Act aimed to prevent discrimination against and segregation from African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and other minorities. 

Letter From Birmingham Jail

Martin Luther King Jr wrote a lot about religion in his note. He said that he was disappointed in the church, because he thought they could have done more to help. There were a lot of religious references made throughout the letter. He also strongly encouraged nonviolent action and that was one of the major purposes for the letter, because it got his message across.

Libertarianism

I completely agree with the idea of choice and freedom, but I do not agree with the Freedom Principle in its entirety. I think we should have moral legislation in some cases. I think marriage age is a reasonable thing to have laws about, but I also take a pro-choice when it comes to abortion. I am for laws that protect people from harming themselves through seat belts and helmets. I do not think there should be a free market entirely. Therefore, I am conflicted about some of these libertarian views, and would not be able to identify for or against the Freedom Principle.

Scenario 9: Selling a Kidney
I think there should be a regulated market for kidneys. It would help the thousands of people that are dying, and if not enough people are donating their kidneys now, this sounds like a solution. It would also help people to receive the money - a farmer getting money for her daughter. Additionally, it could allow people to get a large sum of money reasonably quickly but in a way that is not illegal or harmful to the country (such as taking out a loan from from a mob or something to a similar effect), but instead helpful to a person. However, the kidneys must go to hospitals and not elsewhere.
I think people on death row should be allowed to sell two kidneys. They are going to die anyway, and selling the kidneys would help people.

Scenario 11: Same Sex Marriage
I feel so strongly that same sex marriage should be allowed all over the world. Homosexual people should be allowed the same rights and privileges of heterosexual people. It's about equality.
I would like to briefly discuss why I think utilitarians would not agree with option one (allowing same sex marriage). I think one major reason same sex marriage has not been allowed for so long is that politicians are aware of the strong views against same sex marriage and even if they believe it should be allowed, they do not want to upset the masses. I think it is true that same sex marriage would make the couple happy and hopefully their families happy (though, not in the case of my cousin and a lot of our family), but I think so many people would be outraged that it would not cause more happiness for more people overall even though I do believe same sex marriage should be allowed.

Scenario 8: Assisted Suicide
I think assisted suicide should be allowed. It's no different from pulling the plug from someone on life support, which is perfectly legal. I think assisted suicide is good from a libertarian and utilitarian standpoint, because it is allowing someone to do what they would like and it is also allowing for greater overall happiness, as the person is no longer suffering. There obviously has to be some regulation of assisted suicide if it were made legal in more places; it would have to be made sure that doctors were, in a humane way, killing only those who asked to die.

Utilitarianism (Greatest Happiness Principle)

I think I follow the Greatest Happiness Principle quite a bit. I weigh my options and choose what will make myself or others (and hopefully it can be both) happiest. I disagree with Utilitarianism in one of the examples Dr. Richards was using about dogfighting, because I do not think harming dogs is justifiable just to make some humans happy.

Scenario: City of Happiness
Although I think it's morally wrong because of my view of equality and human rights, I think it is justifiable to keep things the way they are, because it is benefitting many people, a whole city, which is more important than one person being unhappy. Molly brought up the point during our discussion at our table, that there are many children in the world living in as terrible conditions of as child in the City of Happiness, and so if the entire world was in this situation, it would be beneficial to everyone that so many people are happy and healthy and are not living in the conditions the one child is.

Scenario: Hampsterdam
I do not think moving crime out of the public view helps in anyway. I does not fix the problem of drug crime and it could even lead to more crime. It sends the message that police officers think drugs are okay as long as it is traded and taken privately, which I do not agree with. I especially think it is wrong when relating it to Jeremy Bentham's idea of rounding up the beggars. I think that is an even worse idea than the Hampsterdam scenario, because the homeless cannot help begging. It gives off the impression that police do not think giving to those in need is a good idea, instead it is just annoying to them.

Scenario: The Price of a Human Being
This whole concept makes me feel very upset. It makes me feel like people do not value other peoples' lives, their own wellbeing, or the lives of animals. I am kind of disturbed that a company would be willing to let 180 people die and 180 people get injured and not do anything about it. It is not just a company; there are people behind the company. And these are not just numbers; there are people that were actually killed because of faulty engines or smoking cigarettes. I feel like people are just so immensely selfish. What do the companies need with all that money when human lives are at stake? And how could a person be willing to strangle a cat for money? That is disturbing and upsetting.

Has your view of the Greatest Happiness Principle changed during this class?
Yes, it definitely has. At the beginning of class when Dr. Richards introduced the idea of Greatest Happiness Principle, I recognized that some people might suffer, but that does not matter if more people are benefitting. I viewed it as just like the scenarios we went through last class: one death is better than five deaths. However, I now realize that human life and such things are not just mathematical equations. There are real lives behind it that are more important than a company or the government making money. I think anyone who is a moral person will not agree with utilitarianism because of their values, such as the value of human life.

Justice

What does the word justice mean to you?
Justice occurs when something is fairly dealt with. Justice is when someone is treated fairly according to their actions. Justice can be administered through the law and in more personal cases of fairness.
Getting justice against someone is not always the way to deal with something. In my Humanities I in Action class during my freshman year in Hong Kong, we did a unit on justice. We learned about alternative forms of justice that are not simply through the law, such as the victim talking the situation through with the perpetrator.

Scenario 1 - Price Gouging
The government should intervene in emergency situations because they are essential items. The government is responsible for protecting the people, and price gouging clearly does not have the majority in mind. This is taking advantage of people in a desperate situation.

Scenario 2 - Bank Bailouts
The government should intervene, because these companies provide jobs and keep peoples' investments safe and so provide money to the people. You could argue that it's the companies' own fault for terrible investments, but try comparing the situation to someone living off food stamps. Some argue that it's a person's own fault for not having enough money or being employed, but the government still provides them with money for food, because government tries to prevent joblessness and homelessness. The government must uphold the nation's economy and, most importantly, protect their citizens.

Scenario 3 - Trolley Driver
Five peoples' lives is more important than one person's life. Think about the effect the death of five people will have on the people they know versus the effect of one person's death on the community or their loved ones. Additionally, you have the responsibility to save lives and prevent deaths as a citizen and a member of the community.

Scenario 4 - Trolley Observer
I feel very conflicted with this scenario. I don't think I would be able to actively push someone, but at the same time, five lives are still more important than one. It's true that you do not have the right to play God. I think the argument that you are not responsible for the situation is invalid, because as citizens we have all have the responsibility to act in these situations. I would like to stand by my belief in the earlier scenario that five lives are more important than one, but I do not feel as confident in that stance as I did in the previous scenario.

Scenario 5 - Afghan Goat Herders
I think the Special Forces Unit should kill the two men as it is for the good of the nation. It also provides justice against this bad man and likely stops further killings of the innocent on the bad guy's part (assuming that the bad guy was killing others).