Overall, I feel our presentation went very well. It was a discussion about Baudrillard's views on terrorism under the guise of a chat show. Michael was the presenter of the show, with Irene as Baudrillard, Kimberley portraying a citizen of Iraq and me as Donald Rumsfeld, ex Secretary of Defence for the USA. And personally, I think everybody did a great job.
Our presentation fell within the desired time limit and I thought we did a good job of getting our info across. Aside from a little mishap when Meera thought the presentation had ended everything went to plan. Well, except for the Q&A (I knew I should have ran off after leaving the room) in which my character was asked a question that I struggled to answer. I can't remember what the question was but it took me by surprise. I managed to wriggle out of it, though.
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Morality: 'good' and 'bad' part 2
If the law is the set of morals that guide us then Nietzsche suggests that the 'higher man' would be better without laws to govern his actions. In the last blog post I put forth my view that morals are an opinion and we all have our own, even if our morals are usually guided by the law. Does that mean that we're all 'higher men' who would be better without the law?
To me, the answer is a no. Without the law there would undoubtebly be those who would still follow a moral code that would involve not killing etc. but there would be those who would have no regard for the others around them. If, even with our laws in place, we have criminals in the world then surely there would be more.
And would the 'higher man' thrive in this environment, free to make his own rules?It's hard to say. Perhaps he would, but then what's to stop him falling victim to someone else who has nothing but his own moral compass to guide him.
To me, the answer is a no. Without the law there would undoubtebly be those who would still follow a moral code that would involve not killing etc. but there would be those who would have no regard for the others around them. If, even with our laws in place, we have criminals in the world then surely there would be more.
And would the 'higher man' thrive in this environment, free to make his own rules?It's hard to say. Perhaps he would, but then what's to stop him falling victim to someone else who has nothing but his own moral compass to guide him.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Morality: 'good' and 'bad' part 1
What are 'good' and 'bad'? The law is there to punish criminals who most would say have behaved badly but it's not such a clear cut line.
Murder is almost universally considered bad in the eyes of the law and yet there are various exceptions. In many countries the death penalty is still a potential punishment for criminals and in those it is no longer practiced, such as ours, there are many who would argue for it to be reinstated. And yet isn't killing another person bad? And then there's the prospect of a home invader. In the UK killing someone in self defence during this situation or even injuring them can result in punishment. Many would argue that the house owner is not wrong to do this. In fact, some would even argue that their action is 'good'.
And then there's war. There are few who would say war is a good thing but there have been numerous times when a war and the death of many has been justified by the 'greater good'.
There are varying opinions to everything I've mentioned above as, despite the law, people do have there own morality. Morality is an opinion. My idea of 'good' and 'bad' could differ from someone elses. I think that, for extreme crimes, the death penalty is a good idea as it prevents reoffending and hopefully discourages potential criminals. There are, however, many who think that the death penalty is an immoral concept. Who's right or wrong?
Perhaps we're all right. Nietzsche believes that the 'higher man' should have his own morality to decide what is right and wrong. Are we all higher men with our own sense of morality being kept down by the law? Would we be better off without the law? I'm guessing not.
To be continued tomorrow
Murder is almost universally considered bad in the eyes of the law and yet there are various exceptions. In many countries the death penalty is still a potential punishment for criminals and in those it is no longer practiced, such as ours, there are many who would argue for it to be reinstated. And yet isn't killing another person bad? And then there's the prospect of a home invader. In the UK killing someone in self defence during this situation or even injuring them can result in punishment. Many would argue that the house owner is not wrong to do this. In fact, some would even argue that their action is 'good'.
And then there's war. There are few who would say war is a good thing but there have been numerous times when a war and the death of many has been justified by the 'greater good'.
There are varying opinions to everything I've mentioned above as, despite the law, people do have there own morality. Morality is an opinion. My idea of 'good' and 'bad' could differ from someone elses. I think that, for extreme crimes, the death penalty is a good idea as it prevents reoffending and hopefully discourages potential criminals. There are, however, many who think that the death penalty is an immoral concept. Who's right or wrong?
Perhaps we're all right. Nietzsche believes that the 'higher man' should have his own morality to decide what is right and wrong. Are we all higher men with our own sense of morality being kept down by the law? Would we be better off without the law? I'm guessing not.
To be continued tomorrow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)